Can I hold my 1 year old on my lap on a plane?

[NotUrsula]

Quote:
I agree - I'm not questioning your experience at all, but I'm surprised and disappointed that a flight attendant (and perhaps an entire airline?) would be so misinformed. This is very dangerous for your child.

"This is common overseas. I saw it on my British Airways flight as well this summer. Not all countries have the same rule as American airlines. (Guess they just don't care about their kids in other countries, right tlbwriter?)"

Just FYI, it has nothing to do with anyone caring or not caring more or less than anyone else. It has to do with probability.

Belly-belts are banned by the FAA for use on US-based air carriers. They cannot be used on any domestic flight, or on an overseas flight on a US-based airline. The NTSB's research on the subject indicates that a child belted in this manner will act as a human airbag for an adult in an on-ground impact or sudden stop, which is the reason for the ban. The belts *do* add some protection from turbulence, but the airbag argument is thought to outweigh that by the US govt. (BTW, the reason that the FAA declines to require the use of carseats on aircraft is that they think that the extra cost might encourage people to fly instead of drive, thus putting the child at greater risk, as flying is statistically much safer.)

Other countries have done their own studies, based on their own weather and crash statistics. Those that allow the use of belly-belts have apparently come to the conclusion that the protection provided from turbulence is more important than the risk for the human-airbag problem. Many other countries do not allow the use of carseats on aircraft because the carseats sold in those countries have not been mfd. for use with a lap belt only; they require the use of a lap-shoulder belt to be installed properly. Infant/toddler Carseats sold in the US must be mfd. to be safely installed either way, so the FAA has approved most of them for aircraft use (there are some exceptions, check your seat's sticker.)

 

[tlbwriter]

This is common overseas. I saw it on my British Airways flight as well this summer.

Not all countries have the same rule as American airlines. (Guess they just don't care about their kids in other countries, right tlbwriter?)

Am I detecting some snarkiness there?

People make unsafe decisions regarding child passenger safety out of ignorance, not malice or indifference. If you think American laws go overboard, I suggest you do not move to Australia or Sweden, where they are probably shocked at our comparatively lax child passenger safety habits.

To the OP: there are lots of good reasons for buying a seat for your child, and securing her properly in her carseat. You can find some of them here, and others are on different threads in this forum. Mods, could this please be made a sticky, as the same information (and, sadly, misinformation) is being given frequently?

 

[GatorGal]

People make unsafe decisions regarding child passenger safety out of ignorance, not malice or indifference.

I totally agree. Too often, people post "I flew my child on my lap and he did fine" or something to that effect. What they mean by "he did fine" was they didn't encounter severe turbulance or other situation that would have put the child on the lap in danger.

The decision to buy a seat or not should not be solely on how you think your child will behave sitting on your lap as opposed to in his/her carseat. Parents should consider how much safer the child will be in their carseat instead of on the lap. While it's unlikely that I'll encounter a problem when flying, knowing my daughter is safer in a carseat make it's worth the money and aggravation of having her there.

Just because the FAA allows children to fly on your lap, it doesn't mean it's safe. Some states allow speed limits of up to 70MPH on their highways, does that mean you won't be killed in a crash at that speed?

 

[debster812]

Can you? Yes.

Should you? Only you can make that decision about your child.

Would I? No. I'm nervous enough as it is flying, I would not want to have to worry about keeping a potentially squirmy toddler on my lap as well.

 

[jodifla]

I totally agree. Too often, people post "I flew my child on my lap and he did fine" or something to that effect. What they mean by "he did fine" was they didn't encounter severe turbulance or other situation that would have put the child on the lap in danger.

The decision to buy a seat or not should not be solely on how you think your child will behave sitting on your lap as opposed to in his/her carseat. Parents should consider how much safer the child will be in their carseat instead of on the lap. While it's unlikely that I'll encounter a problem when flying, knowing my daughter is safer in a carseat make it's worth the money and aggravation of having her there.

Just because the FAA allows children to fly on your lap, it doesn't mean it's safe. Some states allow speed limits of up to 70MPH on their highways, does that mean you won't be killed in a crash at that speed?

What kind of argument is this? You can get killed at 55 mph, too. Guess you should never get in a car!

It all comes down to what kind of risk people are willing to take. I keep hearing about all this turbulence, but I've never encountered anyone (except on these boards) who actually faced the kind of turbulence that would actually cause danger to a child.

 

[GatorGal]

What kind of argument is this? You can get killed at 55 mph, too. Guess you should never get in a car!

It all comes down to what kind of risk people are willing to take. I keep hearing about all this turbulence, but I've never encountered anyone (except on these boards) who actually faced the kind of turbulence that would actually cause danger to a child.

The point is just because the FAA allows it, it doesn't mean it's safe. You're right, it's about the risk people are willing to take. I do take a risk everytime I get in car. But I drive a car with anti lock brakes, side curtain airbags, and I always wear my seatbelt to ensure that I am as safe as I can be.

I've never encountered any severe turbulenace either, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have had my child in a carseat or not had my own seatbelt buckled. Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't.

The original poster was inquiring if it was allowed to have a child travel on the lap of another passenger if you didn't want to pay for a seat for that child. We are just trying to point out that while it's allowed, it's not necessarily the safest option.

 

[tlbwriter]

It all comes down to what kind of risk people are willing to take. I keep hearing about all this turbulence, but I've never encountered anyone (except on these boards) who actually faced the kind of turbulence that would actually cause danger to a child.

This is another reason this topic should be a sticky, since there have been many links posted in several threads on that very topic. Perhaps you can look back at earlier threads and learn from them. Also, you claimed in an earlier thread, that you had evidence that most plane crashes are not survivable (when I posted several links explaining that most crashes are survivable today, and carseats definitely do make a difference). Did you ever find that research of yours?

I agree that it all comes down to what kind of risk you're willing to take. That's why it's important to make an informed decision. And to do that, you have to find out exactly what the drawbacks and benefits are. Just saying "I don't know anyone who had any problems" isn't making an informed decision. OP, there are several threads, including this one, about the pros and cons of using carseats on an airplane. In my opinion, the pros outweigh the cons. Good luck with whatever you decide.

 

[jodifla]

This is another reason this topic should be a sticky, since there have been many links posted in several threads on that very topic. Perhaps you can look back at earlier threads and learn from them. Also, you claimed in an earlier thread, that you had evidence that most plane crashes are not survivable (when I posted several links explaining that most crashes are survivable today, and carseats definitely do make a difference). Did you ever find that research of yours?

I agree that it all comes down to what kind of risk you're willing to take. That's why it's important to make an informed decision. And to do that, you have to find out exactly what the drawbacks and benefits are. Just saying "I don't know anyone who had any problems" isn't making an informed decision. OP, there are several threads, including this one, about the pros and cons of using carseats on an airplane. In my opinion, the pros outweigh the cons. Good luck with whatever you decide.

Actually, my research was to find out how many children who were not in a car seat that were killed on an airplane.

Do you know the number?

 

[jodifla]

excerpts from the story at

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/050825/b0825104.html

Three children who sat in their parents' laps were among the 309 who survived the fiery crash of an Air France Airbus A340 after it overshot the Toronto runway, Martin noted.

and another one....

Since 1978, nine children under two years of age have died in plane crashes, the FAA said. Three deaths could have been prevented in 25 years if a child restraint system had been used, but more deaths might have occurred if their parents had chosen to drive instead.

 

[TammyJ]

Flying may be safer than driving...and yes I believe it is, but if I've chosen to fly, I will choose to protect my child.

And to the poster who said they didn't know anyone injured by turbulance, I don't personally know anyone who's child has been saved by a carseat in a car either but I use it everytime.

 

[tlbwriter]

Actually, my research was to find out how many children who were not in a car seat that were killed on an airplane.

You must be talking about something else. Look at the thread I linked to earlier. In post 6, I disagreed with a different poster who said that a carseat would be little help in a crash. I pointed out that most crashes today are survivable. You asked where I got that information, saying "I don't feel like I've heard of many crashes where most people walk away." I linked to a CNN story discussing this in post 15. Which you missed, because you later said, in post 34, "And while I asked for statistics about survivable plane crashes, I don't think you offered any, unless I missed it. My research shows me different conclusions." I then pointed you to the post you missed, where I did provide those statistics. You promised to show your own research if you could find it. That's the "research" I was asking for. May I presume you don't have it? And don't remember enough about it to find it again? What about the research you mentioned in this post, about the number of children not in carseats who have been killed on airplanes? Do you have anything to share?

Do you know the number?

The exact number of how many children killed on airplanes who weren't in carseats? No, I don't know that. Do you, since you claim to be doing research in that area?

Here's what I do know.

(a) The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board lists the use of child restraints as one reason most airplane crashes are survivable.

(b) An FAA study on survivability showed that five of nine infant deaths could have been prevented if the children had been properly restrained. This report refers to "the last nine infant deaths," but I do not know the date of the actual report, or when those particular deaths occured.

Look, I don't know why you have to be so argumentative every time this subject comes up. Someone asks for information, someone provides information, and then you get all defensive because it doesn't concur with your personal opinions (and they are opinions, unless you can find some facts to back them up, and "I don't know anybody who had a problem" is not data) about what's safe. You accuse people who share information about carseats of being rude and "holier than thou" simply because we present information that you do not agree with, and yet you do not even bother to follow the links to read the information you are disagreeing with. Why do you care? You do what you want, other parents learn enough to make an informed decision, they do what they want, and everybody's happy. Why does this bother you so much?

 

[tlbwriter]

Three children who sat in their parents' laps were among the 309 who survived the fiery crash of an Air France Airbus A340 after it overshot the Toronto runway, Martin noted.

That's right. Everyone survived that crash, including the lap children. But in the Sioux City crash, none of the parents were able to hold onto their lap children. One infant was killed because his parent couldn't hold onto him, and another child was flung into the overhead compartment, where he would have died if someone hadn't happened to hear him crying. And in 1994 (same link), a child was killed because her mother couldn't hold onto her. The seat next to the mother was empty, it survived the crash intact. What if the child had been buckled into a carseat in that empty seat?

All of these individual stories are anecdotal evidence. None of it means it's always safe, or always unsafe, to fly without a carseat. I could tell you that it's perfectly safe to drive drunk because I did it in high school and no one was ever injured. I just like to let people know that a carseat can make a difference in whether your child survives a crash, or is injured in turbulence. You can point out that in most cases it will not make a difference, and that's true. In most cases it doesn't make a difference in the car, either. But there is still a risk. Give parents the information and let them make the decision themselves.

 

[NotUrsula]

Three children who sat in their parents' laps were among the 309 who survived the fiery crash of an Air France Airbus A340 after it overshot the Toronto runway, Martin noted.

A couple of caveats on this one: Note that since this was an Air France flight, these lap children were wearing belly-belts; they were not restrained only by their adults' arms. It is also worth noting that though the story does indeed report that they survived the crash, it does not tell us whether or not the children sustained injuries. There were quite a few serious injuries among the passengers and crew in that incident.

 

[tlbwriter]

A couple of caveats on this one: Note that since this was an Air France flight, these lap children were wearing belly-belts; they were not restrained only by their adults' arms.

I guess abdominal injuries are better than being flung about the airplane. I still hate to see those things touted as a safety feature, when it would be so much safer just to put the poor kids in their own seats.

 

[GatorGal]

Give parents the information and let them make the decision themselves.

I cringe when I ask a parent (out of my own curiosity) if they bought a seat for their child and they respond "I don't/didn't need to, he's only 6 months" or something along that line. It appears to me, by their response, that their decision was based on the fact that the airline doesn't require it and it was money they didn't need to spend. I hope that with threads like this, we can educate some parents so are making the decision with more facts than fiscal concerns.

 

[jodifla]

I cringe when I ask a parent (out of my own curiosity) if they bought a seat for their child and they respond "I don't/didn't need to, he's only 6 months" or something along that line. It appears to me, by their response, that their decision was based on the fact that the airline doesn't require it and it was money they didn't need to spend. I hope that with threads like this, we can educate some parents so are making the decision with more facts than fiscal concerns.

Actually, I feel all the statistics back up my point of view, not yours.

 

[jodifla]

b) An FAA study on survivability showed that five of nine infant deaths could have been prevented if the children had been properly restrained. This report refers to "the last nine infant deaths," but I do not know the date of the actual report, or when those particular deaths occured.


It's your judgmental attitude on the subject I find so offensive, trying to jump on every parent who deems to even ask the question about not using a car seat on a plane, and suggesting they are cheap if they choose not to buy a seat. You also twist the fact to suit your point of view.

And the fact you are missing, that is in the story, is that it's since 1978. The story says that three deaths in 25 years COULD HAVE (not would have) been prevented if using a restraint system.

I'm the devil's advocate, as it were, presenting the rational side of the argument for parents to consider.

 

[FSUGrad97]

I cringe when I ask a parent (out of my own curiosity) if they bought a seat for their child and they respond "I don't/didn't need to, he's only 6 months" or something along that line. It appears to me, by their response, that their decision was based on the fact that the airline doesn't require it and it was money they didn't need to spend. I hope that with threads like this, we can educate some parents so are making the decision with more facts than fiscal concerns.

I agree! I think people put saving money before the safety of their kids. Even if the risk is small, IMHO it's not worth it. My child's safety is worth the money spent on an extra seat.

 

[NotUrsula]

And the fact you are missing, that is in the story, is that it's since 1978. The story says that three deaths in 25 years COULD HAVE (not would have) been prevented if using a restraint system.

What I don't understand about this argument is, since when is DEATH the only bad thing that can happen when a vehicle gets into an accident? What about the importance of preventing or minimizing injuries?

Personally, where a baby is concerned, I'm going to prefer to use all possible caution even if injury is the worst that might happen.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

While it's true that you don't "have to" purchase a ticket for children under two, it's not the safest way to travel. The FAA's policy on this has not changed because they feel if parents were forced to purchase tickets for children that young, they couldn't afford to fly and would therefore drive instead. This policy has nothing to do what is safest for the child.[/QUOTE]

Actually it has a lot to do with what's safest for your child. Mile per mile, an unrestrained child in an airplane is significantly safer than a child in a carseat in the family car.

If you can afford the extra seat, it's undoubtedly the safest place for your child. But if the realistic choices are to fly holding your child, or to drive, flying is still the better bet.