# FF vs. RF in airplane?



## liliaceae (May 31, 2007)

When we last took my son on a plane, he was 18 months and we still had him RF. When we started to install the seat RF on the plane, the flight attendant said we need to do it FF because in a crash, the seat backs are all designed to fold forward (or something like that). Is this true? Should toddlers be FF in planes? What about infants?


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I think it would be hard to fit most convertibles in most airplane seats rear-facing. Infant seats, I would guess need to be rear-facing.

I probably shouldn't even be answering b/c we do lap babies when they are under 2 and no carseats after that.


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

Forward facing. You can't expect the seat in front of you to accomodate your rear facing seat, plus if someone needs to get by it would block the other seats. Honestly in a plane I don't think either one is safer than the other, even for little babies.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
Forward facing. You can't expect the seat in front of you to accomodate your rear facing seat, plus if someone needs to get by it would block the other seats. Honestly in a plane I don't think either one is safer than the other, even for little babies.

This is EXTREMELY incorrect.

A. The passenger in front of a child restraint is required to accommodate a rear facing child restraint if that is the way to child needs to go.
B. Child restraints must be window seat (or next to another child restraint). There cannot be a child restraint between an adult passenger and the exit row
C. Yes, rear facing is safer for little babies. The FAA requires airlines to allow parents to install the seat rear or forward facing, as long as the seat is used according to manufacturer's directions.

That being said, it's not as crucial for a child over 12 months of age and 20 pounds to be in a rear facing restraint in the air as it is in a car.

A child under 12 months and 20 lbs MUST be in a rear facing child restraint.

OP, if you had wanted to push the issue, you could have asked her to show you in the manual where it said that. She would have looked and found that she was clearly wrong.


----------



## maybemom05 (Mar 15, 2004)

FWIW, I had a flight attendant tell me to install the seat the same way we install it in our car - so in our case it was rear-facing. She did say it had to be in the window seat though, if we were going to use it.


----------



## amandaleigh37 (Jul 13, 2006)

I had the same thing happen to me. My son was a year old, and she INSISTED we install it FF. I didn't argue though, because they were giving us a seat that we didn't pay for (he was supposed to be on my lap) and I was afraid if I ticked her off she wouldn't let us use the seat at all.


----------



## Baby_Cakes (Jan 14, 2008)

I thought it didn't matter? When we flew w/our 6 mo, we did install it RF only b/c I wanted her to be able to see me and me see her easily. Also, much easier to get her in and out of the seat. It made take off and landing much easier on her too - she slept through both.


----------



## justKate (Jun 10, 2008)

My understanding is that RF is safest in airplanes as well as cars, for all humans. Some military planes, C-130's for example (which are "transport" planes, not fighter jets), have seats facing the rear for their (adult human) passengers. Military members are taught to duck and cover their necks with their hands if impact is imminent.

When I tried to install our seat properly it wouldn't fit RF, so it was FF. IMO if there's a loss of pressure or altitude, or a rough landing, this is certainly better than nothing.

FWIW.


----------



## Erica09M (Jul 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
This is EXTREMELY incorrect.

A. The passenger in front of a child restraint is required to accommodate a rear facing child restraint if that is the way to child needs to go.
B. Child restraints must be window seat (or next to another child restraint). There cannot be a child restraint between an adult passenger and the exit row
C. Yes, rear facing is safer for little babies. The FAA is required to allow parents to install the seat rear or forward facing, as long as the seat is used according to manufacturer's directions.

That being said, it's not as crucial for a child over 12 months of age and 20 pounds to be in a rear facing restraint in the air as it is in a plane.

A child under 12 months and 20 lbs MUST be in a rear facing child restraint.

OP, if you had wanted to push the issue, you could have asked her to show you in the manual where it said that. She would have looked and found that she was clearly wrong.


Ditto









For my family, 2 and under will be rear facing on the plane.


----------



## elus0814 (Sep 21, 2009)

I've put bucket carrier type seats in RF but have always FF with a convertible. I would think that most convertibles would be difficult if not impossible to install RF unless you are in first class. Honestly, I would be rather annoyed if someone behind me put a huge car seat in RF for a child that is old enough/heavy enough to go FF and I had to sit church pew straight for the entire flight.

As far as military aircraft go, C-130's are not for transport of troops, they are for cargo (C=cargo). They do, however, carry troops that will be jumping out with parachutes. Because it is the back of the plane opening up when they jump they may have seats that rear face but generally people in cargo planes sit on nets along the sides with basic seat belts.

Any way you slice it having your child in a seat on a plane rather than flying as a lap baby you are making the flight much safer for them. An 18 month old is old enough to hold their head up during take off and landing, even through a rough landing.


----------



## triscuitsmom (Jan 11, 2007)

Just fwiw because I've seen more than one person mention the install of seats on planes and in case anyone who is considering taking their convertible carseat on a plane is reading... I just got back from a flight on two seperate airplanes (one that had seven people across, 2 then aisle then 3 then aisle then 2; and one that had 4 across 2 then aisle then 2) and both planes I installed my sons True Fit (which is a tall seat for a convertible) with the headrest on rearfacing (he's under 1, I wasn't putting him ffing no matter how much he weighs) and both flights it was easy to install (much less time then in some vehicles I have put it in) and he slept







Both times I rode in the cheapest class.

It is true that the seat couldn't recline all the way back, but the safety of all passengers has to come before comfort... also from the perspective of not only a parent but a fellow passenger on the plane, I'd way rather have a sleeping quiet baby in a carseat then an awake screaming baby. Being able to put your seat back but not getting any sleep because the kid is screaming isnt' really ideal either.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

With the exception of the Radian, which would really need a bulkhead to rear face, every convertible should be installable in the rear facing position in any airline seat.


----------



## Aries1985 (Feb 29, 2008)

I have flown with my under 20 lbs, over 12 months dd in a FF seat on an airplane. Why? Because her TFP would NOT fit without being so upright her head (she was asleep at the time) was in her chest. The anti-rebound bar really restricts the angle of install and in coach, I just couldn't get it to work. As it was, the seat was REALLY wedged in there and I had to work hard to get it out. She is RF in the car, always!

The last time I flew I brought my Scenera and was able to use it RF when we had the "economy plus" seating. I don't think I tried it RF when we didn't have the extra legroom because that was on a very small plane.

Frankly, I could care less about the comfort of the passenger in front of me. My "job" on the plane is to try and keep my kid happy and safe. If her safety infringed on another's comfort, well then, too bad.


----------



## Erica09M (Jul 28, 2008)

Another reason I want my young children rear facing is because I'd much rather then be kicking the their own seat while rear facing, than kicking the seat of the passenger infront of them!!


----------



## elus0814 (Sep 21, 2009)

Read this:
http://otoh.org/opal/carseat.html

It states:
The CAA believes that the best available way to restrain a baby on an airplane is a forward-facing aviation-approved child restraint, and that rear-facing seats, when secured with an aviation lap belt, do not provide as much protection, and they have crash-test data to support this belief.

So not only would it be selfish to wedge a rear facing car seat in but it's not as safe!


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Your quote is rather out of context, don't you think? The link was interesting (an editorial piece, not a scientific one), that sentence in the context of the larger piece seems to be essentially disproved.


----------



## triscuitsmom (Jan 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elus0814* 
Read this:
http://otoh.org/opal/carseat.html

It states:
The CAA believes that the best available way to restrain a baby on an airplane is a forward-facing aviation-approved child restraint, and that rear-facing seats, when secured with an aviation lap belt, do not provide as much protection, and they have crash-test data to support this belief.

So not only would it be selfish to wedge a rear facing car seat in but it's not as safe!

So the US FAA says install according to manufacturers directions and rear face if that's what you need to do even if the flight attendents tell you you can't.

The UK CAA gave that quotation above, but there aren't studies online to actually compare data AND they say no carseats for under six months even though that goes against safety best practice in both countries.

I'm sorry I'm not understanding how one statement (in an article, not even an official site) that doesn't seem to have a lot backing it up vs the guidelines in both the US and Canada (and possibly other countries, US and Canada being the only two I've taken the time to read through) would be the be all and end all when it comes to being safe or unsafe.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Furthermore, all FMVSS seats are required to pass rear facing seats with a lap belt exactly like that on an airplane, so to suggest that it wouldn't be safe doesn't even make any kind of sense.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

There is no "crash test data" to prove that RF is not safe, in ANY circumstance. Sorry









The FAA encourages parents to RF children under 20 pounds or according to manufacturer's instructions.


----------



## Sk8ermaiden (Feb 13, 2008)

I am really curious, and I know you guys will have an easy answer for me.

I thought RFing was so much better because of the way it cradles the head/neck/spine in a collision from the rear. I *thought* I had read that if most serious crashes were frontal, that FF would be better. So, since a plane is extrememly unlikely to face a rear impact, why is RF still better?

Oh, and looking at my Myride, I don't think it would fit in a seat, but I have no proof of that.


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

is there really a chance to "cocoon" in a plane crash?

I feel like we are trying to decide what is "safest" in a situation that could never be tested!

I understand having a carseat for turbulence. But does RF matter in turbulence? You're getting shaken all over the place!

I would FF in a plane.


----------



## buckeye_bebe (May 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sk8ermaiden* 
So, since a plane is extremely unlikely to face a rear impact, why is RF still better?


Distribution of incident forces to the seat/support. RF provides restraint and support to the entire body assuming the aircraft is not rear ended by a larger craft travelling faster. Unlikely that any crash force acting upon the aircraft has a larger potential energy than the craft in motion, assuming the craft is a large, multi-engine jet. That is my assumption as a small singleprop aircraft owner only though.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sk8ermaiden* 
I am really curious, and I know you guys will have an easy answer for me.

I thought RFing was so much better because of the way it cradles the head/neck/spine in a collision from the rear. I *thought* I had read that if most serious crashes were frontal, that FF would be better. So, since a plane is extrememly unlikely to face a rear impact, why is RF still better?

Oh, and looking at my Myride, I don't think it would fit in a seat, but I have no proof of that.

I think you might have been confused by what you read, because that's not true at all.

In a collision, the body moves toward the point of impact. In a frontal/side collision, a rear facing child is cradled by the shell of the seat. Not a rear facing crash.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sk8ermaiden* 
I am really curious, and I know you guys will have an easy answer for me.

I thought RFing was so much better because of the way it cradles the head/neck/spine in a collision from the rear. I *thought* I had read that if most serious crashes were frontal, that FF would be better. So, since a plane is extrememly unlikely to face a rear impact, why is RF still better?

*Oh, and looking at my Myride, I don't think it would fit in a seat, but I have no proof of that*.

Yes, it will.


----------



## triscuitsmom (Jan 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sk8ermaiden* 
I am really curious, and I know you guys will have an easy answer for me.

I thought RFing was so much better because of the way it cradles the head/neck/spine in a collision from the rear. I *thought* I had read that if most serious crashes were frontal, that FF would be better. So, since a plane is extrememly unlikely to face a rear impact, why is RF still better?

Oh, and looking at my Myride, I don't think it would fit in a seat, but I have no proof of that.

It's the opposite actually... you move towards the point of impact so in a frontal crash rearfacing seats protect the whole body since it moves all together towards the front. In a side impact crash you are also significantly safer rearfacing than forward facing. Rear crashes could be less safe (I can't remember if it's less safe or just the same) but since they are the least common and also the least deadly overall you protect against the ones that are most common and most deadly.

As for the MR65, I havn't tried it, but like I said my TF was no problem so I can't imagine the MR wouldn't go as well.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket* 
is there really a chance to "cocoon" in a plane crash?

I feel like we are trying to decide what is "safest" in a situation that could never be tested!

I understand having a carseat for turbulence. But does RF matter in turbulence? You're getting shaken all over the place!

I would FF in a plane.

Turbulence is only part of the problem. Take off and landing are also times when major issues can arise. I would MUCH rather have my child as protected as possible (which is rearfacing not forward facing) if we were to impact something.


----------



## Sk8ermaiden (Feb 13, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *triscuitsmom* 
It's the opposite actually... you move towards the point of impact so in a frontal crash rearfacing seats protect the whole body since it moves all together towards the front. In a side impact crash you are also significantly safer rearfacing than forward facing. Rear crashes could be less safe (I can't remember if it's less safe or just the same) but since they are the least common and also the least deadly overall you protect against the ones that are most common and most deadly.

As for the MR65, I havn't tried it, but like I said my TF was no problem so I can't imagine the MR wouldn't go as well.

It's so wide! I'll take y'alls word for it though.









I guess I did read that backward. Actually, I should have remembered from watching all the crash tests - duh! For some reason got it in my head that rear collisions were the most deadly.


----------



## liliaceae (May 31, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sk8ermaiden* 
I am really curious, and I know you guys will have an easy answer for me.

I thought RFing was so much better because of the way it cradles the head/neck/spine in a collision from the rear. I *thought* I had read that if most serious crashes were frontal, that FF would be better. So, since a plane is extrememly unlikely to face a rear impact, why is RF still better?

Oh, and looking at my Myride, I don't think it would fit in a seat, but I have no proof of that.

No, RF is better in frontal crashes. If you hit something in front of you, your car is stopped suddenly, but everything inside it keeps moving forward, including the passengers. When RF, the carseat stops the forward motion of the child. I believe the reason RF is better is because most crashes are frontal, or at least most serious crashes are.

ETA: Oops this was already addressed, I'm so tired I didn't realize there was a second page.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
This is EXTREMELY incorrect.

A. *The passenger in front of a child restraint is required to accommodate a rear facing child restraint if that is the way to child needs to go.*
B. Child restraints must be window seat (or next to another child restraint). There cannot be a child restraint between an adult passenger and the exit row
C. Yes, rear facing is safer for little babies. The FAA requires airlines to allow parents to install the seat rear or forward facing, as long as the seat is used according to manufacturer's directions.

That being said, it's not as crucial for a child over 12 months of age and 20 pounds to be in a rear facing restraint in the air as it is in a car.

A child under 12 months and 20 lbs MUST be in a rear facing child restraint.

OP, if you had wanted to push the issue, you could have asked her to show you in the manual where it said that. She would have looked and found that she was clearly wrong.

do you have a link to that law?


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
do you have a link to that law?

It's not a law, it's an FAA requirement that airlines must allow parents to install the seat whichever they want (as long as it meets manufacturers directions and the child is an appropriate size for the direction of the seat).

(In other words, the airline must prohibit mom and dad from putting a 16 pound 8 month old in a forward facing restraint and likewise could not allow mom and dad to put a 50 pound 4 year old in a rear facing restraint, assuming of course we're talking American CRSs and American-based planes).

I don't currently have the link to the text but it's widely requested and often linked-to on car-seat.org. If your interest in the text is sincere, you could do a search there, or register and ask and someone will probably post it quickly.

The link to the relevant forum for airplane issues is http://www.car-seat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36


----------



## justKate (Jun 10, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elus0814* 
As far as military aircraft go, C-130's are not for transport of troops, they are for cargo (C=cargo). They do, however, carry troops that will be jumping out with parachutes. Because it is the back of the plane opening up when they jump they may have seats that rear face but generally people in cargo planes sit on nets along the sides with basic seat belts.

Mmm. That makes sense!

As far as the comfort of other passengers, this is something I feel bad about every time I take DD on a plane. Huz tells me that sometimes 100+ people on a plane have to suffer (listening to DD squawk) for 2 hours so that two parents don't have to suffer for 3 days in a car. I guess that makes sense.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
It's not a law, it's an FAA requirement that airlines must allow parents to install the seat whichever they want (as long as it meets manufacturers directions and the child is an appropriate size for the direction of the seat).

(In other words, the airline must prohibit mom and dad from putting a 16 pound 8 month old in a forward facing restraint and likewise could not allow mom and dad to put a 50 pound 4 year old in a rear facing restraint, assuming of course we're talking American CRSs and American-based planes).

I don't currently have the link to the text but it's widely requested and often linked-to on car-seat.org. If your interest in the text is sincere, you could do a search there, or register and ask and someone will probably post it quickly.

The link to the relevant forum for airplane issues is http://www.car-seat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36

I just googled "FAA car seat" and nothing came up. I am not going to register at carseat org. I just don't think people should say things are "required" without backing them up in writing. I could say, hospitals are required to keep babies within 10 feet of mom at all times, but without "proof" it really doesn't mean much...


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/60d70126cf679d5a8625723b007841e7/$FILE/AC%20120-87A.pdf

"This includes placing the CR in the appropriate forward- or aft-facing direction as indicated on the label for the size of the child." If the child should be rear-facing, the seat can be rear-facing.

Yes, it might be inconvenient for the other passenger. I suppose a courteous thing for a family to do would be to arrange seats so one parent sits behind the rear-facing seat. But courtesy is not regulated, for better or worse.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
I just googled "FAA car seat" and nothing came up. I am not going to register at carseat org. I just don't think people should say things are "required" without backing them up in writing. I could say, hospitals are required to keep babies within 10 feet of mom at all times, but without "proof" it really doesn't mean much...


I would not say something if it were not verifiable fact. I respond to questions on this forum in order to help people. I am not required to do your foot work for you. I gave you a resource to help you. If you're not willing to pursue that resource, it is not my fault.


----------



## liliaceae (May 31, 2007)

Well we flew with our 8 month old a couple days ago and DH couldn't fit the Roundabout in RF, so he had to put it FF. Did he just not do it right?


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liliaceae* 
Well we flew with our 8 month old a couple days ago and DH couldn't fit the Roundabout in RF, so he had to put it FF. Did he just not do it right?

That seat should fit without difficulty rear facing in an airline seat, even in the smallest seats available. I'm really not sure how he got hung up


----------



## liliaceae (May 31, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
That seat should fit without difficulty rear facing in an airline seat, even in the smallest seats available. I'm really not sure how he got hung up









I don't know, it was as upright as he could get it, but it was still pushing the seat in front of it forward. Hopefully he'll be able to get it in on the flight back.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liliaceae* 
I don't know, it was as upright as he could get it, but it was still pushing the seat in front of it forward. Hopefully he'll be able to get it in on the flight back.

Tell him to push DOWN on the area of the seat where baby's feet goes, as he tightens the seatbelt. That'll force it more upright.


----------

