# carseat on a plane



## LiLStar (Jul 7, 2006)

so dd is 36lbs and her marathon RFs to 33. We're flying this weekend, and FFing puts the seat soo close to the seat in front of us, and I think in the past, she kicked the seat in front of her like crazy if I didn't really stay on top of her with holding those wiggly little legs down! The temptation is just irresistible. Is it okay to install her rear facing on the plane if kicking is a problem?


----------



## expatmommy (Nov 7, 2006)

I would guess that the seat might not fit in rear facing. I've had problems with that before. The person in front couldn't recline their seat without ramming the carseat & forcing it to an impossible angle.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

How old is she? Is CARES or just the lap belt an option.

I wouldn't use it rearfacing beyond the limit, even on a plane. And if the FA questions you, you will have to turn it since you aren't using it properly.


----------



## LiLStar (Jul 7, 2006)

She's barely 2, so definitely needs the car seat.


----------



## amandaleigh37 (Jul 13, 2006)

I think you still need to follow the limits of the seat, even on a plane. When we traveled with DS, on our return flight the attendant insisted the seat MUST be FF, that they couldn't allow it RF on "this type of plane". I knew she was wrong, but didnt' want to argue the point (since we didn't pay for the seat, they were letting us bring the carseat on to use an extra, I was afraid she'd just say forget it at that point)...


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LiLStar* 
She's barely 2, so definitely needs the car seat.

Then I'd put it forward facing and just have to deal with it. If you take her shoes off it makes the kicking less sever on the seat. And you'll just have to work with her on not kicking.

The most frustrating part of a MA on a plane is that it sits too high to use the tray table. The only carseat I've taken on a plane that has worked FFing with the tray table is the radian.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *expatmommy* 
I would guess that the seat might not fit in rear facing. I've had problems with that before. The person in front couldn't recline their seat without ramming the carseat & forcing it to an impossible angle.

It will fit rfing (I've done it many times), but the person in front of you has to deal with the fact that they can't recline their seat. If it bothers them, they can ask the FA for a seat change.


----------



## LiLStar (Jul 7, 2006)

Yeah I guess the ideal thing to do would be on any flights that arent too full, ask to be reassigned to a row where there wouldn't be anyone sitting in front of her. Then she can kick all she wants!! Oh, and one of our flights is really empty, so I fantasize that on that one they'll see a hugely pregnant woman with a toddler and have enough pity to upgrade us to first class


----------



## Katwoman (Apr 15, 2004)

The Alaska Airlines attendant told us it was illegal to install a car seat rear facing. We had to install it ff.

I wonder if it's an airline by airline policy....

I just mention this in case you run into the same issue.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Katwoman* 
The Alaska Airlines attendant told us it was illegal to install a car seat rear facing. We had to install it ff.

I wonder if it's an airline by airline policy....

I just mention this in case you run into the same issue.

Most definitely not illegal. The FA was wrong. And the FAA just issued new policy to clear up this issue and others. http://www.mothering.com/discussions...&highlight=faa

In fact, I have installed a MA on Alaska Airlines rfing twice! Though it was a good 3 years ago.


----------



## amandaleigh37 (Jul 13, 2006)

Quote:

The Alaska Airlines attendant told us it was illegal to install a car seat rear facing. We had to install it ff.

I wonder if it's an airline by airline policy....

I just mention this in case you run into the same issue.
When I had that issue, it was ironic because on our departing flight we had no problems. Installed it RF with no issues. Then on the returning flight (same type of plane) the flight attendant told me the same thing. I think some of them are just misinformed and think they know everything.


----------



## LiLStar (Jul 7, 2006)

yeah i once had a flight attendant tell me that I couldn't have my dd in her car seat for take off and i had to hold her until we reached cruising altitude. I knew that was bs but I didn't feel like arguing so I just took her out. She came back a few minutes later to apologize and say she was wrong!


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LiLStar* 
She's barely 2, so definitely needs the car seat.

I've never used a carseat on the plane. Neither child would ever sit still for that long in a carseat (I have carseat screamers), and I don't even sit still that long in my seat.

We have had great luck with the CARES harness.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

I'd just put her FF, but really putting it in RF on a plane isn't the end of the world. The big reason to have a car seat on a plane is kid containment and contentment, not really as a lifesaving device, so it wouldn't bother me to have it RF. It's definitely much more convenient.


----------



## SparklingGemini (Jan 3, 2008)

According to the FAA's site, carseats can only be installed rearfacing when the child is 20lbs or less, irregardless of the seats limits.

Is this still the rule? Or did it change?

FWIW~We flew to FL in October with a BLVD(same size shell as the MA)and I had zero issues installing it RFing.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SparklingGemini* 
According to the FAA's site, carseats can only be installed rearfacing when the child is 20lbs or less, irregardless of the seats limits.

Is this still the rule? Or did it change?

FWIW~We flew to FL in October with a BLVD(same size shell as the MA)and I had zero issues installing it RFing.

Where on the site does it say that, I can't find it. Some seats don't FF until 22 lbs.


----------



## SparklingGemini (Jan 3, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
Where on the site does it say that, I can't find it. Some seats don't FF until 22 lbs.

It says here. Its a PDF file.

I know I saw it elsewhere when we flew with DD in October. It may have changed since then, that's why I was asking....


----------



## SparklingGemini (Jan 3, 2008)

OK. It's on this page too. I just didn't scroll down far enough...

Quote:

*Keep Your Little One Safe When You're in the Air*

Be sure the shoulder straps are properly adjusted and fasten the airplane seat belt around the CRS.
Always follow the manufacturer's instructions when using a CRS. FAA recommends that a child weighing:

Less than 20 pounds use a rear-facing CRS
From 20 to 40 pounds use a forward-facing CRS
More than 40 pounds use an airplane seat belt
A child may also use an alternative, such as a a harness-type restraint, if it is approved by FAA. FAA has approved one restraint appropriate for children weighing between 22 and 44 pounds. This type of restraint is *not safe for use in motor vehicles*.

I see that it says recommends and not requires but I was still asked about my DD's weight from the FA when we flew. Luckily, she's teeny and was just under 20lbs.

I wish they would change it to say RFing until the child meets the seat's limit.


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

i rf'd my 30 lber on delta


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Well, I would argue that my child can use the seats to the limit, and I have rf'd over 20 lbs on the plane. Also, if your seat is 22 to FF and your child is over 20 but under 22 I would think that's covered by the following your seats instructions thingy in there. There is nothing prohibiting it. If nothing else, they can't make you prove what your child weights.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

The brochure also says:

"Always follow the manufacturer's instructions for using a CRS.... Do not place a child in a CRS designed for a smaller or larger child than indicated on the manufacturer's instructions." So, if your convertible says to RF until 33 or 35 lbs., you'd be violating the instructions to forward-face your 21-lb. child.


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ironica* 
The brochure also says:

"Always follow the manufacturer's instructions for using a CRS.... Do not place a child in a CRS designed for a smaller or larger child than indicated on the manufacturer's instructions." So, if your convertible says to RF until 33 or 35 lbs., you'd be violating the instructions to forward-face your 21-lb. child.

As much as I would like that to be true, in all cases, I think, the sticker says "RF to 33 (35 lbs, etc.)" on one side and on the other says "FF from 20 to 40 (etc.)". This is a constant source of confusion for parents and techs alike. I have been asked multiple times which rules to follow. I don't think there are any convertibles that can't be used forward facing over 22lbs.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

LiLStar said:


> yeah i once had a flight attendant tell me that I couldn't have my dd in her car seat for take off and i had to hold her until we reached cruising altitude. I/QUOTE]
> 
> I would ALWAYS hold my baby/toddler for take off and landing. I nurse them to prevent any ear pain.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
. If nothing else, they can't make you prove what your child weights.

Actually, they could - there are scales all over the airports.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
I would ALWAYS hold my baby/toddler for take off and landing. I nurse them to prevent any ear pain.

Which is your choice, when they're under 2... but that doesn't make it the safest option.

FWIW, I've never nursed during takeoff/landing, and my son has never had a problem with it. I was really nervous about it the first time we flew with him, because I've had a bad experience with ears popping in flight (I was 12, and flew in a not-really-well-pressurized cabin with a very, very bad head cold... I was crying in pain, and my ears didn't fully unpop for 24 hours), but it was fine. If baby is congested, then it's more of an issue, though.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
Actually, they could - there are scales all over the airports.

Yes, but they are not goign to take you OFF the plane to said scale.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
Yes, but they are not goign to take you OFF the plane to said scale.

At this point, I wouldn't put anything past the FA's


----------



## Eclipsepearl (May 20, 2007)

vbactivist said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *LiLStar*
> ...


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Eclipsepearl said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *vbactivist*
> ...


----------



## EdnaMarie (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LiLStar* 
so dd is 36lbs and her marathon RFs to 33. We're flying this weekend, and FFing puts the seat soo close to the seat in front of us, and I think in the past, she kicked the seat in front of her like crazy if I didn't really stay on top of her with holding those wiggly little legs down! The temptation is just irresistible. Is it okay to install her rear facing on the plane if kicking is a problem?

I had the same problem. I begged for a bulkhead seat for this reason and arrived very early to check-in to assure that. And no, the carseat did not fit well rear-facing and the other person could not lean back. We tried it once. Alternatively you could bring a seat cover, like a scuff cover, for the seat in front of you, for her to aim at, hoping that would reduce pressure on the seat if it (the seat scuff cover) is loosely installed. you know? Like, feet kick the scuff cover, but do not quite reach the seat, but baby is satisfied knowing she is kicking the scuff cover?

As someone who flies frequently, or at least, used to until the last six months, I have never heard a baby or toddler screaming during takeoff or landing. It usually happened at a different time. I think that is just a myth and I would not be concerned. You could always use a binky or chew toy at that time to help.

A carseat with a five-point harness is the safest place and good for you for buying the seat.

Even for a child that doesn't like the seat, at least to be in there for takeoff and landing is ideal. Then the child can sit on the lap or whatever.


----------



## Bellabaz (Feb 27, 2008)

I don't understand why you are taling the acarseat on the plane. We flew to Italy when dd was 9 months. No one with ids had a carseat onteh plane. The hostess gave us a seatbelt that attached to mine and she sat on my lap during take off and landing. When we fly this yera, she will have to have a seat due to her age, but we are not bringing a carseat with us.


----------



## FullMetalMom (Aug 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bellabaz* 
I don't understand why you are taling the acarseat on the plane. We flew to Italy when dd was 9 months. No one with ids had a carseat onteh plane. The hostess gave us a seatbelt that attached to mine and she sat on my lap during take off and landing. When we fly this yera, she will have to have a seat due to her age, but we are not bringing a carseat with us.


My dd would NEVER let me hold her on my lap for even an hour, but she is happy and comfortable in her car seat.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bellabaz* 
The hostess gave us a seatbelt that attached to mine and she sat on my lap during take off and landing.

Domestic flights don't have those.


----------



## lajn (Jun 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Domestic flights don't have those.

Anyone know why not?


----------



## EdnaMarie (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lajn* 
Anyone know why not?

I don't know but it's the American airlines that often don't have them and it pisses me off.

Quote:

I don't understand why you are taling the acarseat on the plane.
The same reason you have a car seat in the car.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 

The same reason you have a car seat in the car.

That's not what I understand. most people sy its for their child's comfort.
Air travel is MUCH safer than a car. If you were is a fiery crash, a car seat is not going to do anything for you. Vs a car, where it may help.


----------



## Bellabaz (Feb 27, 2008)

Sorry< i did't know domestic flights don't offer the child restraint. My dd would never let me hold her for an hour, but once we were up we had a bulkhead seat and she could play in front of us. Once the seatbelt light goes off I take mine off too.

I guess I kind of felt like vbactist. If something goes wrong on the plane, chances are a car seat isn't gonna do much for ya. I get it if your kid is more comfy though. I just figured it was more of hassle dragging the thing around since my dd wanted to wander around the plane and what not. But an 8 hour flight is also much different than an hour flight.


----------



## EdnaMarie (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
That's not what I understand. most people sy its for their child's comfort.
Air travel is MUCH safer than a car. If you were is a fiery crash, a car seat is not going to do anything for you. Vs a car, where it may help.

A carseat is not going to help in a head-on with a logging truck OR a nose-dive into a major metropolitan area. It WILL help in a fender-bender, a crash landing, a water landing, or during turbulence.

Obviously it's not going to save you from a fireball but it wouldn't in a car, either.

Quote:

If something goes wrong on the plane, chances are a car seat isn't gonna do much for ya.








This is just not true. What about the water landing in the Hudson when there were sudden drops and jolts and it would have been really hard to hold on to a baby, BUT in which everyone got out alive? Honestly, most plane troubles do not lead to flaming dives. That is one reason it is safer than driving.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lajn* 
Anyone know why not?

Because in FAA tests, use of the belly belts caused greater injuries than holding in-arms alone.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 







This is just not true. What about the water landing in the Hudson when there were sudden drops and jolts and it would have been really hard to hold on to a baby, BUT in which everyone got out alive? Honestly, most plane troubles do not lead to flaming dives. That is one reason it is safer than driving.

In one of the articles I read on that there was a mom with 2 kids (one an infant flying). Another man offered to hold the baby for her so she could help the other child (who had a seat). The baby survived uninjured. So babes in arms can survive crashes. Now, if the crash had been into the ground, not a river, a lot of people would have died, and who knows if that would have changed the outcome for the infant or not.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
A carseat is not going to help in a head-on with a logging truck OR a nose-dive into a major metropolitan area. It WILL help in a fender-bender, a crash landing, a water landing, or during turbulence.

Obviously it's not going to save you from a fireball but it wouldn't in a car, either.








This is just not true. What about the water landing in the Hudson when there were sudden drops and jolts and it would have been really hard to hold on to a baby, BUT in which everyone got out alive? Honestly, most plane troubles do not lead to flaming dives. That is one reason it is safer than driving.

The baby in the hudson crash WAS a lap child....


----------



## EdnaMarie (Sep 9, 2006)

I hadn't heard that, but that's not to say that the baby would not have suffered less had he / she been in a restraint. I just think that this whole notion that if you're in a plane crash, it's easy sailing or flaming ball, is one that we need to let go of. There ARE times when carseats can hold a baby in place better than a parent. If there weren't, they would not be useful in cars, either. There have been studies done and they have been shown to be safer but they are not required only because this was considered to deter people from flying!


----------



## Keria (Sep 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
I hadn't heard that, but that's not to say that the baby would not have suffered less had he / she been in a restraint. I just think that this whole notion that if you're in a plane crash, it's easy sailing or flaming ball, is one that we need to let go of. There ARE times when carseats can hold a baby in place better than a parent. If there weren't, they would not be useful in cars, either. There have been studies done and they have been shown to be safer but they are not required only because this was considered to deter people from flying!

Car accidents are number one killer of children above the age of one, plane accidents kill 0 children each year. SO comparing cars and airplanes is apples and oranges.


----------



## EdnaMarie (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **Louise** 
Car accidents are number one killer of children above the age of one, plane accidents kill 0 children each year. SO comparing cars and airplanes is apples and oranges.

Er, an average of zero children each year. That is not to say no children are ever killed in plane crashes. Comparing figures this way- not incidence of death per hours in planes or cars, vs. number of deaths, does not make sense, statistically speaking, because children spend so many more hours in cars.


----------

