A good reason to buy your child a ticket

[ducklite]

If the cabin depressurizes and the oxygen masks fall on a full plane, who will you save? You or your child? There are only as many masks as there are seats.

Think long and hard about that one when budgeting your next trip. Who's life will you save? Is it worth a half-price ticket to make sure you don't have to choose?

Anne

 

[CarolA]

Actually, most planes have one extra mask per set of seats. (That said, I would NOT want to be trying to hold a child in those circumstances you are NOT that stong!)

 

[dudspizza]

I have never understood the concept of having your baby on your lap during flight. You are not allowed to do that in a car, so why is a plane any different?

Many times babies sleep during travel when they are in their car seats....... if in your lap, you and the baby are uncomfortable for the entire trip..... and I agree with CarolA, you are not strong enough to hold you baby if something were to happen.

I was on a puddle jumper flying in to LAX from San Luis Obispo. We hit an air pocket and the plane dropped 100 feet suddenly. If I had a baby in my lap, I would have lost my grip on her..... no way I am going to ever attempt that type of thing.....

My dad has seen unbuckled passengers hit the overhead bins when they hit air pockets or turbulance...... that is why I always have my seatbelt on... and why I will never have my baby in my lap.....

My 2¢.

Duds

 

[DebbieB]

I was on a flight last year where a mother and lap child were sitting across from us. We hit turbulance and the little girl kept getting out of her lap and crawling around her legs. I kept thinking if we hit a big bump she was going to go flying.

 

[Lewisc]

There are 4 masks per row. That's the reason only one lap child is permitted per row.

I agree parents should buy a seat.

If the cabin depressurizes and the oxygen masks fall on a full plane, who will you save? You or your child? There are only as many masks as there are seats.

Think long and hard about that one when budgeting your next trip. Who's life will you save? Is it worth a half-price ticket to make sure you don't have to choose?

Anne

 

[Chicago526]

Yup. 4 masks per row. But the other reasons stated are why you should buy a seat. The airlines discount the seat for 50% of the adult fare, there is NO excuse for not buying one!

 

[Brian Noble]

For the record, we always bought seats for our kids when they were under two. But:

You are not allowed to do that in a car, so why is a plane any different?

Because the plane is much MUCH safer than the car. Is it safer to have your infant in his/her own seat on a flight? Unquestionably. Is it statistically safter to be in a car seat in a car than in a lap on an airplane, travelling similar distnaces? I don't know the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that it isn't.

 

[Lewisc]

The airlines lobby to keep the present system. Kids wind up getting free seats if the flight isn't sold out. The airlines are afraid some parents won't fly if they have to buy a seat and the airlines might get stuck giving free seats to infants.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Statistically I suspect an unbelted adult in a plane is probably safer than an unbelted adult in a car yet seats belts are required in a plane. Parents can't safely hold an infant in their lap in the even of a crash. Parents can't safely hold an infant in their lap in the event of turbulence or a bad landing in a plane.

For the record, we always bought seats for our kids when they were under two. But:



Because the plane is much MUCH safer than the car. Is it safer to have your infant in his/her own seat on a flight? Unquestionably. Is it statistically safter to be in a car seat in a car than in a lap on an airplane, travelling similar distnaces? I don't know the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that it isn't.

 

[matdamom]

I flew with my daughter as a lap child when she was a year old. Although she slept through most of the flight, and was just fine on my lap the rest of the time, I wouldn't do it again. For several reasons: safety, my comfort, her comfort, etc.

I didn't think any of the airlines did 1/2 price fares anymore...has anyone gotten a 1/2 price fare for a child under 2 lately??

 

[annabelle]

I just booked with Independance and they don't offer ANY discount for infants... but their prices are low anyway for adult fares.

 

[Brian Noble]

You're comparing apples and oranges

No, I'm not. I'm comparing the chance of injury per mile traveled for two modes of transportation. Those are just probabilities, and are perfectly and directly comparable.

I don't know the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet you the single-serving (no collectible cups or blinking ice cubes!) beverage of your choice that the unrestrained infant in the airplane on a 1,000 mile flight is less likely to be injured than the properly restrained infant on a 1,000 mile car trip.

Obviously, the properly restrained infant on a 1,000 mile flight is even *less* likely to be injured than either of the other two, which is why it is an easy decision to buy your child a ticket and bring along an FAA-approved child safety seat.

Edit: generally speaking, legacy carriers discount 50% one infant under the age of two per paying adult. Discount carriers may or may not do this.

 

[Lewisc]

Apples and oranges.

I have no idea where to get the statistics but what are the odds of an unrestrained adult in airplane being injured in a 1,000 mile flight compared with a properly restrained adult in a 1,000 mile car trip?

The quesion is what is the differential safety in car for a restrained vs unrestrained adult? Restrained vs unrestrained infant?

Now What is the differential safety in an aircraft for a restrained vs unrestrained adult? Differential safety for an infant?

Under your logic seatbelts for adults wouldn't be necessary yet aircraft had seatbelts before autos.

Think about it. All your luggage and personal belongings must be secured during take off and landings but it's OK to hold an infant.

I don't know the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet you the single-serving (no collectible cups or blinking ice cubes!) beverage of your choice that the unrestrained infant in the airplane on a 1,000 mile flight is less likely to be injured than the properly restrained infant on a 1,000 mile car trip.

 

[Brian Noble]

Okay, now I'm going to have to put on my professor hat.

An "apples to oranges" comparison is comparing two things that are fundamentally incomparable. For example, the chance of dying in an earthquake vs. the chance of dying on a flight. One is expressed in units of time, the other is expressed in units of distance. These two numbers are not directly comparable, and never will be unless you make assumptions about how many miles per year one flies, converting a distance-based unit to a time-based one.

Two probabilities expressed in the same units (per-passenger-mile in this case) are absolutely NOT an apples to oranges comparison, no matter how many times you choose to repeat the phrase in your "argument."

As for where to find the statistics, it's not that hard when you are properly motivated. Now that I'm properly motivated, here is a good place to start:

http://www.faa.gov/passengers/images/MedArticle.pdf

This is a paper that was published in a peer-reviewed journal of pediatric/adolescent medicine. The executive summary of that article (and it's the first link returned from a google search on the terms "unrestrained infant injury passenger mile FAA"): cars are so much more dangerous than airplanes that *requiring* families to pay a non-trivial amount to get a seat for their children may well cause enough families to drive instead of fly (for economic reasons) resulting in more dead children overall. You don't need to agree with this study---I certainly read peer-reviewd articles in my own specialty which I think are flawed---and it's conclusion is certainly counterintuitive. But, I think it would be wrong to simply dismiss it out of hand.

Plus, it conveniently collects the relevant fatality rates for us in one place.

The next several links returned by this google search are all news releases touting this 2003 article, and so don't add much to the conversation. The next relevant document in the returned list is a study available on NASA's site.

http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2001/mtg/NASA-2001-aasce-aeg.pdf

It's not clear to me whether this was a peer-reviewed article, but it is listed as copyright by SAE, so I'm assuming it was probably in one of their journals. It rightly points out that, all other things being equal, properly restraining a child increases that child's chances of survival. It also has lots of good data on injury and fatality across a broad spectrum of events and passengers.

However, this paper also cites a different study undertaken by the FAA which suggests that even approved restraining devices may not help all that much. This paper can be found here:

http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/AAM-400A/Abstracts/1994/FULL TEXT/AM94-19.pdf

It was published in 1994, so one can safely assume that there have been design changes in approved seats (and even possibly changes in the FAA approval criteria) that improve matters, perhaps substantially. And, I would say that the characterization of this paper by the NASA study with respect to the performance of safety seats was overly simplistic. However, the conclusion of this '94 study (on pages 27 and 28) is simple: *only* aft-facing child seats provide any substantial protection. Forward-facing seats designed for automobiles do not work, because the inter-row distance, seat construction, and seat belt design on an airplane are substantially different from that in an automobile. Furthermore, toddlers (two years and up) fare *better* in the plain lap belt than they do in forward-facing seats on an airplane. This paper is also clear on the point that lap-held children are not afforded any reasonable protection in a crash.

That said, this paper has a conclusion interesting enough to warrant including it here (again, on page 28):

These conclusions should not be construed as an indication that a dangerous condition exists for children traveling in commercial transport airplanes. The accident rate for commercial operations in 1991 was 0.32 per 100,000 departures, which affirms the fact that commercial aviation is a very safe mode of transportation. Rather, this information is presented to identify a particular component of passenger safety, child restraints, which may not meet the expected levels of performance in an accident.

Even considering this is an FAA-generated report, and the FAA's job is to make people feel good about flying (much as the TSA's job is to make people feel safe about flying rather than to necessarily make flying safe), that's still an interesting conclusion.

 

[goofy4tink]

Yikes Brian!!!! That is all well and good...but I think I'll go with the argument that says I have to properly stow my bags, why not my child. My kids never rode in a car without a car seat. If I had flown with them, it would have been the same story.
When you want to find facts you are a machine!!!! That was a great job btw...I just figure I'll go with the simple way.

 

[Brian Noble]

And your argument is completely correct---as long as you know what "properly stowed" means in the context of your child. It means for children under two, in a rear-facing, FAA-approved car seat. For children two and over, it means in a seat belt, just like everyone else.

As for being a fact-finding machine: when you write research papers for a living, it's just another day at the office.

I think what this boils down to is this: we all drive every day, and most of us fly infrequently---and most of us are not pilots, to boot. So, flying feels "less safe" than driving does. The reality is flying is *vastly* safer than driving. In fact, if your strategy is to spend money to buy safety for your children, you should always fly to WDW, and never drive.

 

[Lewisc]

Brian--When the dust settles your study confirms that lap held infants have no protection. Your study also confirms that children 2 and above will generally do fine with a regular lap belt. Further the tests were regarding impact tests similar to an auto crash but many people see the need for child restraints to stop them from leaving their seat due to turbulence not from the impact of a crash. I have yet to read anything that indicates a child in a parents lap is safe.

I agree airline travel is safer than driving. Is anyone suggesting we lower airline safety standards to save money? Under a straight economic analysis we might argue airline travel is too safe relative to driving and that safety standards should be lowered.

You judge safety and rules in the context of the form of transportation. I suspect an unbelted adult air pax is safer than a belted adult auto passenger but we don't base the rules that way.

Airline rules are based on what will reasonably improve safety not on what will make it safer than an alternate form of transportation.

Oranges and apples are both fruits. Aircraft and autos are both forms of transportation. Safety rules are not based on the death rates of alternate forms of transportation.

The airlines have a slightly different spin. They are afraid the marketplace will force them to offer free seats or deeply discounted fares to infants if lap babies are banned.

Sorry if I sound cynical but I don't think potential injuries from families driving instead of flying has anything thing to do with their objections.

 

[Chicago526]

Answering the question about 1/2 price seats...

The major cariers like United, American, Delta, USAirways, Northwest, and Continental all offer half priced tickets for children under two that travel in a car seat. Some of the smaller carriers don't. Always ask when making a reservation, you never know!

If your kid is nearing the age of two, or they are big for their age, also bring a birth certificate along to prove the child's age when you purchase a 1/2 priced seat for them. It's hard for the gate agents to guess a child's age sometimes, and you don't want to worry about them guesing wrong and making you pay full price.

 

[NotUrsula]

as long as you know what "properly stowed" means in the context of your child. It means for children under two, in a rear-facing, FAA-approved car seat. For children two and over, it means in a seat belt, just like everyone else.

Um, not quite. The definition of "properly stowed" (or more accurately, safely restrained) is derived in combination from 14CSR121.311 (which specifies when child restraint systems should be used on aircraft), 49CSR571.213 (which defines the composition, size and appropriate inertial load factors for US licensed child restraints), and the recommendations pursuant to those regulations which are outlined in FAA ANPRM 4910-13 (http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/n98-02.doc).

The FAA is fully aware that using a lap-belt only for a child who weighs under 40 lbs. puts that child at greater risk of injury than an adult in the same seating position. They have stated this publicly and made it the subject of a very extensive public-service advertising campaign. That they have chosen to allow passengers to accept that increased risk on behalf of their children does not negate the existence of the higher probability of injury.

The problem with all of the studies you have cited is that they are studies of the risk of *death*. The studies I have read and the test diagrams I have seen show me that the risk of *injury* is much more compelling. Honestly, if a test tells you that your child has only a 25% risk of getting killed in an emergency landing, but an 80% risk of sustaining a crippling head injury, are you really going to be thinking, "Well, that's all right then; he'll still be alive, so that convinces me it's not worth the trouble of using a carseat."

That "interesting conclusion" references the idea that children are statistically very safe on commercial aircraft because commercial aircraft are very seldom involved in accidents. True enough. However, turbulence isn't an "accident" in the way the NTSB defines it. Sudden loss of altitude that does not result in a crash is also not an accident. The need to abort a takeoff at the last minute is not an accident. A rough landing that causes no damage to the aircraft is not an accident. However, all of those types of "incidents" can and do result in injuries to passengers.

I will absolutely accept that the reason that the FAA is not requiring the use of a CRS for a child under 40 lbs. is the aforementioned superior safety of commercial aircraft over private automobiles. I know that it is the reason, because I have read the transcripts of the Congressional hearings on the subject. However, I will not accept that it is a VALID reason, because it isn't.
As LewisC pointed out, adults are also safer in commercial aircraft than in their cars, but adults still have to wear seatbelts in planes. No one has ever suggested that the relative safety of a plane over a car makes that seatbelt unnecessary. Why not, if it's such a compelling argument? It should be plenty safe for a 200 lb. man to hold a 125 lb. woman on his lap, too, right? After all, if they can take up only one seat instead of two, it might be just as cheap to fly as to drive, and they would be statistically much safer on that airplane, wouldn't they?

The whole "planes are safer than cars" argument against requiring carseats is pure hooey, and it has been accepted because the FAA is hogtied by its dual mandate, and because the airline industry has a powerful lobby.

 

[annabelle]

Here are great links about flying with kids:

http://www.otoh.org/opal/carseat.html


http://flyingwithchildren.blogspot.com/

Also this one:

http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/tips.htm

 

[Lewisc]

The whole "planes are safer than cars" argument against requiring carseats is pure hooey, and it has been accepted because the FAA is hogtied by its dual mandate, and because the airline industry has a powerful lobby.

Well said. It's interesting that an adult is not allowed to hold a 4 lb notebook computer during landing but is allowed to hold a heavier, squirming infant.