Baby on lap

[LaurenLC]

The Cares harness will not work for lap children, it will only work if you have your own seat. It is basically an alternative to brining a car seat on board.

My husband is also a pilot and we have only flown with my son as a lap child. I do have the baby b'air harness, and it works very well. It does provide some peace of mind with regards to turbulence, and it makes my life easier.

My DH is OK with DS as a lap child because the chance that a situation would arise where he would be injured or killed as a lap child, but not if he was in a car seat is very small. Basically if things go a little wrong he will be fine either way, if things go very wrong a car seat will not save him.

What you said. My father was a pilot for 30+ years and has pretty much told me the same thing. IF the plane goes down a car seat isn't helping anyone.

 

[WebRanger9]

The Cares harness will not work for lap children, it will only work if you have your own seat. It is basically an alternative to brining a car seat on board.

My husband is also a pilot and we have only flown with my son as a lap child. I do have the baby b'air harness, and it works very well. It does provide some peace of mind with regards to turbulence, and it makes my life easier.

My DH is OK with DS as a lap child because the chance that a situation would arise where he would be injured or killed as a lap child, but not if he was in a car seat is very small. Basically if things go a little wrong he will be fine either way, if things go very wrong a car seat will not save him.

Hey, I see you babywear... what makes the Baby B'air harness better than a wrap that basically ties the child onto you? That is what my wife and I are thinking about... but always looking for options. We don't fly a lot (DD will be 1, and it will likely be her only flight as a lap baby), so we haven't givent it as much thought as we should.

 

[Minniemouse07]

Then you believe very wrongly!!!! I can not emphasize this enough this has not been the policy for at least 20 years.!! Yes that is 20 years and people are still telling people this!

I don't understand why people who don't know perpetuate this totally wrong story.

You hold the child facing you against your chest with your arm up across it's back.

The point is moot. Either way... placing your child on the floor or holding them against your chest....you will not be able to hold your child securely in an emergency landing or severe turbulence where high g-forces are in effect.

This clip from the NTSB does a great job of explaining WHY a lap child is a bad idea.

 

[tlbwriter]

Hey, I see you babywear... what makes the Baby B'air harness better than a wrap that basically ties the child onto you? That is what my wife and I are thinking about... but always looking for options. We don't fly a lot (DD will be 1, and it will likely be her only flight as a lap baby), so we haven't givent it as much thought as we should.

From what I understand (and I'm sure Hannathy will angrily correct me if I am mistaken ) you will not be allowed to keep your baby in a sling or wrap during take-off or landing. I don't know if you can use it during the rest of the flight.

Here are some interesting links about the safety of lap babies on airplanes. Might interest some people to know that the FAA doesn't recommend it, even though they allow it.

http://thevacationgals.com/airplane-lap-child-safety/
http://www.jetwithkids.com/book_freeChapter.html
http://www.thekathrynreport.com/2010/09/plane-crash-revives-lap-child-debate.html

 

[Zeebs]

Just curious, is there somewhere that gives the statistics of injuries caused to lap children? I'm just curious as to how many kids have actually been documentated cases of being injured while being a lap baby.

We travel with lapchildren and have never had any problems our flights are at the shortest are 9 hours long. Everyone has their own views on this and you do what ever you are comfortable with, but I did research it for my own information and to make my own informed decision and discovered via AirSafe.com there were 6 people killed from turbulence since 1980 and 80 seriously injured from 2003-2009 given there are aproximately 11 million flights per year the risk is slight so one I will take a chance on. As I said you do what ever you are comfortable with but it isn't an issue for me.

Kirsten

 

[xXMyTwoPrincessesXx]

There are always safER alternatives. It doesn't mean that one is safe.

I drive an SUV, dring a van is safER.

I drive on the highway, driving on smaller street is safER.

The questions is, how safer? It sure does make a difference. There is a risk involved in every little thing we do in life. There is even a small, tiny risk with letting kids ride the Disney Attractions!

I think that parents who chose to get the seat are doing the right thing, because it's what makes them feel better. I don't think that this mean that parents who fly with lap babies should just stay home and not fly at all!

 

[ZeroMyHero]

Since we will be traveling early next month with YDD in her car seat, I was recently reading information about the FAA's policy regarding car seats and lap babies when checking out Southwest's car seat policy (we ran into a minor issue once when my oldest was in a car seat - we wanted to put her by the window and they insisted she must sit in the middle seat). Anyway, the FAA has wanted to make a policy insisting all children under 40 lbs use some sort of CRS (Child Restraint System) for many years. However, the airlines have balked at this because they fear people will choose not to fly because of the expense so they will lose money. Because air travel is seen as much safer than highway travel, the government hasn't made CRS for children under 40 lbs a law, though they do encourage the heck out of it on their website: http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/.

 

[xXMyTwoPrincessesXx]

The Cares harness will not work for lap children, it will only work if you have your own seat. It is basically an alternative to brining a car seat on board.

My husband is also a pilot and we have only flown with my son as a lap child. I do have the baby b'air harness, and it works very well. It does provide some peace of mind with regards to turbulence, and it makes my life easier.

My DH is OK with DS as a lap child because the chance that a situation would arise where he would be injured or killed as a lap child, but not if he was in a car seat is very small. Basically if things go a little wrong he will be fine either way, if things go very wrong a car seat will not save him.

That's what I was thinking as well. In the case of a plane crash, what are the odds that anyone will survive!

 

[Hannathy]

The point is moot. Either way... placing your child on the floor or holding them against your chest....you will not be able to hold your child securely in an emergency landing or severe turbulence where high g-forces are in effect.

This clip from the NTSB does a great job of explaining WHY a lap child is a bad idea.

I think we can all agree that the plane that made the emergency landing in the river in New York would be an example of an emergency rough landing correct?

the lap baby on board that flight did just fine, no injuries at all so the parent must have been able to hold onto the child securely and without problems.

The landing that I had with my DD as a lap baby where we had to assume emergency landing positions and brace ourselves I had no problems with my DD and I am a very small person.

Most airplane crashes are catastrophic and whether a child survives has very little to do with a car seat. In many cases being able to escape quickly is the biggest saving grace. And a car seat wouldn't help there.

 

[WicketsMom]

Since we will be traveling early next month with YDD in her car seat, I was recently reading information about the FAA's policy regarding car seats and lap babies when checking out Southwest's car seat policy (we ran into a minor issue once when my oldest was in a car seat - we wanted to put her by the window and they insisted she must sit in the middle seat). Anyway, the FAA has wanted to make a policy insisting all children under 40 lbs use some sort of CRS (Child Restraint System) for many years. However, the airlines have balked at this because they fear people will choose not to fly because of the expense so they will lose money. Because air travel is seen as much safer than highway travel, the government hasn't made CRS for children under 40 lbs a law, though they do encourage the heck out of it on their website: http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/.

We've flown with my 4-year old several times. When he was under two we did not purchase a seat for him. We did try and book flights that were less likely to be full and carried the car seat to the gate with us. Most of the time we were able to put him in his car seat without having to purchase a seat for him. If the flight was full, they gate-checked the carseat. We still use the car seat on the plane with him now.

Southwest does require that the car seat be placed in the window seat, not the middle. If it is in the middle seat then the passenger in the window seat is not able to get out in the case of an emergency. (My husband argued this point with me once and put it in the middle, only to have to undo it and move to the window seat before leaving the gate.)

Also, you are not allowed to have a lap baby in any sort of sling/carrier during take-off and landing. I used one of those to get him on/off the plane, but the flight attendants make sure that they are not in there during their take-off and landing checks.

 

[Zeebs]

Thank you all for the carseat replies, I'm actually finding that pretty fascinating- all our britax & maxi-cosi carseats (those with harnesses for birth to age 4's and those which were high back boosters with no harness for 4+'s) I've ever bought (and with 5 kids I've bought alot! :haha: ) have required a 3 point seatbelt to hold the chair to the carseat.

Off to look at USA carseats now, it's truly fascinated me, it never occurred to me once that they would be different!

International flights do differ in that lapchildren are given a seat belt of their own which attachs to yours so they are secured. The FAA don't use these but many many other countries safety advisors believe that these lapbelts are the best option so if the world safety advisors can't agree you need to read the research and make up your own mind.

If you fly with Virgin you can request their chid seat

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/passengerinformation/travellingwithchildren/index.jsp

We used it one way on our flight but didn't bother on the return as he didn't seem the comfortable he was 2.5 when we made that flight.

I am quite comfortable with my decision to fly my children as lap children and while the majority of our flights are with international carriers who supply the lapbelts, I have also flown unattached on internal USA flights using the research I discovered in my above post I am happy with that decision as well.

Kirsten

 

[peanut520]

We have traveled with dd on numerous flight with and without a seat under 2. the decision was usually based on flight time and class of travel (first class is usually 2 in a row). It was not a money issue as we looked at it as a cost of taking the trip, but if we didnt buy a seat it would mean that would could travel more and have more family time especially on business trips since we both occassionally travel for work. It does not make you a bad parent it you fly with or without a seat it is a personal choice and it might include your budget. i have paid for a seat that was barely used because dd was in a mood and was very upset to be on the plane and wanted to be held and screamed bloody murder until i held her and the seat went unused. i'll probably get flamed for caving, but she screaming in my suv and a full flight is very different. dd is 2 now so there is no choice, but our personal rule was if it was under 3 hours she was on the lap and over 3 hours she had a seat (even though those are the flight she tends to get upset on).

eta: I usually put her in the moby wrap when she was little and the ergo when she was 12-18 months on flight after take off when she was a lap baby, but i still brought a wrap/soft carrier on all flights.

 

[ZeroMyHero]

Southwest does require that the car seat be placed in the window seat, not the middle. If it is in the middle seat then the passenger in the window seat is not able to get out in the case of an emergency. (My husband argued this point with me once and put it in the middle, only to have to undo it and move to the window seat before leaving the gate.)

That's interesting, because when we flew in 2008, a SW FA made us put the car seat in the middle seat, stating it was SA policy to do so. I said it seemed like it wouldn't be safe to do that because I would need to climb over her seat in case of emergency, but the FA wouldn't budge. From what I looked up last week, it's the FAA that says they want a car seat by the window. I talked to Southwest last week regarding their car seat policy because of the confusion the last time we flew. The SW manager told me on the phone last week that there is no official SW policy on where a car seat must be placed in a row. SW likes to use the middle seat for car seats because it is a little bit wider than the other seats, but there is no reason why, according to SW policy, the seat can't be placed anywhere in the row. I'm not saying this is right or correct, I'm just stating what the manager told me last week. Our plan is to put the seat by the window, and if I am asked to move it I am going to state what the SW manager told me and what the FAA website says.

All told, I'm not interested in convincing anyone to fly with a car seat. If you want to hold your baby on your lap, that's your business. Mine is in a car seat and that's my business. As it stands now, both choices are within the law.

 

[tlbwriter]

What you said. My father was a pilot for 30+ years and has pretty much told me the same thing. IF the plane goes down a car seat isn't helping anyone.

Not true.

That's what I was thinking as well. In the case of a plane crash, what are the odds that anyone will survive!

The odds are actually very good.

From an article in Time Magazine:

People generally believe that no one survives a plane crash. But according to government data, 95.7% of the passengers involved in airplane crashes categorized as accidents actually survive. Then, if you look at the most serious plane crashes, that's a smaller number; the survival rate in the most serious kinds of accidents is 76.6%. So the point there is, when the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] analyzed all the airplane accidents between 1983 and 2000, 53,000 people were involved in those accidents, and 51,000 survived. That's an incredibly high survival rate.

From "How to Survive a Plane Crash"

What are Your Chances?
Excellent, to be honest. Few people die in airplane crashes; the odds are many millions to one against your being involved in any sort of serious aircraft accident, and even if you are, your chances of surviving it are very high (96% of passengers survived all US aircraft accidents from 1983–2000).

Oh, and another quote from this same article:

An infant held in your arms is unlikely to survive a hard landing. In approved infant seats, though (especially rear-facing ones), they’ll likely fare better than you.

And this article from The Huffington Post:

First, many people believe that everyone always dies in plane crashes. And there's good reason: the greatest tragedies are ingrained in our memories. It's terrible and true: Everyone died in the most infamous crashes. Valujet 592 in the Florida Everglades. TWA 800 in the Atlantic. Swissair 111 in Nova Scotia. EgyptAir 990 over the Atlantic. Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

Despite these disasters, the truth about most airplane accidents is that people do survive. In fact, according to the US government, 95.7 percent of the passengers involved in aviation accidents make it out alive. That's right. When the National Transportation Safety Board studied accidents between 1983 and 2000 involving 53,487 passengers, they found that 51,207 survived. That's 95.7 percent. When you exclude crashes in which no one had a chance of surviving - like Pan Am 103 - the NTSB says the survival rate in the most serious crashes is 76.6 percent. In other words, if your plane crashes, you aren't necessarily doomed, just like the passengers on US Air 1549 in the Hudson.

Anyway, the FAA has wanted to make a policy insisting all children under 40 lbs use some sort of CRS (Child Restraint System) for many years. However, the airlines have balked at this because they fear people will choose not to fly because of the expense so they will lose money. Because air travel is seen as much safer than highway travel, the government hasn't made CRS for children under 40 lbs a law, though they do encourage the heck out of it on their website: http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/.

And this may not even be the case. After 9/11, when more people were driving instead of flying, death rates for children actually decreased:

The FAA agrees that the safest place for an infant or a toddler on a flight is in an approved child restraint and not an adult's lap.

But the FAA won't make it a requirement because the agency believes many families with small children wouldn't pay the cost of an extra ticket, and instead would travel by highway, which statistically is much more dangerous than air travel.

Earlier in the decade, the FAA considered changing the rule, but decided against it, citing statistics from 2004 that showed nearly 43,000 people died on U.S. highways, compared to 13 fatalities on commercial flights.

The agency estimated then that a child-restraint requirement could result in 13 to 42 additional highway fatalities over 10 years.

"What we found was that there were some parents who would be sensitive to price and they would choose to drive instead of fly," Duquette said. "We would be forcing them into automobiles, which are less safe."

The NTSB conducted its own study in 2004 and concluded that real-world evidence from the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contradicts the FAA's estimates.

The transportation safety board looked at travel between 2000 and 2002, when domestic plane travel decreased 8.3 percent and highway travel increased 4 percent as a result of the attacks.

There was a slight percent increase in overall highway fatalities, but the number of children under the age of 5 killed in highway accidents during that time actually decreased, the study found.

"There does not appear to be a clearly defined relationship between diversion from air travel and highway accidents or injury," the report concluded.

Every parent should make their own choice, but it should be a choice based on facts, not ignorance.

 

[marmalade]

We travel with lapchildren and have never had any problems our flights are at the shortest are 9 hours long. Everyone has their own views on this and you do what ever you are comfortable with, but I did research it for my own information and to make my own informed decision and discovered via AirSafe.com there were 6 people killed from turbulence since 1980 and 80 seriously injured from 2003-2009 given there are aproximately 11 million flights per year the risk is slight so one I will take a chance on. As I said you do what ever you are comfortable with but it isn't an issue for me.

Kirsten

Thank you for this info. Now I know what all the fuss is about. So everyone (not only lap children) has approx 0.0000001% chance of being injured from turbulence, and a 0.000000001% chance of dying from turbulence.

OP do whatever you feel most comfortable you are not wrong either way.

 

[xXMyTwoPrincessesXx]

Not true.



The odds are actually very good.

From an article in Time Magazine:



From "How to Survive a Plane Crash"



Oh, and another quote from this same article:



And this article from The Huffington Post:





And this may not even be the case. After 9/11, when more people were driving instead of flying, death rates for children actually decreased:




Every parent should make their own choice, but it should be a choice based on facts, not ignorance.

I meant air plane crashes that would actually hurt a lap baby. Some articles exaggerate the facts. One article said that if air plane was flying at 500 mph and crashed, the lap baby would fly at so and so mph and die.. I doubt that anyone would survive a crash of a plane going 500 mph! That's my point.

You're right, the decisions should be made on facts. It's ignorat to assume otherwise of parents.

 

[Minniemouse07]

The issue comes down to this....

Many (not all) parents assume that because the FAA doesn't mandate that all passengers (including small children under 2yo) must be in individual seats and that young children under 40lbs be in a child restraint....it must be safe.

All of these links and quotes are supporting the facts that it is NOT safe....even the FAA says this.

Just because they allow it doesn't mean it is safe.

If you, as a parent choose NOT to follow the FAA recommendations to purchase a seat, then that is your decision.

BUT... make the decision knowing all the facts and not based upon the assumption that because it isn't the law it is a safe option.

 

[Zeebs]

The issue comes down to this....

Many (not all) parents assume that because the FAA doesn't mandate that all passengers (including small children under 2yo) must be in individual seats and that young children under 40lbs be in a child restraint....it must be safe.

All of these links and quotes are supporting the facts that it is NOT safe....even the FAA says this.

Just because they allow it doesn't mean it is safe.

If you, as a parent choose NOT to follow the FAA recommendations to purchase a seat, then that is your decision.

BUT... make the decision knowing all the facts and not based upon the assumption that because it isn't the law it is a safe option.

You are right it isn't 100% safe, but nothing is, so I weigh up the RISK and to me, after researching, deaths and serious injury due to turbulance, the risk is minimal and a risk I am willing to take. If the risk of flying and being injured or killed was the same as travelling in a car my decision would be a different one.

Parenting is about taking the information and making decisions based on that. Until I have to buy a seat for my children I am quite comfortable in having lapchildren.

Kirsten

 

[Minniemouse07]

You are right it isn't 100% safe, but nothing is, so I weigh up the RISK and to me, after researching, deaths and serious injury due to turbulance, the risk is minimal and a risk I am willing to take. If the risk of flying and being injured or killed was the same as travelling in a car my decision would be a different one.

Parenting is about taking the information and making decisions based on that. Until I have to buy a seat for my children I am quite comfortable in having lapchildren.

Kirsten

The point is that you had the information to make that decision, most assume it is safe because it isn't a law.

Hopefully this thread has shared the correct information and more parents can make informed decisions themselves.

 

[tlbwriter]

I meant air plane crashes that would actually hurt a lap baby. Some articles exaggerate the facts. One article said that if air plane was flying at 500 mph and crashed, the lap baby would fly at so and so mph and die.. I doubt that anyone would survive a crash of a plane going 500 mph! That's my point.

Okay, your post simply said "plane crash." I didn't realize you meant "only really bad plane crash." Does that mean you actually agree with me, that most plane crashes are survivable?

The cruising speed of an airliner is about 500 mph, so the only way it would crash at that speed is if it flew straight into a mountain at full power, or something along those lines. According to the articles I posted earlier, if you exclude crashes like that, that simply aren't survivable at all, but take all other serious crashes, you still have a survival rate of over 70%. That's serious crashes. Not rough landings or aborted takeoffs, but serious crashes.

Still a pretty darn good chance of survival, don't you think?