Mandatory child seats on airliners?

[riggerrob 643]

Canada's Transportation Safety Board announced that holding children in your arms does not protect them during airliner crashes. TSB spokes-person Kathy Fox said that G-forces generated during crashes far exceed parents' arm strength.
If this becomes policy, who will pay for the extra airline seat?

The skydiving connection is that Kathy Fox was President of CSPA (circa 1980) before she went on to a career as an air traffic controller, initially with Transport Canada and later with Nav Canada before transferring to her current position with the TSB.

[Rick 67]

I was wondering about this on a flight from Detroit to Orlando Monday. We are all belted in with trays and seat backs in the upright position with the couple next to meet holding their baby in their laps.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[RMK 3]

Airlines have had child/infant seatbelt extensions for decades (but apparently not on North American carriers, as I just Googled and found out).

Aside from the airline supplied belts, there is also:

www.babybair.com

We used one of these for both commercial flights and flights in our helicopter until my sons were 2yrs old (EASA & CAA compliant). Always had to give some extra info to the Tower after saying "5 POB" when I was making the radio call from a 4-seat helicopter.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[PhreeZone 20]

For my toddler she rode lap seating for her first few flights but once I had to start paying for a seat for her I started bringing the car seat on the plane and strapping her into that. I fly a lot for business and rarely see anyone else doing that but its perfectly valid to do on all US carriers. With our newborn he's been flying lap but my wife is a big fan of baby wearing and most airlines here freak out at having children strapped to parents and will not allow it for lap children.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[oldwomanc6 60]

PhreeZone

For my toddler she rode lap seating for her first few flights but once I had to start paying for a seat for her I started bringing the car seat on the plane and strapping her into that. I fly a lot for business and rarely see anyone else doing that but its perfectly valid to do on all US carriers. With our newborn he's been flying lap but my wife is a big fan of baby wearing and most airlines here freak out at having children strapped to parents and will not allow it for lap children.

I've done it both ways.

I had a front-infant carrier and used it for both take-off and landing when my kids were infants, but once they hit a year or so, they needed their own seat, and I used a car-seat.

I don't know, if in the case of a crash, if it would have really protected them, but they sure as heck weren't getting ripped out of my arms (to splat against the bulkhead or be thrown free), at any rate.

It's not like there were a whole lot of options at that point.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[riggerrob 643]

Rear-facing car seats are the best option for protecting infants during plane crashes. Car seats are manly designed to absorb the forward impacts of car crashes, but the only survivable airplane forced landings are wings-level, shallow descent angle, near the stalling speed ... pretty much the same vectors as sliding off the runway.

[billvon 3,067]

>If this becomes policy, who will pay for the extra airline seat?

The parents, of course. It is not unreasonable to have a "you have to pay for the seat you use" policy.

For infants car seats work fine and can usually be attached with the existing seat belt. For ages 2 and up, several companies sell shoulder harnesses that wrap around the seat and provide pretty good protection.

[oldwomanc6 60]

billvon

>If this becomes policy, who will pay for the extra airline seat?

The parents, of course. It is not unreasonable to have a "you have to pay for the seat you use" policy.

For infants car seats work fine and can usually be attached with the existing seat belt. For ages 2 and up, several companies sell shoulder harnesses that wrap around the seat and provide pretty good protection.

Or for fat people.

If you or your child take more than one seat's worth of space, then you should pay for it.

I say this as someone who had to pay 22,000 yen for lap fair (silly concept, if you ask me), for my 3 week old daughter when I flew home from Japan.

I was super thin and my daughter never left my lap

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[riggerrob 643]

Good for you even if "lap fees" sound like a tip-off to me.

What about the opposite scenario, when the person is "wider than the seat" and overflows onto the person beside them?
For example, the last time I flew from Calgary to Vancouver, the woman sitting beside me (considerably) out-weighed me and jammed me against the window for the entire 2 hour flight.
Hint: I weigh less than 200 pounds.

[oldwomanc6 60]

riggerrob

Good for you even if "lap fees" sound like a tip-off to me.

What about the opposite scenario, when the person is "wider than the seat" and overflows onto the person beside them?
For example, the last time I flew from Calgary to Vancouver, the woman sitting beside me (considerably) out-weighed me and jammed me against the window for the entire 2 hour flight.
Hint: I weigh less than 200 pounds.

Completely agreeing with you. See my second sentence.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[riggerrob 643]

If you firmly strap a child to your chest, you solve one problem but create another.
First, you prevent the child from flying around the cabin, smashing against walls and injuring others.
I have been on the bottom of a dog-pile during a plane crash. Five guys landed on my left knee and tore it up in a most painful fashion. A mere 8 years later, my knee surgeon approved me to return to work.

Secondly, strapping the child to your chest increases the risk of you crushing the child as your torso jack-knifes forward. Shoulder belts would vastly reduce the risk of jack-knifing, but are rarely installed in airliners.
Why?

[Andy9o8 2]

riggerrob

Shoulder belts would vastly reduce the risk of jack-knifing, but are rarely installed in airliners.
Why?

Because that would not maximize shareholder value.

[jackwallace 3]

Friend of mine was a stewardess (she was not a flight attendant, she didn't clean bathroom). She told the people they had to put the child seat in the over head compartment. When she did the pre takeoff seat belt check, no kid on their laps. Where's the kid? In the over head compartment, strapped in the car seat.

U only make 2 jumps: the first one for some weird reason and the last one that you lived through. The rest are just filler.
scr 316

[ryoder 1,590]

jackwallace

Friend of mine was a stewardess (she was not a flight attendant, she didn't clean bathroom). She told the people they had to put the child seat in the over head compartment. When she did the pre takeoff seat belt check, no kid on their laps. Where's the kid? In the over head compartment, strapped in the car seat.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[JohnMitchell 16]

riggerrob

Canada's Transportation Safety Board announced that holding children in your arms does not protect them during airliner crashes. TSB spokes-person Kathy Fox said that G-forces generated during crashes far exceed parents' arm strength.

That's been known for years; not a secret at all. Here's the reasoning behind it I've read: The cost savings of carrying an infant on your lap will encourage you to fly. The extra expense of paying a full ticket for a small infant would encourage many young parents to change to an auto trip, which is much more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.

So, basically, it's safer to fly with an unstrapped infant than to drive with one in a car seat. Ahh, the amazing things bean counters come up with.

[oldwomanc6 60]

JohnMitchell

***Canada's Transportation Safety Board announced that holding children in your arms does not protect them during airliner crashes. TSB spokes-person Kathy Fox said that G-forces generated during crashes far exceed parents' arm strength.

That's been known for years; not a secret at all. Here's the reasoning behind it I've read: The cost savings of carrying an infant on your lap will encourage you to fly. The extra expense of paying a full ticket for a small infant would encourage many young parents to change to an auto trip, which is much more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.

So, basically, it's safer to fly with an unstrapped infant than to drive with one in a car seat. Ahh, the amazing things bean counters come up with.

Hhmmm. Gotta love stats.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[RiggerLee 61]

Why no shoulder straps? How about facing the seats backwards. It would be a little awkward, you'd have to recline then to be comfortable on take off, but I'd much rather face the rear in a crash.

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

[riggerrob 643]

Agreed!
The United States Air Force has installed rear-facing seats in their cargo planes for the last 50 years.
Two advantages: first crash impact forces your ass deeper into the corner of the seat.
Secondly, impact forces are spread over a much larger surface

[RiggerLee 61]

I don't really understand the discussion on this. It sounds like a perfectly good rule to me. Thinking that you could hold on to a baby is just silly. Reminds me of the scene in Fearless, great movie, where they crash the car to see if she could hold onto the baby. I don't even see the harness with the ass attachment working. These things are like bobble head dolls with little scrawny necks and 50% of the body mass in the head. The head is just going to come off and bounce around the cabin. Look at whip lash injuries in adults with far better support. To survive a deceleration you really need support along the whole spine. I remember some very interesting studies where they were trying to design restraints that could withstand multiple angles of impacts, like side impacts. Good luck. Some thing would always shift, the pelvis, head, rib cage and the spine in between would just snap.

You know, airbags have become so common in vehicles I'm surprised they haven't shown up in aircraft yet. I wonder if it's the gas generators that can't pass muster. But would you really need quick deploy air bags like in a car? In a plane you actually have some warning. You could just have them put their trays in the up right and locked position and inflate all the air bags before impact so you're cushioned like a big balloon. Fill them with some thing non offensive like nitrogen.

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

[billvon 3,067]

>You know, airbags have become so common in vehicles I'm surprised they haven't
>shown up in aircraft yet.

A lot of airlines have them now. They are cleverly hidden. (First person to figure out where they are hidden gets a free beer! If you are ever in San Diego that is)

[PhreeZone 20]

I've had them on my lap belt several times in the last year.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[JohnMitchell 16]

RiggerLee

Why no shoulder straps? How about facing the seats backwards. It would be a little awkward, you'd have to recline then to be comfortable on take off, but I'd much rather face the rear in a crash.

Passenger psychology. People prefer to sit facing forward. Same reason there are not 5-point harnesses for them, like the flight crew has. Too scary to wear all those straps.

[billvon 3,067]

>Same reason there are not 5-point harnesses for them, like the flight crew has. Too
>scary to wear all those straps.

I think it's more because it's pretty important for the pilot to be able to fly the plane even when pulling G's or seeing negative G's. In comparison, the passenger seatbelt is just to keep them in their seats during such events.

[amstalder 0]

JohnMitchell

***Canada's Transportation Safety Board announced that holding children in your arms does not protect them during airliner crashes. TSB spokes-person Kathy Fox said that G-forces generated during crashes far exceed parents' arm strength.

That's been known for years; not a secret at all. Here's the reasoning behind it I've read: The cost savings of carrying an infant on your lap will encourage you to fly. The extra expense of paying a full ticket for a small infant would encourage many young parents to change to an auto trip, which is much more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.

So, basically, it's safer to fly with an unstrapped infant than to drive with one in a car seat. Ahh, the amazing things bean counters come up with.

This.

And frankly, flying with a lap baby is torturous after about 6 months, and I have a small kid. Can't tell you how relieved I was when he turned 2 and I no longer had to have the internal debate over buying him a seat or not.

[JohnMitchell 16]

billvon

>Same reason there are not 5-point harnesses for them, like the flight crew has. Too
>scary to wear all those straps.

I think it's more because it's pretty important for the pilot to be able to fly the plane even when pulling G's or seeing negative G's. In comparison, the passenger seatbelt is just to keep them in their seats during such events.

Could be, Bill, although they only wear the shoulder and anti-submarine strap for takeoff and landing. Most of the time it's just lap belts.