This came up decades ago when Bob Machol was chief scientist at the FAA. A plane had pitched downward, and the parent lost their hold on the baby, which fell to the front of the cabin and died. A ban on lap babies was proposed.
Machol pointed out that requiring parents to buy separate tickets for babies would price some families out of the market for air travel, leading them to drive instead.
But driving is much more dangerous than air travel. Many more babies would have been killed by the rule change.
Machol was able to persuade the FAA to keep the rule.
This seems like it could be solved with a restraint for the baby. Like one of those baby carriers that parents wear with the baby resting against the parent’s chest. They don’t necessarily need to keep the baby in there for the whole flight but when the seatbelt light comes on the baby should be safely restrained.
I imagine that the danger is also for other passengers. A 5 or 7 kg baby flying through the cabin is a deadly projectile for others as well.
This is what I am thinking about when I pack the back of my car (a SUV-like one where the boot is available to passengers if they reach behind their seats). I always try to imagine what happens if we hit a wall.
We had in France a gov ad (a public announcement of sorts about the dangers of cars) where a bowling ball was flying in slow motion during a crash. It was quite terrifying.
> But driving is much more dangerous than air travel.
This was probably valid back when car seats were rudimentary, but nowadays it seems like a strapped baby in a properly installed car seat is quite safe?
> When the seat belt light blinks on, every passenger buckles up except for one group of fliers: lap-babies.
That’s not how it works though. At least not on the flights I have been.
We were given a special, additional seat belt, that loops over the adult one, and goes over the baby. And the airlines were enforcing it as much as the adult one.
“On many foreign carriers, parents can (loosely) secure their child with a belly loop belt that wraps around the baby’s torso and attaches to the adult’s seat belt. However, the FAA prohibits this accessory on U.S. carriers because of its potential dangers.”
Fwiw when I’ve used the baby-belts they felt very secure. Always wondered why US airlines didn’t use them.
This happened whenever the seatbelt sign was on, or only when it was on because of turbulence? We have never been offered that, and I've never seen other passengers offered such a thing. I've mostly flown in the US though; perhaps you are elsewhere?
Is this a new thing? My kids are <10 years old, but we flew a ton when each of them were under 2 and I don’t recall getting a supplemental belt once. This was pretty much exclusively on Southwest, though.
This is ridiculous. There are on the order of 10 million lap children per year. Over the last 40 years, it looks like there have been two lap children that died that might not have had they been in a car seat on the plane. Over that 40 year period, that would be 400 million lap children, so the additional risk is about 1/200 million.
If you figure a typical airline ticket costs about $150 each way, that comes to $30 billion per life saved.
Bottom line is if you want to spend money on your kid's safety, buying them their own airline seat is probably the worst way you could do it.
Of course parents always have the option to buy the extra seat if they want to, but to force parents to do this in the name of safety is asinine.
A lot of car seats probably wouldn't even fit into a standard airline seat these days. It would also slow down the boarding process. For that reason I think this change is unlikely to ever happen.
I’ve flown with a car seat. Many are FAA certified. And with families boarding before other passengers we’re able to get the seat installed before the plane gets busy.
Let alone the nightmare of having to bring a car seat with you on a 12 hours flight with 2 children, one of which is an infant, a stroller, 3 carry on (yes, you need toys and change for children and stuff for yourself) and a stroller.
Same with Australia, the UK, New Zealand and every Asian country I've been to with small kids. This article confused me so much. Parents aren't strapping their small kids in the US? Wild.
> Hoffman recognizes the drawbacks of requiring parents to purchase airplane tickets for their youngsters. The main concern is that families will not be able to afford the airfare and will resort to driving, a more perilous mode of transportation.
>“If they travel by car instead, they will actually be putting themselves at a significantly greater risk, because car crashes are so much more common than airplane incidents, whether it’s a crash or turbulence,”
that analysis they did sounds kind of silly, since at 2 years and 1 day you’re paying full boat anyway.
The logical conclusion of their assessment: at 2y1d people can afford the fare so fly but 2 days before that they couldn’t so would drive instead? The argument doesn’t actually bear weight.
Curious, whenever I’ve taken a flight with a lap infant I’ve been given an extra belt that attaches to mine to restrain the child, but the article suggests they get no restraint at all.
Either way I’d very gladly swap a lap infant for an infant in their own seat. But there’s no such thing as a child fare on a plane so the price difference to pay for the full adult fare is staggering, it’s no wonder people opt for lap travel.
> Hoffman warns that the carrier is not foolproof, especially during severe turbulence. “The child can slip out of it because of all of that force. A plane that falls 4,000 feet in seconds — that’s like being shot out of a cannon. A front pack is not going to do the same as a car seat.”
How common is it for a plane to fall 4,000 feet in seconds? Sounds like it would result in deaths for anyone who isn't strapped in at that moment.
We've used car seats at times, but also have used an Ergo to strap our kid to our front. It is more than enough for the type of turbulence that we've ever experienced in a combined 80 years of flying, though of course there is a possibility that something stronger could hit.
I don't know how many feet it was or how many seconds, because it was the kind of experience that messes with your perception to say the least, but I was on a transatlantic flight where the plane went into freefall and kept dropping long enough that I started to seriously worry that it wasn't going to stop. It was probably not more than a few second, but it was quite an unpleasant experience.
I took a car seat onto an airplane on exactly one trip and am glad I will never have to again. It’s nice when it’s installed, but getting it into and out of the plane on top of all the other shenanigans really sucks.
It’s weird that the only specific incidents described are plane crashes. While turbulence issues are mentioned the article doesn’t say how common they are.
I don’t optimize my life based on how likely I am to survive a plane crash and I doubt most others do either. On the flights I’ve been on, the seatbelts feel mostly vestigial.
[+] [-] mjd|3 years ago|reply
Machol pointed out that requiring parents to buy separate tickets for babies would price some families out of the market for air travel, leading them to drive instead.
But driving is much more dangerous than air travel. Many more babies would have been killed by the rule change.
Machol was able to persuade the FAA to keep the rule.
[+] [-] chongli|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BrandoElFollito|3 years ago|reply
This is what I am thinking about when I pack the back of my car (a SUV-like one where the boot is available to passengers if they reach behind their seats). I always try to imagine what happens if we hit a wall.
We had in France a gov ad (a public announcement of sorts about the dangers of cars) where a bowling ball was flying in slow motion during a crash. It was quite terrifying.
[+] [-] lxm|3 years ago|reply
This was probably valid back when car seats were rudimentary, but nowadays it seems like a strapped baby in a properly installed car seat is quite safe?
[+] [-] 101011|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alphabettsy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moltar|3 years ago|reply
That’s not how it works though. At least not on the flights I have been.
We were given a special, additional seat belt, that loops over the adult one, and goes over the baby. And the airlines were enforcing it as much as the adult one.
[+] [-] amacneil|3 years ago|reply
“On many foreign carriers, parents can (loosely) secure their child with a belly loop belt that wraps around the baby’s torso and attaches to the adult’s seat belt. However, the FAA prohibits this accessory on U.S. carriers because of its potential dangers.”
Fwiw when I’ve used the baby-belts they felt very secure. Always wondered why US airlines didn’t use them.
[+] [-] gnicholas|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] el_benhameen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pstorm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cameldrv|3 years ago|reply
If you figure a typical airline ticket costs about $150 each way, that comes to $30 billion per life saved.
Bottom line is if you want to spend money on your kid's safety, buying them their own airline seat is probably the worst way you could do it.
Of course parents always have the option to buy the extra seat if they want to, but to force parents to do this in the name of safety is asinine.
[+] [-] jurassic|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afavour|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fire-Dragon-DoL|3 years ago|reply
A joy.
[+] [-] gnicholas|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fxtentacle|3 years ago|reply
European airlines have seatbelts for babies. Emirates has them, too.
[+] [-] TheHappyOddish|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sacnoradhq|3 years ago|reply
No parent will be able to hold onto a baby in case of sudden turbulence.
[+] [-] jorpal|3 years ago|reply
> Hoffman recognizes the drawbacks of requiring parents to purchase airplane tickets for their youngsters. The main concern is that families will not be able to afford the airfare and will resort to driving, a more perilous mode of transportation.
>“If they travel by car instead, they will actually be putting themselves at a significantly greater risk, because car crashes are so much more common than airplane incidents, whether it’s a crash or turbulence,”
[+] [-] xref|3 years ago|reply
The logical conclusion of their assessment: at 2y1d people can afford the fare so fly but 2 days before that they couldn’t so would drive instead? The argument doesn’t actually bear weight.
[+] [-] afavour|3 years ago|reply
Either way I’d very gladly swap a lap infant for an infant in their own seat. But there’s no such thing as a child fare on a plane so the price difference to pay for the full adult fare is staggering, it’s no wonder people opt for lap travel.
[+] [-] gnicholas|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnicholas|3 years ago|reply
How common is it for a plane to fall 4,000 feet in seconds? Sounds like it would result in deaths for anyone who isn't strapped in at that moment.
We've used car seats at times, but also have used an Ergo to strap our kid to our front. It is more than enough for the type of turbulence that we've ever experienced in a combined 80 years of flying, though of course there is a possibility that something stronger could hit.
[+] [-] dporter|3 years ago|reply
It wasn't 4,000 feet, but last month a United Airlines flight leaving Hawaii dropped 1,425 feet shortly after takeoff: https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a42887614/u...
[+] [-] User23|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sacnoradhq|3 years ago|reply
Why do you think staff have their seatbelts on whenever they sit down? Less risk of injury and dying.
Do you not wear a seatbelt when in a car?
[+] [-] Sivart13|3 years ago|reply
It’s weird that the only specific incidents described are plane crashes. While turbulence issues are mentioned the article doesn’t say how common they are.
I don’t optimize my life based on how likely I am to survive a plane crash and I doubt most others do either. On the flights I’ve been on, the seatbelts feel mostly vestigial.
[+] [-] outside1234|3 years ago|reply