# A book to read regarding airplane safety



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Black box: the air-crash detectives
the link is to the Google book version pages 66 and 67 which addresses the Sioux City crash where someone was told to put their baby on the floor.


----------



## kcstar (Mar 20, 2009)

YES! That was the one that came to mind the worst when thinking these things over. I work in the aerospace industry, though not on aircraft. The safety rules are written in blood.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

The funny thing is that the FA wouldn't let me put my 30lb 20 mo in the seat belt for takeoff. We didn't buy a seat, but ended up with an extra. Unfortunately my dh had gate checked our carseats all the way through on accident, so we didn't get the seat in between flights. She said the seatbelt wouldn't hold him. Which I think is funny, because it would have held him better than my arms!

Personally, though, more babies IN CAR SEATS in CARS die every day then have on airplanes unrestrained or not in the last 10 years.


----------



## goodheartedmama (Feb 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
The funny thing is that the FA wouldn't let me put my 30lb 20 mo in the seat belt for takeoff. We didn't buy a seat, but ended up with an extra. Unfortunately my dh had gate checked our carseats all the way through on accident, so we didn't get the seat in between flights. She said the seatbelt wouldn't hold him. Which I think is funny, because it would have held him better than my arms!

*Personally, though, more babies IN CAR SEATS in CARS die every day then have on airplanes unrestrained or not in the last 10 years.*

That's not a great argument. Just because something isn't likely to happen does not mean we should not do all we can do to protect ourselves from a danger.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Yup, but when it comes down to not buying a seat for an infant or driving, safer to fly with a lap infant. Personally I don't have a problem with people choosing it. It's very safe overall.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Did anyone see the recent article about a woman breaking her neck while experiencing severe turbulence while flying? She was thrown to the ceiling while in the bathroom. I honestly don't get why folks won't buy seats for their under 2's, when they will have to when they turn 2 anyway. I decided long ago I would always get my son his own seat with his car seat in it. Our next trip he will be without car seat while flying because of his age and size, and I wish it weren't so. He sleeps so much better in his car seat, as well as he can actually see out the window while in the car seat.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Did anyone see the recent article about a woman breaking her neck while experiencing severe turbulence while flying?

How is that relevant to whether in-arms children are safe on airplanes?

Actually, don't answer that, it'll get the thread locked and I want the link in the OP to stay available.

It's not as good as an actual study, but it is the only place I've seen someone mention a child's death that could've been prevented by using a car seat in an airplane.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
How is that relevant to whether in-arms children are safe on airplanes?

Hmm, you don't see the relevance in a woman unrestrained getting her neck broken during severe tubulence to an unrestrained lap baby who might also experience severe turbulence? I have said it many times before, if the flight attendants deem it necessary to restrain coffee pots during flight, why would my baby deserve anything less? Severe turbulence does happen, I have experienced it myself, and that's one reason why I purchased a seat to put my son's car seat in while flying. My child might not be killed, but certainly could experience an injury, or injure someone else during turbulence. Not to mention rough landings, etc.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

If a full grown adult can sustain injuries like that when unrestrained, I'd hate to see what could happen to a 10 (or 20, or 30) pound baby unrestrained (e.g. being held on a lap) in that situation.

What's crazy is that the NTSB, who investigate crashes and collect crash data, have been recommending that ALL children under two be restrained in a child restraint when on an airplane, but the FAA is loathe to implement their recommendation because they would lose money.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Hmm, you don't see the relevance in a woman unrestrained getting her neck broken during severe tubulence to an unrestrained lap baby who might also experience severe turbulence? I have said it many times before, if the flight attendants deem it necessary to restrain coffee pots during flight, why would my baby deserve anything less? Severe turbulence does happen, I have experienced it myself, and that's one reason why I purchased a seat to put my son's car seat in while flying. My child might not be killed, but certainly could experience an injury, or injure someone else during turbulence. Not to mention rough landings, etc.

Yes, but I would assume it was sudden turbulence (without the seatbelt light on) since the woman was in the bathroom. In the case of no warning, who knows if infants would be in their seats or in arms, say nursing, at that same moment. Anyone not buckled in sudden onset turbulence is in danger, but they still allow you to get up during the flight and flight attendence to serve drinks because the risk is very low. Usually they know and can warn people.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
but the FAA is loathe to implement their recommendation because they would lose money.

No, they are loathe to REQUIRE it because they believe it will lead to more families driving rather than flying, and that will, statistically speaking, lead to many more infant deaths than would be "saved" by not having lap infants. As has been said before, a lap infant on a plane is safer than an infant in a carseat in a car.

Airlines could easily encourage car seat use by training attendants properly so they don't harrass parents bringing car seats, letting families preboard to install them, and most substantially, by making tickets for children under 2 lower cost. They were half-price when my brothers and I were little IIRC. The people who don't want to lose money here are the airlines themselves, not the FAA.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
Yes, but I would assume it was sudden turbulence (without the seatbelt light on) since the woman was in the bathroom. In the case of no warning, who knows if infants would be in their seats or in arms, say nursing, at that same moment. Anyone not buckled in sudden onset turbulence is in danger, but they still allow you to get up during the flight and flight attendence to serve drinks because the risk is very low. Usually they know and can warn people.

I agree. Sudden turbulence isn't a good argument for car seating infants on planes IMO. You could just as easily be in the bathroom with the baby changing a diaper if it was so unexpected, even for a baby who had a car seat sitting on the plane.

I was surprised, though, that a dad on the flight we were on yesterday had his 14 month old standing in the aisle literally as the plane landed. Still, I don't see that it would be my business to scold another adult in public!


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
No, they are loathe to REQUIRE it because they believe it will lead to more families driving rather than flying, and that will, statistically speaking, lead to many more infant deaths than would be "saved" by not having lap infants. As has been said before, a lap infant on a plane is safer than an infant in a carseat in a car.

I don't get that argument at all. Parents have to buy a seat when their kid turns two, so they have to deal with the extra expense very soon anyway. So what are people going to do, refuse to buy a seat for a 1 year old and instead drive, but then when the kid turns two buy a seat and fly? Either people are going to drive or fly, I really don't think it will make a huge difference. Planes should implement a reduced fare, like some companies used to , since kids are lighter.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

I can't find it now, but the FAA did do studies on how many passengers said they would drive instead of fly if they had to buy a seat for infants, and if even 25% of them did drive instead of fly, that would increase deaths tremendously.

For an ideal solution, car seats and seats would be required, but they would be half price. Airlines would also offer FAA approved car seats for use on the plane. Fund it through car seat manufacturer donations or other charitable donations. You book the seat for an under 5 let's say, and you can mark if you'd like a RF car seat or a FF car seat. That eliminates the cost and the lugging car seats issues.

Of course, for an ideal situation, airlines also wouldn't increase the danger for everyone on the airplane by starting their inane and dangerous baggage fees. That's led to millions of people lugging heavy bags onto the planes and putting them over the heads of innocent passengers in order to save far less money than an extra seat.

The next page in that book linked above mentions how those bags kill and injure people by blocking exits and falling on people. Like the flight attendant there said "Luggage compartments are for bags. The cabin is for people." I've certainly seen hundreds upon hundreds of bags that should not be above my or my children's heads in baggage compartments that can fly open even without turbulence.

I watched an idiot on the plane this weekend pull his overstuffed bag out of the overhead so he could get painkiller. Meanwhile, he smacked the sleeping woman sitting under his bag in the head.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

That's crazy! If airlines are trying to reduce costs to themselves and conserve fuel, you'd think they would impose a reasonable weight for carry-on luggage as well (say, 20 pounds or so).


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Ah, but making a rule about baggage weight and actually enforcing it are two entirely different things, you see. They check when you check a bag in because there are scales there when you set your bag down. They don't have scales at the gate or on the plane or at security for that matter.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

ITA that planes should offer reduced fares for infants. The only one I know of that does is Southwest.

And yes, the baggage thing is a real issue. People are lugging tons on the planes and it's unbelievable what is allowed. How about weighing everything at check in and charging overweight fees for carryons. Then there could be an approved tag that goes on your carryon that security could visually see, or something like that. I personally think that charging for checked bags is discriminatory against families with small children, who usually cannot lug extra carryons through the airport and who usually can't pack just in carryons due to things their children require.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Does anyone know what the current guidelines are for lap children in a crash? The Sioux city crash happened in 1989...

I agree that the carryon thing seems really ridiculous. They do have the boxes that your carryon is supposed to fit in, but no one EVER checks, IME!


----------



## kcstar (Mar 20, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
Yes, but I would assume it was sudden turbulence (without the seatbelt light on) since the woman was in the bathroom. In the case of no warning, who knows if infants would be in their seats or in arms, say nursing, at that same moment. Anyone not buckled in sudden onset turbulence is in danger, but they still allow you to get up during the flight and flight attendence to serve drinks because the risk is very low. Usually they know and can warn people.

The article I've read says that the fasten seat belt light was on. Now, whether it got turned on WHILE she was in the bathroom, or she got up to go ignoring the light, I do not know.

On one flight, a passenger ignored the light and stood up (not takeoff or landing), and a flight attendant told him that they were not liable for injuries sustained due to removing his seatbelt when the light was on.

Unfortunately, I've also flown, pregnant, when the crew did not turn off the light for something like an HOUR after takeoff... and we'd been waiting to take off for a while too. So even I've ignored the rule when I absolutely HAD to go.


----------



## goodheartedmama (Feb 1, 2007)

Kinda unrelated, but does anyone know why they have lap only belts on airplanes?


----------



## pastrygirl (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kcstar* 
On one flight, a passenger ignored the light and stood up (not takeoff or landing), and a flight attendant told him that they were not liable for injuries sustained due to removing his seatbelt when the light was on.

This would make me angry, because the damage might not only be to him/herself -- it could be to ME, a nearby passenger! I don't want his body flying into mine, breaking my neck. I would also not sit anywhere near an unrestrained child for the same reason, though I guess I might not have a choice. I would certainly try to move to a different area of the plane. It's not just about the parent and the baby, it's about other people into whom the projectile body could go flying. This is why I won't start my car until everyone is buckled in, and won't let anyone lean over my son's car seat to play with him...


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kcstar* 
The article I've read says that the fasten seat belt light was on. Now, whether it got turned on WHILE she was in the bathroom, or she got up to go ignoring the light, I do not know.


She ignored the sign and got up anyway. My argument still stands, this woman broke her neck, a lap child could sustain serious injuries, as well as injure others. When my son was under 2 we got half price fares each time, though I had to ask by phone, you can't do in online. I also take issue with the whole drive instead of fly thing also, it's not like you can drive to all destinations, and when the kid turns 2 they have to buy them a seat anyway.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=7391144&page=1


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Yes, they don't do half priced fares. We fly frequently and I have asked. It's something airlines stopped doing a while back, unfortunately. Since 2005 (when I had my first) I have never been able to get a discounted fare for my under 2 child. And this has been on Alaska, JetBlue, Continental, United, US Airways, American...

I think the reason they put the cutoff at 2 is because by that point most kids are getting too big to hold. Maybe the FAA figures it based on body weight or something like that. I personally wouldn't have a problem with them moving the age to 1.

And honestly, yes, now that we'll have to buy 4 seats we probably will fly less due to cost. It's more convenient to fly, and we like to travel, but we do have to take that expense into account. Just one of those things.

As for current guidelines for lap infants, in the event of a crash landing they want you to hold them in a cradle position. On one of our last flights, the FA was very thorough in going over guidelines with all parents with lap babies. And letting us know how to hold the child, that there were 4 air masks, etc. She was paranoid overall, reminding the whole cabin while we prepared to land that in case of a water landing there were life vests and rafts. Comforting, eh?


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Oh, and in the article it also mentions that there were a few injuries during descent as well.


----------



## Keria (Sep 27, 2008)

The thing that gets me is that the only accident where an infant in arms died that i have heard of was this one in 1986 i think, using a practice that is not longer in use (the infant in the floor thing), If there were any statistics supporting that infants are more at risk in a lap than in a carseat then go ahead by a seat but one death in 25 years isn't significant at all.

And I don't think they should do half price for infants they occupy a whole seat not half a seat.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **Louise** 
The thing that gets me is that the only accident where an infant in arms died that i have heard of was this one in 1986 i think, using a practice that is not longer in use (the infant in the floor thing), If there were any statistics supporting that infants are more at risk in a lap than in a carseat then go ahead by a seat but one death in 25 years isn't significant at all.

And I don't think they should do half price for infants they occupy a whole seat not half a seat.

However, they weigh far far less than an average size adult. They charge fees for overweight checked luggage supposedly because of the increase in fuel costs for hauling more weight. Infants, even in car seats, take up much less weight.


----------



## goodheartedmama (Feb 1, 2007)

If it's impossible to hold onto a child in your arms during a car crash, I assume the same holds true for an airplane crash or crash landing.


----------



## kcstar (Mar 20, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *goodheartedmama* 
If it's impossible to hold onto a child in your arms during a car crash, I assume the same holds true for an airplane crash or crash landing.

That's correct, the laws of physics still hold. An airplane takes off and lands somewhere above 100 mph. I believe the applicable equation is mass * velocity squared. Can you lift / hold 10000 lbs?


----------



## goodheartedmama (Feb 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kcstar* 
That's correct, the laws of physics still hold. An airplane takes off and lands somewhere above 100 mph. I believe the applicable equation is mass * velocity squared. Can you lift / hold 10000 lbs?

Of course, do it everyday!


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

The point is that there are no real statistics on how many lap children are injured during turbulence, rough landings or take-offs, or emergency landings. These occur much more often than crashes. We can talk number of children or people who die during these things, but the real issue is injury, not death. Obviously death is terrible, but really we are trying to avoid injury, including to other people. As for offering half price fares, of course they should, for the safety of the children. The FAA themselves tell passengers that children under 2 should be in CRS's, they just don't require it. The flight attendants have been lobbying for it for years as well. The NTSB would like to see it be a requirement. Why not take all of these people's advice, seems they would know a lot more than we do.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

So, if an airplane crashes much faster than a car (100mph or more), would an older child in a harness FFing actually be LESS safe (as far as head excursion/neck strain with their shoulders being held back) then being in the lap belt with their head in their lap as in crash position?

Just wondering.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

No way! Head excursion in a harnessed seat would be MUCH less. A kid in a lap belt is going to fold in half and smash their noggin on the seat in front of them. Plastic to the face at 100 mph is not going to be good...much less all the internal/abdominal injuries.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Actually, no, crash position is head IN your lap. Adult or child. So they wouldn't be moving forward and folding over. And I'd assume if that's crash position for an adult, most adults don't hit their heads, so why would a chld in the same position?


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Have you seen that Mythbusters where they assume the crash position and drop 10 feet?


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *goodheartedmama* 
If it's impossible to hold onto a child in your arms during a car crash, I assume the same holds true for an airplane crash or crash landing.

This woman was dead and managed to keeping holding onto her baby

What does a completely unrestrained adult suffering injuries in the bathroom of an airplane have to do with the safety of infants held in arms on airplanes?

Now that book I posted says that there have been other deaths that could've been prevented by having children in safety seats on planes. But funnily enough the only example they give is of a baby who was set on the floor.

I've been looking, but I just cannot seem to find cases where babies who were held in arms died when most people survived. I did find one article that talked about a flight where the child in the safety seat was one of the few survivors--but I also found an article talking about a child found relatively unscathed up in a tree near the crash.

But none of that matters. Because anecdotes aren't data. It's just irritating to have the same irrelevant anecdotes shared as though they're supposed to be convincing.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kcstar* 
That's correct, the laws of physics still hold. An airplane takes off and lands somewhere above 100 mph. I believe the applicable equation is mass * velocity squared. Can you lift / hold 10000 lbs?

Mass*velocity over time.

Really, F=ma, where A is acceleration or the change in velocity over time.

And it gets interesting for this particular problem because while the *plane* might experience a force of the mass of the plane coming to a stop nearly instantaneously:
Force=Tons*100mph/couple seconds=near infinite force

The plane is also absorbing most of the energy of that impact and thus it isn't all getting relayed to the passengers. (It's the same reason new cars are designed with crumple zones. It isn't to sell more cars when people have fender benders, it's so the passengers don't feel as much impact.)

That also assumes a head-on crash where it wasn't possible to slow the plane at all before crashing not turbulence.

As for the car thing, I sincerely wish someone *would* do some crash tests with slings. Using newborn-based crash dummies designed to show the pressures inside the head But it isn't going to happen because all the problems of inconsistency in installing carseats would be multiplied a thousand fold.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

If a 150 pound woman (that's about average, right?) cannot keep herself on her feet, she's not going to be able to hold a baby. There have been lots of studies that show it's impossible to hold a baby on your lap if you are in a 35mph crash. In a car, a baby being held is completely unrestrained. It would be the same in an airplane.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Have you seen that Mythbusters where they assume the crash position and drop 10 feet?

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/m...ace_posit.html

For anyone else who was curious.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
If a 150 pound woman (that's about average, right?) cannot keep herself on her feet, she's not going to be able to hold a baby. There have been lots of studies that show it's impossible to hold a baby on your lap if you are in a 35mph crash. In a car, a baby being held is completely unrestrained. It would be the same in an airplane.

I've been thrown off my feet while standing on a bus when it stopped suddenly. I've also held Lina on a bus when it stopped suddenly. Seen plenty of other people hold their babies on buses. Seen people hold their babies with no problems when standing passengers were thrown off their feet.

But that doesn't really matter.

What matters is how many injuries and deaths could have been prevented if all children were in safety seats in airplanes. I've tried looking, I can't find it. I'd love to know it, but I can't find it.

Really, all the woman dying in turbulence proves is that the guy who let his 14 month old stand in the aisle during landing was grossly negligent and we shouldn't let our kids walk to the bathroom.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Why not take all of these people's advice, seems they would know a lot more than we do.

Like everyone does with vaccines and the AAP's statement that we can start solids at 4 months?

Sorry.

Look, they have the numbers. They have to fill out crash and injury reports. Where's that data?

I know it's available. I'm certain that the recommendation to use safety seats is coming from somewhere, but I'm not finding it.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

For that matter, where are the anecdotes about people being injured because a baby was held in arms?

We've had one about the dangers of heavy bags in the overhead compartments. But the airlines have put policies in place to make that *more* likely to happen.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/m...ace_posit.html

For anyone else who was curious.

So if I'm reading that right, it's safer to be in the brace position than not?


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Sorry, a bus stopping suddenly does not compare with a car crash or with an airplane crash.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
They have to fill out crash and injury reports. Where's that data?

I know it's available. I'm certain that the recommendation to use safety seats is coming from somewhere, but I'm not finding it.

The recommendation is coming from the NTSB, who investigates plane crashes. All their data is public record, available on their website.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Sorry, a bus stopping suddenly does not compare with a car crash or with an airplane crash.

Oops, I had thought you were still talking about the woman who was thrown off her feet during turbulence.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
The recommendation is coming from the NTSB, who investigates plane crashes. All their data is public record, available on their website.









NTSB. Can't believe I didn't think to Google that...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp for those who are interested.

Thanks!


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
So if I'm reading that right, it's safer to be in the brace position than not?

Correct. The myth was "The brace position is actually more deadly than sitting upright in a plane crash. The airlines tell you to do it because the payout on a wrongful death suit is lower than the payout on an injury suit." Uh, yeah, that myth was totally busted. Though it seems like a silly myth to begin with.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Sapphire Chan, this is part of a post I made in a thread awhile back:

It is profoundly safer to ride as a lap infant on an airplane than as a car seated child in a car. (By a difference of 0.4 to 425.0 per year.) It is safer to ride as a car seated child on an airplane than as a lap infant on an airplane. (By maybe 0.4 to 0.8, perhaps. Technically, that's twice as safe, but the risk is incredibly small either way.

The proposal to require car seats on planes in the US is estimated that it might save 4 lives every 10 years. http://news.ucsf.edu/releases/airlin...t-prevents-pe/ OTOH, more than 1300 children actually die every year in car accidents (and that is *with* car seat regulations), 425 of them are under 5. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm

Which is why lap infants are allowed in the US. The research shows that even if only 5-10% of families decided to drive instead of fly, and if they drove safely, there would be more automobile child deaths than child lives saved by car seats on planes. The real question is *how much* safer, not *if* it's safer, and how that interacts with the costs incurred and the willingness for risk.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
The point is that there are no real statistics on how many lap children are injured during turbulence, rough landings or take-offs, or emergency landings. These occur much more often than crashes. We can talk number of children or people who die during these things, but the real issue is injury, not death.

According to research, actually, this is not true:

"We did not consider serious non-fatal injuries, but with this regulation, the statistics on those probably would look even worse," Newman said. "Serious nonfatal injuries are less common than deaths from air travel, but 80 times more common than deaths for car travel. Thus virtually any substitution from air to car travel would increase serious injuries." Other analyses, including one done by the FAA in 1995, have yielded similar results.

The analysis was published in the October 14, 2003 issue of the journal Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. Newman is Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Pediatrics at UCSF and a pediatrician at UCSF Children's Hospital. His co-authors are Brian D. Johnston, MD, MPH, and David C. Grossman, MD, MPH of the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center and the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

This is an interesting article:

Quote:

Airlines Ask U.S. to Require Buckling Up Babies in Flight

BYLINE: By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr., Special to The New York Times

SECTION: Section A; Page 1, Column 5; National Desk

LENGTH: 1092 words

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Feb. 22

...

Walter Coleman, a safety expert for the Air Tranport Association, which represents major airlines, said that the lives saved by the airlines' proposal was ''a very small number in terms of fatalities,'' but he added that ''there are considerable injuries that occur in some of these accidents and also as a result of in flight turbulence.''
...
Even in modest turbulence a baby on an adult's lap can be sent flying through the cabin and be injured, and even in a severe accident a properly protected baby can survive.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
This is an interesting article:

When is this from? 2009? I stand by my belief that requiring car seats at full fares will cost many infants lives. The only way to do this safely is for airlines to offer infant fares at greatly reduced prices or free.

Unfortunately, most airlines have proven that they care more about money than safety (case in point baggage fees). I also don't trust that baggage-fee-charging airlines won't cut costs by forgoing maintenance or hiring cheaper, less committed and knowledgable labor.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
When is this from? 2009?

2004...there are tons of articles from 1989 forward in which FAs and the NTSB are encouraging the use of CRs.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
The only way to do this safely is for airlines to offer infant fares at greatly reduced prices or free.

Which is feasible, considering children weigh alot less...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
Unfortunately, most airlines have proven that they care more about money than safety (case in point baggage fees).

Considering the financial situation airlines are in, I hardly blame them. Their reasoning is that heavy bags cost them more money, so charging for heavy bags helps them recoup losses.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
I also don't trust that baggage-fee-charging airlines won't cut costs by forgoing maintenance or hiring cheaper, less committed and knowledgable labor.

Mechanics all have the same certification...they are regulated by the FAA.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Query from 1/1/1990 to yesterday, search term "infant" Total records retrieved 25.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...08IA065&rpt=fa
Head injury on a baby held in arms due to turbulence. Page 2, paragraph beginning "Passenger in seat 23F..."

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...04MA167&rpt=fa
Death of everyone in a helicopter. Page 5 notes that the accident was not survivable.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...8MA116A&akey=1
Death of infant in infant isolette. Perhaps like a transport isolette.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...03LA014&rpt=fa
Infant uninjured, no information about seating arrangements. (Anyone know if car seats'll fit in a Cessna?)

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...02FA222&rpt=fa
infant in car seat survives impact (is fatally injured in a fire afterwards







) page 5

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...99LA043&rpt=fa
infant in carseat (which answers the question about car seats fitting in a Cessna) no one injured

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...98MA008&rpt=fa
lap baby, everyone killed, baby located in aft cabinet everyone else still fastened in their seats.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...96IA389&rpt=fa
3 lap infants injured along with 5 adults. Infants and 1 adult sent to hospital, other adults treated on site.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...97LA014&rpt=fa
Of three people in the aircraft, the two adults are seriously injured and the baby is fine. No information about seating arrangements provided, however, I'd assume a carseat since the adults were the pilot and copilot.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...96LA072&rpt=fa
no injuries to anyone, infant transport not specified

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...95LA382&rpt=fa
no injuries to anyone, infant transport not specified

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...95LA368&rpt=fa
no injuries to anyone, infant transport not specified, but infant was patient so isolette is possible.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...95IA215&rpt=fa
in lap infant, one flight attendant had minor injuries

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...95IA157&rpt=fa
1 of 8 lap infants had minor injuries when his mother let go of him, page 1, paragraph beginning "The captain stated that he made", 21 other passengers had minor injuries

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...94LA045&rpt=fa
no injuries to anyone, infant transport not specified

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...93FA143&rpt=fa
everyone died, infant transport not specified, but infant was patient so isolette is possible.

minor injuries to one passenger, infant in isolette

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...93LA180&rpt=fa


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Unfortunately non-accident related injury reports are probably kept airline by airline. Although there was the one report about injuries due to turbulence, so maybe all turbulence related injuries are reported to the NTSB?


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Mechanics all have the same certification...they are regulated by the FAA.

The same could be said of doctors, but we know that some do their jobs well and some do them horribly. Keep less people on staff, overburden current staff with too much work for them to do safely, demoralization and lack of commitment to their jobs, replacing equipment less often, repairing equipment less often... all of these seem likely to me at some airlines, and would increase risks. Airlines have cut FA, increased their workloads, shortened their times between flights to clean the cabin, and made seats closer together to pack more people onto planes. If they're doing this inside of the plane where we can see, I'm sure they're doing worse outside the plane where we can't see.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Considering the financial situation airlines are in, I hardly blame them. Their reasoning is that heavy bags cost them more money, so charging for heavy bags helps them recoup losses.

I don't think they have made money off of heavier bags, they've diverted people to packing too big luggage into the overheads and having to "gate check" it instead. Then it goes right into the hold with the paid luggage, but the passenger didn't have to pay for it or weigh it. I paid to check my 2 suitcases on the flight I reluctantly took on US Air this weekend. I could have lugged it with me to the plane, and had the baggage allowance to do so, even with 4 people on a 12 day trip. But I think it's morally wrong in the overhead as well as a hassle to gate check it. From the other passengers getting on though, either they severely overpack, or they saved $15 a person by lugging 50 pound rolling suitcases through security. So heavy most of the teenage women couldn't lift them and had to ask for help.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

Hazards associated with the on-lap position are also well documented in aircraft crash investigations. Three children on the laps of adults were fatally injured and others nonfatally injured in the 1987 crash in Denver, CO, the 1989 crash in Sioux City, IA, and the 1994 crash in Charlotte, NCwhich were all caused by turbulence.19-21 The NTSB has reported 2 crashes in which CSSs were used and provided protection to children.3
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...108/5/1218#B16

The fact of the matter is just because you can't find the stats that list the injuries and deaths on this matter, doesn't mean they don't exist. They do exist, all these groups aren't making this stuff up to fool us.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/1999/meet...ler/sld002.htm

It takes some digging, but you can find some of it. I believe the full story is available for those in this field, and again, that's why I take their word for it. FA's fly everyday, and they see what happens when something goes wrong, why would I not trust them them when they tell me my baby would be safer in a child restraint?

http://www.afanet.org/Legislative/de...p?nc=2631&id=5

Quote:

Families across America are travelling to visit their relatives. No matter what mode of transport they choose, they all want to ensure that their children are as safe as possible. And, certainly, no parent or caregiver would anticipate being in a situation in which they are better protected than their children. But, that's exactly the predicament they find themselves in when they and their children travel by plane.... I've often said that it doesn't make any sense to me that during take-off, landing, and turbulence, adults are buckled up, baggage and coffee pots are stowed, computers are turned off and put away, but the most precious cargo on that aircraft - infants and toddlers - are left unrestrained.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/former/hall/jhc991215.htm

Quote:

Yet, children continue to be killed and injured needlessly. In 1994, a US Airways DC-9 crashed while landing at Charlotte, North Carolina. A lap-held 9-month-old baby received massive fatal head injuries after being torn from its mother's arms. The mother, properly belted and restrained, received far less serious injuries.

In contrast, when American Airlines flight 1420 crashed in Little Rock, Arkansas, earlier this year, a 2-year-old child, seated in a properly installed child restraint, received only minor injuries.

Bottom line is this, we as adults travel on airplances safer than our unrestrained babies. Why in this one regard do we think it's okay for babies to be less safe than ourselves?


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

The NTSB investigates ANY "incident" with damage to airplanes of any size. For instance, one of the students at DH's school got caught in wind and landed too hard, and damaged the landing gear. It was investigated, along with every other "incident" right up to and including huge commercial passenger jet crashes.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
According to research, actually, this is not true:

"We did not consider serious non-fatal injuries, but with this regulation, the statistics on those probably would look even worse," Newman said. "Serious nonfatal injuries are less common than deaths from air travel, but 80 times more common than deaths for car travel. Thus virtually any substitution from air to car travel would increase serious injuries." Other analyses, including one done by the FAA in 1995, have yielded similar results.

The analysis was published in the October 14, 2003 issue of the journal Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. Newman is Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Pediatrics at UCSF and a pediatrician at UCSF Children's Hospital. His co-authors are Brian D. Johnston, MD, MPH, and David C. Grossman, MD, MPH of the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center and the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle.


I don't buy the comparision bit, I want my son safe regardless of how he travels. I can't control all things, but I can control how he is restrained. If you read the NTSB stuff, you will see them talk about all the money the airlines were upset about losing if restraints for children under 2 were required, so they left it up to us. I realize the chance of something happening to my son on an airplane is very small, but he is safer in a restraint, it's the same reason why I buckle my seat belt while flying! Not to mention it isn't the only reason why I use the restraint, there are others having to do with comfort, convienience, etc.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

It is not more common to be non-fatally injured on a plane than it is to be killed. Where are you getting that from? You're just showing that non-fatal injuries occur, which probably no one doubts.

"Serious nonfatal injuries are less common than deaths from air travel, but 80 times more common than deaths for car travel. Thus virtually any substitution from air to car travel would increase serious injuries." Other analyses, including one done by the FAA in 1995, have yielded similar results.

Even 1 family a year driving instead of flying because car seats and full fare airplane seats are required for infants means that more non-fatal injuries will be caused than prevented.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...108/5/1218#B16

The fact of the matter is just because you can't find the stats that list the injuries and deaths on this matter, doesn't mean they don't exist. They do exist, all these groups aren't making this stuff up to fool us...

Thank you. I'm sure that information will help people make more informed choices about airplane safety for their children.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
I don't buy the comparision bit,

What are you talking about? It's not a "bit" about what you choose to do with your own child. It's a statistic about all the children injured during travel. You want to restrain your child, so do.

If you want to require all parents to restrain their child, you may well be putting those children's lives in danger by diverting parents to car travel over air travel. Car seats should be recommended, sure. Infant fares should be offered to encourage parents to buy seats. But full fare seats should not be required. That is my opinion.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
The NTSB investigates ANY "incident" with damage to airplanes of any size. For instance, one of the students at DH's school got caught in wind and landed too hard, and damaged the landing gear. It was investigated, along with every other "incident" right up to and including huge commercial passenger jet crashes.

But does it track injuries that occur when no damage happens to the plane? It'd be pretty significant if an in arms infant was injured by minor turbulence, for instance, but that wouldn't damage the plane.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
Sapphire Chan, this is part of a post I made in a thread awhile back:

Link:
http://news.ucsf.edu/releases/airlin...t-prevents-pe/

I think this link is useful and is getting lost.

"In a new analysis, researchers estimate that if the extra cost of buying airline tickets for the young children led only 5 to 10 percent of families to drive rather than fly, the projected increase in highway deaths would exceed the number of airplane crash deaths prevented. This is because the possible number of deaths that could be prevented with airline safety seats is low-approximately four deaths in 10 years-because airplane travel is very safe, and *because the majority of airplane crash deaths occur in crashes in which there are no survivors, according to the researchers.*

Even when deaths caused by diversion to car travel are not counted, the estimated cost to save one infant's life with an airline restraint seat was high. If the average round-trip ticket cost $200, the cost would be $1.3 billion per life saved. *"Many more lives could be saved by spending this money on other safety measures,"* said UCSF pediatrician Thomas Newman, MD, MPH, lead author of the study.

"The investigators assumed that parents would be cautious drivers taking their trips mostly on interstate highways-a scenario that should lead to about 70 percent fewer auto deaths per mile traveled than the national average.

Depending on the distance traveled, the researchers found that when more than *5 percent to 10 percent* of the families with young children who would have traveled by air, instead were carried in cars, there would be more than four extra deaths from car crashes over the course of 10 years. *At that point, the FAA regulation would lead to more deaths than it prevented.*

"We did not consider serious non-fatal injuries, but with this regulation, the statistics on those probably would look even worse," Newman said. "*Serious nonfatal injuries are less common than deaths from air travel,* but 80 times more common than deaths for car travel. Thus virtually any substitution from air to car travel would increase serious injuries." Other analyses, including one done by the FAA in 1995, have yielded similar results.

And I'm done with this topic again. It just becomes a case study in failure to understand statistics versus anecdotes.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Of the "thousands" (estimate from a variety of sources, none definitive) of infants flying each year:

less than 25 incidents where infants were mentioned in the crash report

Lap infants:
1 head injury
1 died with everyone in the crash, but probably would've been at least injured since it was thrown to the back of the plane
3 hospitalized
1 with minor injuries--7 other lap babies on the same flight were uninjured

Carseat babies
1 survives impact

Isolette babies
1 (maybe more) dead

Doesn't include injuries that occurred due to things not reported to the NTSB, but it doesn't really convince me that it's not possible to hold your baby under typical conditions. Really, I'd be more worried about someone trying to juggle a carseat, a baby, and luggage and whacking another passenger while getting on or off the plane.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

I don't know how else to make this clear. I am arguing that parents have a duty to protect their babies, even while flying. It may be a requirement someday that child restraints be used on airplanes for children under 2, or it might not. But as parents, it is my belief that if we fly with our children we can make the choice to protect our children as much as we are protecting ourselves, by restraining them in their own seat. I made that choice. I understand not everyone else does, but I wish they did. For the safety of their child, even if the chance is low, but also for the safety of those around them. I am mostly concerned with turbulence, because it's much more common than crashes. I read the studies on turbulence, and yes, the stats on that were higher for injuries than deaths. That's where I get my info from. As for crashes, some years there are more deaths, some years more injuries than deaths. But I wasn't arguing that. I am arguing about injuries sustained in turbulence, rough take offs and landings, and emergencies.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
And I'm done with this topic again. It just becomes a case study in failure to understand statistics versus anecdotes.

Awww, c'mon, at least look at the summary I posted!

Here's a question. Since the injuries sustained by lap infants appear to mostly be from "wasn't able to hold on" why isn't anyone tracking how well those "strap the kid to you" devices work? They aren't FAA approved, but that doesn't really seem justified by the evidence.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

EviesMom -- just a personal thank you for your contribution. I appreciate all your perspective.









And a personal note: the "they're going to have to spend the money soon anyway" argument? Does anyone not realize how silly that sounds? "Gee, I could save $300 today, but I have to spend that $300 again next year, so I might as well pay it now too!" Really? That's not how my personal economics work, though I guess I don't know about anyone else. For me, that $300 means the difference between whether we can fly now, or not. Not having to spend it when my child is under 2 means that it might be there for when we _have_ to spend it when he's over 2.

Of course infants are safer in restraints. But when we're talking about an activity that's _overall highly safe_, I just don't see why all the energy gets spent on it.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
I don't know how else to make this clear. I am arguing that parents have a duty to protect their babies, even while flying.

That opinion I respect deeply.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

sorry, forgot to clarify my assumptions, it's because I'm not a scientist-type. I started the query in 1990 because we have information that in 1989 someone was told to put her infant on the floor. Therefore, before 1990, I don't trust that "in lap" actually meant someone was holding the baby.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/1999/meet...ler/sld002.htm
"One infant dies of smoke inhalation after a crash"

Why is that on a list of injuries that probably would've been prevented by a child restraint system?

And why is it listed for 1989 which is the year of the Sioux City crash? I thought that baby died of impact injuries from being thrown around. There was a later crash where a baby died in fire, but that baby was in a carseat.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 







sorry, forgot to clarify my assumptions, it's because I'm not a scientist-type. I started the query in 1990 because we have information that in 1989 someone was told to put her infant on the floor. Therefore, before 1990, I don't trust that "in lap" actually meant someone was holding the baby.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/1999/meet...ler/sld002.htm
"One infant dies of smoke inhalation after a crash"

Why is that on a list of injuries that probably would've been prevented by a child restraint system?

Possibly the child wasn't in the parent's grip after the crash and couldn't be found during evacuation. The time available for successful evacuation is very short.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Ooo, another question we can't answer! How would having more people installing carseats on planes before take-off affect things like:

how well the seats are installed when people who don't think they're really necessary are told they have to install them--I mean, I'd do my best, but there are plenty of people who install them wrong in cars with all the time in the world to get them in place.

how well overhead luggage is stowed when people also have a carseat to deal with

injuries resulting from more people hauling carseats through the planes


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
If you had that information available, why did you... *deep breath*

Okay, I just need to know what this is in reference to. I get far too invested in online discussions!


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Ooo, another question we can't answer! How would having more people installing carseats on planes before take-off affect things like:

how well the seats are installed when people who don't think they're really necessary are told they have to install them--I mean, I'd do my best, but there are plenty of people who install them wrong in cars with all the time in the world to get them in place.

how well overhead luggage is stowed when people also have a carseat to deal with

injuries resulting from more people hauling carseats through the planes

See, this is why I think car seats should be recommended and not required; seats should be reduced cost for infants but still optional, and the money should be spent encouraging little/no overhead luggage. Check weights, do away with baggage fees, make it easier to check your baggage. It would benefit more than 4 kids every 10 years.

OR, if airlines were more flush with cash, they should offer free seats for infants and include car seats for kids under some target age for use during the flight. They should be already installed in the child's assigned seat. Some parents will still bring their own seats instead; some will bring a seat to check or gate check because they need them at the other end; that's the utopian version though IMO.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
Possibly the child wasn't in the parent's grip after the crash and couldn't be found during evacuation. The time available for successful evacuation is very short.

Ah, gotcha.

Hmm, yet another argument for those strap the baby to you things.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
Okay, I just need to know what this is in reference to. I get far too invested in online discussions!

Ooops sorry, editing!


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
See, this is why I think car seats should be recommended and not required; seats should be reduced cost for infants but still optional, and the money should be spent encouraging little/no overhead luggage. Check weights, do away with baggage fees, make it easier to check your baggage. It would benefit more than 4 kids every 10 years.

OR, if airlines were more flush with cash, they should offer free seats for infants and include car seats for kids under some target age for use during the flight. They should be already installed in the child's assigned seat. Some parents will still bring their own seats instead; some will bring a seat to check or gate check because they need them at the other end; that's the utopian version though IMO.

Putting LATCH anchors into the planes would probably be easier and cheaper.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

The problem I have with the money arguement is that people "can't afford" a seat for a 23 month old, but when they fly next time they suddenly can? Flying is a privledge, not a right, and either you afford it or you don't.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn* 
Of course infants are safer in restraints. But when we're talking about an activity that's _overall highly safe_, I just don't see why all the energy gets spent on it.









Well, really, then I should move to the city and take a bus everywhere because it's safer than driving with my kids (statistically). But really, it's not practical in the situation I'm in (and dh's commute would suck!). I think you have to analyze cost vs. benefit looking statistically. For car travel, $200 on a car seat has a HIGH likelihood of saving the child's life at some point while they are using it (over a matter of years). For plane travel the $250 ticket (or more or less) has a very small likelihood of preventing death or injury over a matter of hours. I do not have a problem with people choosing to fly with lap children any more than I do having someone choose to drive with their child in a car rather than take safer public transportation.

And fwiw, I've been on some pretty turbulent flights with a lap baby and I (nor my husband) have ever had a problem holding on to the child. Even when the plane dropped a few feet suddenly (when the seatbelt light was off, fwiw).


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
The problem I have with the money arguement is that people "can't afford" a seat for a 23 month old, but when they fly next time they suddenly can? Flying is a privledge, not a right, and either you afford it or you don't.

I bet a lot of families fly out to visit relatives when their LOs can be in-lap and then drive cross-country when their kids get older.

For other families, having the baby in-lap means the difference between seeing grandma and grandpa twice in X time or 3 times since that's 6 fares either way.

Or by flying with the baby in lap for 3 trips, they can afford to make the 4th trip with their toddler in his/her own seat.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Hm let's see, if I went to visit grandma, I could take a 2 hour flight, or I could take a 4 day drive. So, we fly, and the kids were in car seats every time, before and after their 2nd birthday.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Hm let's see, if I went to visit grandma, I could take a 2 hour flight, or I could take a 4 day drive. So, we fly, and the kids were in car seats every time, before and after their 2nd birthday.

You had your kids in car seats on the plane after their 2nd birthdays?

Now that's something I didn't look into, how many kids in seatbelts on airplanes could've been saved by being in car seats.


----------



## Rico'sAlice (Mar 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
You had your kids in car seats on the plane after their 2nd birthdays?

The recomendation is to use a CRS until 40lbs.


----------



## Keria (Sep 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Now that's something I didn't look into, how many kids in seatbelts on airplanes could've been saved by being in car seats.

Probably close to 0


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
I bet a lot of families fly out to visit relatives when their LOs can be in-lap and then drive cross-country when their kids get older.

For other families, having the baby in-lap means the difference between seeing grandma and grandpa twice in X time or 3 times since that's 6 fares either way.

Or by flying with the baby in lap for 3 trips, they can afford to make the 4th trip with their toddler in his/her own seat.

I've really been enjoying reading this thread.

I'd like to say that the above specifically describes us.

When my older dd was under two, we flew out west to visit. When she was older - we drove. Now that I have a younger dd (we're in a bit better shape financially) we'll fly until she's two and then switch to driving.

We base a lot of our travelling directly on cost. How often can we go, for how much?

It's way too much for us to pay for three or four seats, especially in Canada.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rico'sAlice* 
The recomendation is to use a CRS until 40lbs.

Ah, okay.

In that case I suspect a lot of families just don't travel from 2 years to 40lbs.

Or 35lbs and heavy clothes.

But that's not a money thing, that's an awkwardness of dealing with the carseat thing.


----------



## Keria (Sep 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Ah, okay.

In that case I suspect a lot of families just don't travel from 2 years to 40lbs.

Or 35lbs and heavy clothes.

But that's not a money thing, that's an awkwardness of dealing with the carseat thing.

Its probably the fact that 0 children die each year for not being on a carseat in a plane


----------



## pastrygirl (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **Louise** 
Its probably the fact that 0 children die each year for not being on a carseat in a plane

But this thread is also talking about injuries. Why focus only on death statistics? It's quite possible that some/many injuries could have been prevented if a child had been in a car seat instead of just using the plane's seat belt.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
You had your kids in car seats on the plane after their 2nd birthdays?

Now that's something I didn't look into, how many kids in seatbelts on airplanes could've been saved by being in car seats.


Oh, most definitely here as well. We went across country last March, my son was 4.5, and he traveled in his Marathon. I ditched the seat for one short leg, and regreted it. He couldn't see out the window, and he was uncomfortable without his seat and even told me so. Our next trip he is too big for a car seat, and I am gate checking his car seat, and not happy about it. I do not like how they treat gate checked seats, and had damage to his seat last time we flew. I will miss how easy it was for my son to nap in his own car seat, at 5 he still takes naps!


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Ah, okay.

In that case I suspect a lot of families just don't travel from 2 years to 40lbs.

Or 35lbs and heavy clothes.

But that's not a money thing, that's an awkwardness of dealing with the carseat thing.

honestly, I didn't find it all that difficult. By that time my kid was walking and carrying his own stuff. I had the car seat on an umbrella stroller.

Oh, and when he was a baby, I managed just fine as well. I always traveled alone. It took some effort, but I went into it knowing I just had to do it, and I never considered not taking his seat, it was just a given.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

I do bring the car seat from 2 years until they can sit in the seatbelt (as in they are willing and ok to do so, and they are close to 40lbs/4yos as well). The main reason is that if the child will not stay sitting and buckled then you can get kicked off the flight. My 4yo begged to not have to ride in a car seat on our last trip and since he's big enough and he agreed to stay buckled I was ok with it. And he did fine. We got pillows, and he just leaned over against the side of the plane to sleep no problem. And he loved being able to use the tray table.


----------



## Rico'sAlice (Mar 19, 2006)

To echo what DahliaRW said, part of the problem w/ a young child and the lap belt is expecting them to keep it on. I've always bought DS his own seat, but the last trip we took we weren't planning on needing a carseat at destination (subway & walking only) so we got the CARES harness. While it was much easier to bring along than the car seat, I will probably not use it again until he is a lot more mature. Even though the CARES harness provides shoulder straps, it still relies on the lap belt and it is just way too easy for DS to undo it. Whereas he has no hope of unclipping his car seat harness at this time. The other big advantage to the car seat is that he is used to it and can fall asleep in it. He was too insecure in the full size seat to sleep even with it reclined.

Even traveling alone with DS I haven't found it too difficult to deal with the car seat. I have DS on my back, the car seat on the gogokidz wheelie thing and then I stick the diaper bag in the car seat and strap it in. If I've bumped anyone it the aisles it is because I have an ample posterior, not b/c of the car seat.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
The problem I have with the money arguement is that people "can't afford" a seat for a 23 month old, but when they fly next time they suddenly can? Flying is a privledge, not a right, and either you afford it or you don't.

Actually, for us, we could barely afford it last year, when he was able to be in our laps, and this year we simply aren't going. Which sucks.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
You had your kids in car seats on the plane after their 2nd birthdays?

Now that's something I didn't look into, how many kids in seatbelts on airplanes could've been saved by being in car seats.

Yes, of course. DD1's first flight was at 5 weeks, and she was in her bucket. On her most recent flight, at 3.5, she was in her Nautilus.

I really don't find it that difficult. The kids and I have flown a lot, and DH has only gone once or twice. Two kids + two car seats + airport isn't super fun, but it's manageable.


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

i take car seats on planes until my kids cant fit in them anymore.

like someone said earlier, its not something i consider to be a huge barrier. its just something i do. no, not the most convenient, but not the worst thing in teh world either.

its kind of like extended rear facing. it does take a bit of extra effort but i just deal.


----------



## pastrygirl (Jul 21, 2006)

I just saw a link to this news story from yesterday on another forum. 15 people were injured during severe turbulence, and after an unscheduled landing, a few were taken off the plane on stretchers. Turbulence terrifies me! I'd rather my child be in a car seat while he still fits, no matter what age, regardless of what's legally required or suggested.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:

Lindsay Hamon, who was sitting in business class, said passengers not wearing seatbelts suffered the most.
Yes, being unrestrained during turbulence is dangerous.

However the claim made earlier in this thread that being held in a lap is the same as being unrestrained hasn't been supported.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Yes, being unrestrained during turbulence is dangerous.

However the claim made earlier in this thread that being held in a lap is the same as being unrestrained hasn't been supported.

I disagree completely. The child is not being restrained by a seat belt period.


----------



## pastrygirl (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Yes, being unrestrained during turbulence is dangerous.

However the claim made earlier in this thread that being held in a lap is the same as being unrestrained hasn't been supported.

There is no question that being restrained in a lap by arms is still _quite_ different than being restrained by a 5-point harness that is correctly tightened. I don't see how anyone can argue that. I personally would not choose the lesser level of safety for my child when the alternative is pretty easy to do. That's also why I didn't turn FF at 1/20, and won't switch to a booster until age 6 or 7. I want to choose a higher level of safety, even if it's a little inconvenient.


----------



## kalimay (May 25, 2005)

"There is no question that being restrained in a lap by arms is still quite different than being restrained by a 5-point harness that is correctly tightened. I don't see how anyone can argue that. I personally would not choose the lesser level of safety for my child when the alternative is pretty easy to do. That's also why I didn't turn FF at 1/20, and won't switch to a booster until age 6 or 7. I want to choose a higher level of safety, even if it's a little inconvenient."

What it comes down to for me is statistical risk. It is so unlikely that my lap child will be injured.
I wonder if you drive and how often. Do you ever drive when you do not have to? When you say "I want to choose a higher level of safety, even if it's a little inconvenient," it makes me wonder if you question your child's safety every time you are going to get in the car and then decide on a trip by trip basis if the trip you are taking is worth risking your child's life over. Every time you put your child in the car you are risking their life, even though they are properly installed in their carseat you are still putting them at risk, the same statistical risk they are in flying without their carseat.
So would you chose not to drive somewhere even though it would be a little inconvenient rather then risking a car ride.


----------



## pastrygirl (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kalimay* 
What it comes down to for me is statistical risk. It is so unlikely that my lap child will be injured.
I wonder if you drive and how often. Do you ever drive when you do not have to? When you say "I want to choose a higher level of safety, even if it's a little inconvenient," it makes me wonder if you question your child's safety every time you are going to get in the car and then decide on a trip by trip basis if the trip you are taking is worth risking your child's life over. Every time you put your child in the car you are risking their life, even though they are properly installed in their carseat you are still putting them at risk, the same statistical risk they are in flying without their carseat.
So would you chose not to drive somewhere even though it would be a little inconvenient rather then risking a car ride.

I do drive, a lot. I check my son's car seat every time, the installation, the harness tightness. I'm choosing to have him secured the safest way I know possible, and I don't have to jump through hoops to do it. If it's easy, why not do it?

I was comparing a lap baby to turning forward-facing at 1 year/20 pounds. It might be legal to turn that young, but it's certainly much safer to keep the baby rear-facing. I personally don't feel the need to take that risk, when the alternative is pretty simple and easy.

No, I would not drive with my 1-year-old forward-facing. I would go out and buy a new seat that could rear-face before driving that way. Statistically, I might have a greater chance of getting into a car crash than hitting severe turbulence in a plane, but it's still a risk. No one ever thinks it's going to happen to them. And what if it did happen to me? I know I wouldn't forgive myself if something happened because I felt it was too inconvenient to bring my car seat onto the plane -- that's my personality. I want to make sure I'm doing all I can within reason to keep my child safe. Buying an extra seat and bringing the car seat onto the plane is within reason, in my opinion. Never driving with my son because I'm terrified of having a crash is not within reason, in my opinion.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

If you use a carseat for your under 2 year old, do keep your child in their carseat at all times when you're flying?


----------



## kalimay (May 25, 2005)

"I want to make sure I'm doing all I can within reason to keep my child safe. Buying an extra seat and bringing the car seat onto the plane is within reason, in my opinion. Never driving with my son because I'm terrified of having a crash is not within reason, in my opinion."

I did not suggest "never driving with your son." Would it seem "within reason" to you to skip say 5 unnecessary trips a month that you take in the car?
If the statistical risk is the same driving X distance with your children secured in their carseat as it is flying with them X distance with them on your lap would you consider driving less?


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
If you use a carseat for your under 2 year old, do keep your child in their carseat at all times when you're flying?

Thinking back on flights we have taken, yes on most they remained in their seats. Of course they came out to eat but went right back in. Luckily they both are really good in the car and plane, and slept the vast majority of the flight. We were on one flight from Phx-Bellingham, WA, that was the inaugural flight for the airline. Both kids slept from runway to runway (they were 7 months and 2.5 at the time) and I got free champagne. That was an awesome flight


----------



## Momily (Feb 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
I don't get that argument at all. Parents have to buy a seat when their kid turns two, so they have to deal with the extra expense very soon anyway. So what are people going to do, refuse to buy a seat for a 1 year old and instead drive, but then when the kid turns two buy a seat and fly? Either people are going to drive or fly, I really don't think it will make a huge difference. Planes should implement a reduced fare, like some companies used to , since kids are lighter.

I think lots of people choose to schedule trips when their kids are 1 so they won't have to buy a ticket. Or they fly the first two years so they can avoid the crying baby in the car problem, but when they have to buy an extra ticket it become cost-prohibitive so they drive.

I don't know what being lighter has to do with the fare -- they charge by seat. Maybe on the tiny tiny airline my aunt flies (she lives on a tiny island) where they weigh all the passengers (well they used to, now they use a formula -- thin lady X lbs, fat man Y lbs, bay Z lbs) add it up and then fill up the rest of the weight limit with cargo.


----------



## Momily (Feb 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pastrygirl* 
I do drive, a lot. I check my son's car seat every time, the installation, the harness tightness. I'm choosing to have him secured the safest way I know possible, and I don't have to jump through hoops to do it. If it's easy, why not do it?

I was comparing a lap baby to turning forward-facing at 1 year/20 pounds. It might be legal to turn that young, but it's certainly much safer to keep the baby rear-facing. I personally don't feel the need to take that risk, when the alternative is pretty simple and easy.

No, I would not drive with my 1-year-old forward-facing. I would go out and buy a new seat that could rear-face before driving that way. Statistically, I might have a greater chance of getting into a car crash than hitting severe turbulence in a plane, but it's still a risk. No one ever thinks it's going to happen to them. And what if it did happen to me? I know I wouldn't forgive myself if something happened because I felt it was too inconvenient to bring my car seat onto the plane -- that's my personality. I want to make sure I'm doing all I can within reason to keep my child safe. Buying an extra seat and bringing the car seat onto the plane is within reason, in my opinion. Never driving with my son because I'm terrified of having a crash is not within reason, in my opinion.

OK, let's follow that train of logic. Last year I drove about 17,000 miles. My son was with me pretty much all the time. Now, he's 10 and 100 lbs so he's not rear facing, but let's assume that when he was little I would have driven the same amount. For a couple of hundred bucks, and the minimal extra effort involved in ordering a carseat online I can keep him rearfacing longer for 17,000 miles. I'm figuring that the effort involved in removing an old carseat and installing a new one is pretty similar to the effort involved in removing an old carseat and installing it forward facing.

Now, in the same last year I flew once. A round trip to Disney World, which from my home is about 1,700 miles. In order to put him in a carseat I would have had to pay about the same amount of money as buying a new carseat. I'd also have to lug the carseat through the airport, deal with it at security, deal with it in Orlando, etc . . . For about 1/70th the chance of an accident (I figure this because it's 1/10th as many miles and I read somewhere that planes have about 1/7th as many accidents per mile -- but come to think of it, maybe that was school buses). That doesn't include the question of what percentage of airplane accidents are made survivable by the use of carseats vs. the percentage of car accidents that are made survivable by rear facing carseats.

So, if we're going to make a fair comparison, buying a seat and carrying a carseat on board is not comparable to buying a new carseat to keep your child rearfacing a year. It's comparable to buying a new carseat to keep your child rearfacing for 5 days (look honey it goes to 35 lbs 1/2 oz, and it only costs $250 we should definitely buy it!) -- which is about 1/70th of a year. And, furthermore buying that carseat at a store a mile from your home and carrying in home with your toddler along. Would you honestly say that you would do that and judge any family who chose differently?

Just for the record we flew once when DS was under 2. I paid for a seat and brought his carseat -- partially because I was afraid of what would happen to it in the hold (I think the risks of a carseat being dropped or tossed around and getting invisible cracks that cause it to malfunction in an accident is likely bigger than the risks of not using the carseat, but that might be my own particular paranoia), and partially because my son knew how to behave in the carseat. It was familiar and he's always done well with familiar.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momily* 
I don't know what being lighter has to do with the fare -- they charge by seat. Maybe on the tiny tiny airline my aunt flies (she lives on a tiny island) where they weigh all the passengers (well they used to, now they use a formula -- thin lady X lbs, fat man Y lbs, bay Z lbs) add it up and then fill up the rest of the weight limit with cargo.

Weight has everything to do with fare. Heavier passengers=decreased fuel economy=more$$ for the airline=more expensive fares. Airlines were talking about charging passengers based on weight but you can imagine the outrage that cost.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

For me it still is that I am afforded a seat, with a seat belt, why would I afford my baby anything less? To save money? The amount of money is not much when I consider the possible regret I might inflict on myself if something were to happen to my child and I didn't afford him the same level of protection I had. Yes, the chances of it happening are slight, but it is definitely within the realm of possibility. It isn't that difficult for me to do it.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momily* 
OK, let's follow that train of logic. Last year I drove about 17,000 miles. My son was with me pretty much all the time. Now, he's 10 and 100 lbs so he's not rear facing, but let's assume that when he was little I would have driven the same amount. For a couple of hundred bucks, and the minimal extra effort involved in ordering a carseat online I can keep him rearfacing longer for 17,000 miles. I'm figuring that the effort involved in removing an old carseat and installing a new one is pretty similar to the effort involved in removing an old carseat and installing it forward facing.

Now, in the same last year I flew once. A round trip to Disney World, which from my home is about 1,700 miles. In order to put him in a carseat I would have had to pay about the same amount of money as buying a new carseat. I'd also have to lug the carseat through the airport, deal with it at security, deal with it in Orlando, etc . . . For about 1/70th the chance of an accident (I figure this because it's 1/10th as many miles and I read somewhere that planes have about 1/7th as many accidents per mile -- but come to think of it, maybe that was school buses). That doesn't include the question of what percentage of airplane accidents are made survivable by the use of carseats vs. the percentage of car accidents that are made survivable by rear facing carseats.

So, if we're going to make a fair comparison, buying a seat and carrying a carseat on board is not comparable to buying a new carseat to keep your child rearfacing a year. It's comparable to buying a new carseat to keep your child rearfacing for 5 days (look honey it goes to 35 lbs 1/2 oz, and it only costs $250 we should definitely buy it!) -- which is about 1/70th of a year. And, furthermore buying that carseat at a store a mile from your home and carrying in home with your toddler along. Would you honestly say that you would do that and judge any family who chose differently?

Just for the record we flew once when DS was under 2. I paid for a seat and brought his carseat -- partially because I was afraid of what would happen to it in the hold (I think the risks of a carseat being dropped or tossed around and getting invisible cracks that cause it to malfunction in an accident is likely bigger than the risks of not using the carseat, but that might be my own particular paranoia), and partially because my son knew how to behave in the carseat. It was familiar and he's always done well with familiar.

I think a better comparison is comparing a putting your child in a CR on the plane to using a rfing tether or ARB when rfing in a car. The statistical difference of injury and death of seats with and without is small (if any). The statistical difference between ffing and rfing is already huge.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
I think a better comparison is comparing a putting your child in a CR on the plane to using a rfing tether or ARB when rfing in a car. The statistical difference of injury and death of seats with and without is small (if any). The statistical difference between ffing and rfing is already huge.

Very good point.


----------



## Momily (Feb 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Weight has everything to do with fare. Heavier passengers=decreased fuel economy=more$$ for the airline=more expensive fares. Airlines were talking about charging passengers based on weight but you can imagine the outrage that cost.

OK, I'll conceed that weight plays a roll but everything? I think not -- the fuel to lift you is just one factor in the cost of the flight. You also have to figure in the cost of runway time, terminal space, fllight attendants, airplane maintanence, lifting the plane itself into the air, air traffic control etc . . . If a baby or toddler was given a discount to account for their lower weight, it would still be a relatively small cost in proportion to the adult fare. Compared to flying free it's still not a good deal.


----------



## Smithie (Dec 4, 2003)

"I honestly don't get why folks won't buy seats for their under 2's, when they will have to when they turn 2 anyway..."

Wow, what's it like to be independently wealthy?

I figure the minute I went out and bought my Corolla, I established that there was a limit to the amount of money I would spend and shared resources I would consume to make my kids "as safe as possible" during transportation. Flying is SO not the most dangerous thing they do in order to get us from one place to another. I get that other people make different choices - but it irritates me to be judged for my FLYING choices by anybody who is not driving the biggest, heaviest, best-safety-rated car they could possibly afford. Frankly, it irritates me to be judged for my flying choices by anybody with a lifestyle that involves car transportation at all.

Not to mention, I can baaaaarely get on and off a plane and through a terminal with the kids and our extremely limited luggage. I can't imagine adding a freaking car seat or three to that mix. I certainly wouldn't be able to comply with the rule about keeping it under my direct control at all times!


----------



## kcstar (Mar 20, 2009)

Has anyone considered the third option? Move to where driving is not a week-long adventure/nightmare?

If visiting your family is SO important to you, you can find other options to make it work.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Well, for us my dh's grandmother lives near Pittsburgh, PA. We live near Seattle. If we moved there to be close to her, then all our other family would be here. So there really is not an option if we want our kids to know her before she dies (she's 93). We have to fly or drive. If we moved we'd be doing the opposite trip. Moving her is not an option as she's paid into this retirement place there that is really nice, and if we moved her here, she'd have to go wherever medicaid would pay for and it would be not so nice at all (she's at the point that home care by a family member would be full time and very stressful on the care provider).

So what other options do we have to "make it work"?


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smithie* 
"I honestly don't get why folks won't buy seats for their under 2's, when they will have to when they turn 2 anyway..."

Wow, what's it like to be independently wealthy?

Nope, not at all. We're under the poverty level and still manage to have all the kids in car seats when we fly. And I have flown many times by myself with 2 kids and their carseats. It's doable, if you want to.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

I would hardly call ourselves independently wealthy. Flying is a huge expense for us, we have only done it a handful of times, when visiting family seemed important. We are in the same boat, my grandmother is in her 80's, the rest of my father's family lives near her, but my father doesn't. Which family am I supposed to move closer to? My father? My grandmother? I can hardly move my lesbian headed family to MO or MT.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
I bet a lot of families fly out to visit relatives when their LOs can be in-lap and then drive cross-country when their kids get older.


I don't really fly much anymore, it is prohibitively expensive for me now. I flew more when I had an infant, although I always bought her her own seat. In large part it was because I needed the room, though. I can't imagine being tucked into a middle seat and having to hold a baby or contain a toddler. I saw other people doing it, and I did hold my baby in my lap for awhile to nurse her, but at that point I could use the carseat to hold other stuff, like a diaper bag.

I really hate flying, but I do it to see family since they live so far from me. Usually a 5+ hour flight plus a car ride at the end. If I had to hold my baby the whole way, that would be more likely to keep me home than the other way around. OK, this is pointless, but I was just trying to agree that people probably do switch to driving at some point, when they have several children or the children are all older. Not just the cost, but flying just gets to be kind of a pain after awhile, it's easier with an infant, and I wanted to visit more when my babies were young so my family could meet them. So I can see why the ability to take a lap baby would be important, even though it wasn't my issue.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kcstar* 
Has anyone considered the third option? Move to where driving is not a week-long adventure/nightmare?

If visiting your family is SO important to you, you can find other options to make it work.

I would LOVE to know what other options there are. My family lives in Upstate NY. My DP's family lives in Seattle, WA. We recently moved from Chicago to Central NY so that we didn't have to fly to see BOTH families, but now we are about 3000 miles from DP's family. If you can figure out how to get us within single-day driving distance of both families I would do it in a heartbeat. Oh and because of DP's job we are somewhat restricted in what towns we can move to.


----------



## Smithie (Dec 4, 2003)

"Has anyone considered the third option? Move to where driving is not a week-long adventure/nightmare?"

Forgetting everything else that's wrong with that suggestion, wouldn't it be MORE dangerous for me to drive a few hours to see my parents than it is to fly for the same time?

We did move close to the ILs, and while this has not increased our safety at all IMO it has certainly reduced our travel costs! Which is great, because now I am buying three seats as opposed to the 1 I was buying when I first had ds and started making these pilgramages to see grandma.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but it caught my eye b/c I recently read this book when an excerpt in a magazine intrigued me. I rarely fly these days., I don't know if I'd take a carseat with a toddler, but I sure did get him his own seat when we flew. It's easy to think it doesn't matter, b/c you think everyone dies in plane crashes anyway, right? I flew regularly for years, growing up and in college, and never experienced bad turbulence. This book was fascinating to me b/c it shed light on how, statistically, most people DO survive plane crashes simply b/c so many happen at take off and landing. There's the big impact, and then the need to get out very, very fast. So being properly restrained is important. It's not likely, statistically, that on ONE trip to the grocery store we'll get hit by a car, but I still buckle 'em in tight each and every time. So why not for the plane, even if it's statistically less likely?

Not sure i could read this book though. That paragraph about the baby was horrible. It should haunt the stupid stewardess.


----------



## kcstar (Mar 20, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheGirls* 
I would LOVE to know what other options there are. My family lives in Upstate NY. My DP's family lives in Seattle, WA. We recently moved from Chicago to Central NY so that we didn't have to fly to see BOTH families, but now we are about 3000 miles from DP's family. If you can figure out how to get us within single-day driving distance of both families I would do it in a heartbeat. Oh and because of DP's job we are somewhat restricted in what towns we can move to.

Obviously it won't work for everyone. Driving a few hours is not safer than flying a few hours, but I think it's safer than driving a few days (especially with the driving-fatigue risks).

DH and my families are in the same state. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick my in-laws hands-down.

My job also limits the places we can live, but we managed to get one closer to them all.

ETA: Other options? A private Facebook profile / web page where you and family members can post pictures / video / notes. Skype / telephone / video calls. Cards in the snail mail.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheGirls* 
I would LOVE to know what other options there are. My family lives in Upstate NY. My DP's family lives in Seattle, WA. We recently moved from Chicago to Central NY so that we didn't have to fly to see BOTH families, but now we are about 3000 miles from DP's family. If you can figure out how to get us within single-day driving distance of both families I would do it in a heartbeat. Oh and because of DP's job we are somewhat restricted in what towns we can move to.

DP flies out, you take 3 days and go by train? Assuming the limiting time factor is your dp's vacation time.

Babies + trains =







: At least at the ages where the lapbaby debate is relevant.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
DP flies out, you take 3 days and go by train? Assuming the limiting time factor is your dp's vacation time.

Babies + trains =







: At least at the ages where the lapbaby debate is relevant.

I've looked into this, and it's ridiculously expensive, involves several transfers, and is scheduled for 4 days because of the 8 hour layovers.

I think last time I priced it at nearly $2000 round trip (not including food) to get a roomette. And that assumes the trains are actually on time. Last time I took the train from Buffalo, NY to Chicago, IL (an 8hr ride) it was nearly 8 hours late because of freight train traffic. I went coach that time because the roomette's are crazy expensive, but I can't do that with the babe (I need a bed if I'm going to get any sleep with her, and I am not going 4-6 days with no sleep).

Anyhow, I do wish we had some sort of decent train system in this country, but unfortunately it's not really a viable option. Especially if we need to get somewhere at something vaguely resembling ontime. I'd be worried that DP would be heading home before we arrived with that plan!


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

I agree. We actually wanted to take the train for fun when ds1 was little, and it was rediculously expensive, even in coach. Almost double flying. And took 5 days! We don't have that kind of time.


----------



## Devaskyla (Oct 5, 2003)

Quote:

There's the big impact, and then the need to get out very, very fast.
Which, imo, makes using a car seat in a plane as dangerous or even more dangerous than holding your baby. Car seats take more time to unbuckle than seatbelts in a situation in which every single second counts.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

True. THough I suppose with turbulence it is more important, and turbulence is probably more likely. I would certainly use one with an infant, though I don't think I knew of that importance when my babies were young (nor did I fly with them.) I personally wouldn't use a carseat for a toddler out of an infant seat, but I do think buying their own seat is important. That being said, I don't fly much anymore, and I don't have to to see family.

I remember my mom rejoicing that my toddler was still young enough to sit in my lap and I thought no way, he was so big already. But he was so miserable in his own seat I wound up buckling him in my lap, with my seatbelt, at landing. No one said anything- probably b/c he went from thrashing in his belt to sound asleep under mine.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

So this whole topic just got a lot more personal. I'm going to have two chances in 16 weeks to see dh.
My choices, since I can't take the train, according to Amtrak, which I suspect is full of it, are to fly or drive 10 hours (and then 10 back, and "10 hours" doesn't include stopping) with Lina alone.

Or fly.

We can afford $210/trip, but not $420/trip. And the trips would be spread out enough that we'd be getting a new paycheck in between. In a year, we'd have the money for getting Lina her own seat.

So, people who think the only possible option if I want to fly is buying my baby her own seat, will she be safer in her carseat for 20+ hours of driving? Or should I suck it up and not see dh for 4 months including our anniversary?

ETA:







: Roundtrip on the train to a city 2 hours away is only $124. And only takes 14 hours which is waay less time than it'd be driving with Lina.

Hah! I knew Amtrak was full of it.


----------



## Keria (Sep 27, 2008)

She will be 100 times safer flying unrestrained than restrained in a car. Go visit hubby


----------



## Eclipsepearl (May 20, 2007)

_But he was so miserable in his own seat I wound up buckling him in my lap, with my seatbelt, at landing. No one said anything- probably b/c he went from thrashing in his belt to sound asleep under mine._

Just so all of you know, not only is this against FAA regulations but this poster was putting her child in danger by buckling him into her seatbelt. In forward impact, she would have crushed her own child against the belt. If you opt to fly with a lap child, be sure the baby is _loose_ in your lap and not attached to you in any form (including a baby carrier).

Those double seat belts you see on foreign companies are banned in the U.S. since they're dangerous. Already Germany has banned them and expect other countries to do the same. This has been debated in the European Parliament.

During my 13 years as a Flight Attendant, I was amazed how many times parents didn't put their children in car seats for landing because they "didn't like it". I was shocked that they lugged this thing all the way and installed it...then didn't use it?!? I used to say to them "It's okay. We're landing. Everyone's awake..." because as far as I was concerned, better a crying baby safe in his seat than an unrestrained child, even quiet, in the cabin.

_Which, imo, makes using a car seat in a plane as dangerous or even more dangerous than holding your baby. Car seats take more time to unbuckle than seatbelts in a situation in which every single second counts._

The argument that the car seat would take longer to unstrap after an accident isn't logical. The whole point is surviving the impact. Getting out of the seat is just a detail and wouldn't take any longer. The fact is that the adult lap belt probably wouldn't hold the child.

That used to be why many people in cars wouldn't wear seatbelts. "In a fire, I would waste time unbuckling the seat belt!"


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eclipsepearl* 
The argument that the car seat would take longer to unstrap after an accident isn't logical. The whole point is surviving the impact. Getting out of the seat is just a detail and wouldn't take any longer. The fact is that the adult lap belt probably wouldn't hold the child.

That used to be why many people in cars wouldn't wear seatbelts. "In a fire, I would waste time unbuckling the seat belt!"

Amen. If we had to get out quickly in an emergency, at least I would know where they were instead of trying to find them after they got flung out of their seat/my arms.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Well then the flight attendants didn't do their jobs, because most parents are not all well versed in FAA regulations, nor should they need to be before boarding. I was attempting to buckle a thrashing child into his seat (not carseat, just seat) that I _did_ buy for him, and it was proving to be physically impossible, so I did the best I could. I wasn't suggesting "buckle your child in your belt" as a solution. I had a seat, and wound up doing it in mild desperation. I'd probably do it again and then transfer him.

I'm not sure how keeping them loose is safer though. It's obvious from the video posted in the older thread the parent dummy was not able to hold the child on impact any more than the child was able to remain safe within the belt (albeit whatever special child belt that is).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eclipsepearl* 
_But he was so miserable in his own seat I wound up buckling him in my lap, with my seatbelt, at landing. No one said anything- probably b/c he went from thrashing in his belt to sound asleep under mine._

Just so all of you know, not only is this against FAA regulations but this poster was putting her child in danger by buckling him into her seatbelt. In forward impact, she would have crushed her own child against the belt. If you opt to fly with a lap child, be sure the baby is _loose_ in your lap and not attached to you in any form (including a baby carrier).

Those double seat belts you see on foreign companies are banned in the U.S. since they're dangerous. Already Germany has banned them and expect other countries to do the same. This has been debated in the European Parliament.

During my 13 years as a Flight Attendant, I was amazed how many times parents didn't put their children in car seats for landing because they "didn't like it". I was shocked that they lugged this thing all the way and installed it...then didn't use it?!? I used to say to them "It's okay. We're landing. Everyone's awake..." because as far as I was concerned, better a crying baby safe in his seat than an unrestrained child, even quiet, in the cabin.

_Which, imo, makes using a car seat in a plane as dangerous or even more dangerous than holding your baby. Car seats take more time to unbuckle than seatbelts in a situation in which every single second counts._

The argument that the car seat would take longer to unstrap after an accident isn't logical. The whole point is surviving the impact. Getting out of the seat is just a detail and wouldn't take any longer. The fact is that the adult lap belt probably wouldn't hold the child.

That used to be why many people in cars wouldn't wear seatbelts. "In a fire, I would waste time unbuckling the seat belt!"

I think it's b/c people don't clearly understand the risks. I read one chapter in a book and was then shocked that so many people in that thread said, "well in an accident, you're dead anyway, it doesn't matter." But I had thought that too. I had never experienced turbulence either. It's possible the parents taking their kids out simply have no idea that they _couldn't_ hold on in a rough landing, or that the seatbelt _would_ be dangerous in really bad turbulence, and that many "crashes" _are_ survivable if you survive the impact and can get out on time. And it's the airline's job to explain why.


----------



## marrymeflyfree (Jan 5, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
I'm not sure how keeping them loose is safer though. It's obvious from the video posted in the older thread the parent dummy was not able to hold the child on impact any more than the child was able to remain safe within the belt (albeit whatever special child belt that is).

Lap children should *never* be inside the belt with the parent. In a hard impact, or even in a normal but hard landing, all of your weight (magnified by the force of the forward momentum) will squish your babe between you and the seat belt. It's very dangerous. An unrestrained lap child in a crash scenario may not fare any better, but at least then you should be able to hold onto him safely in a normal landing.

We all do the best we can...and sometimes it's tough getting them back in their seat for landing - believe me, I know from experience! But not using it when you have it available is akin to keeping your babe on your lap in the car when they're protesting the car seat.

One day perhaps the FAA will get off its bum and put into regulation that which they have been recommending for years. The FAA, historically, does not implement new safety measures proactively. They wait until there are 'enough' deaths or serious injuries to warrant the change, and of course we can all assume that the airlines lobby heavily to keep things as is. After the Sioux City crash that was mentioned in the OP, they changed the guidelines about putting babies on the floor in a planned emergency landing. Why they didn't go the full monty then is beyond me.


----------

