Car seat on airplane? Thoughts?

[livvyb]

man, oh man.....I don't know which way to go with this. We leave in 5 days and because of the volume of things we are bringing I was planning on not bringing his car seat as we will also be using Disney transportation and it won't get used. However, he does OK in his car seat and he does have his own seat in the plane so theoretically we could bring it.....

I am still undecided!

 

[D L and K's Mom]

We bought a seat for DD who was just turning 2 (she had her b-day in the park!) For the first part of the trip we used the car seat on the plane.....it was a struggle getting the seat buckled on the plane and even tougher getting it unbuckled to get it off. The attendant had to help. My DD is really good on the plane and in the car but the car seat sat her up so high she was able to push her feet into the seat in front of us..thank goodness no one was sitting in it. I am not sure if it was just the type of car seat we have (Britax roundabout). The second part of the trip we checked in the car seat under the plane and we strapped her in the seat. This worked much better. She was able to dit lower and could not kick the seat in front or push on it. She was able to recline (could not do this with the seat strapped in ) and she fell asleep. I liked having her seat for the rental car but I would take it and check it under the plane. I didnt check it through with the luggage becase I was fearful that it would get bumped and banged. Good luck.

 

[michvin]

No unknown research findings to report. Call it a combination of common sense and fatalism.

Most of the reason for a car child safety seat is protection from impact. In an airliner, most "impacts" are likely to result in mass casualities, anyway, so we didn't feel compelled to protect our 2.5 year old from an impact that we could not functionally and effectively protect her from anyhow.

Most of the reason for anyone in an airliner to wear a lap belt is to prevent one from being tossed around the cabin during moderate to extreme turbulence. The physical forces upon the body are different in turbulence than they are in a car accident. Car child safety seats protect mainly against high velocity front end collisions (hence infant seats must face rearward, etc., due to the infants' lack of neck control). In an airliner, the forces that are the most concerning (i.e., the forces that can affect you but that you can LIVE through) are those that might send your airborne and allow your body to impact the ceiling. The hips must be held securely against the seat to protect this. Lap belts are sufficiently effective for this task, in a 2 year old or a 72 year old.

At least that's what we were thinking....

My husband and I totally agree with you....He flies one to four times a month and has commented about how a carseat isn't going to save anyone if a plane crashes. Its the turbulence. And, for how many times he has flown he has never had turbulence that has thrown him to the ceiling either. But, of course, he wears his belt when he's supposed to. I'm glad we're not the only people going this route and thinking through the whole process.

 

[shefor24]

This is avery interesting discussion. I have a 15 M.O boy and I am one of those people who HAVE TO take advantage of the "2 and under fly free" or I will regret it foever. So I have been slowly searching into maybe a Disney trip for us before he is 2. I thought the lap was the way to go, but hmmmm after reading this stuff... I don't know. So my question so far is - how does the car seat turn out if you check them to go under the plane? I have traveled often and when I see that mom with 2-3 little guys clinging on to her in the airport and she is lugging a car seat, stroller, etc etc ...I just used to cringe and say "I'd never travel with a kid that small", here I am thinking of it. Funny...

 

[tlbwriter]

My husband and I totally agree with you....He flies one to four times a month and has commented about how a carseat isn't going to save anyone if a plane crashes.

He's mistaken. In my earlier post, there was a link to an article that mentioned specific cases of children who most likely would have survived actual crashes had they been properly restrained. As NotUrsula pointed out, you have to get away from the idea that most crashes involve a plane falling from the sky. Most are on the ground, and are very survivable (in fact, I heard after the Canadian incident that most people involved in plane crashes live through them! Who knew?) And that's where proper restraints make a difference.

 

[adisneymama]

We just flew with our 3 yo and we used DME and no rental car as well. We did not take her car seat as we would have been dragging it around for just the plane. The seat belts on the plane were very snug on her and she did fine. She is also very small for her age. Closer to the weight and height of a 2 yr old. We were very pleased. Now if we were going to be needing her car seat after landing we would have taken it. I also probably would have gate checked it with the stroller though. I don't have any problems with DD staying in her seat when told to though. If she was one to try to escape and not sit still we would have brought it anyway.

HTH

 

[ahutton]

I have 3 kids, and have always used a car seat on the flight until it was impossible for my oldest to sit in her car seat and have enough leg room (she's very tall). I find they are generally more comfortable, as they can lean on the side to nap like they do in the car on long trips, and they understand better that we are in car seats so we don't get up. I also feel better with the harness straps holding them in place in turbulence or if we had a hard landing. I've also been the Mom hauling all the stuff in the airport. I have the best luck putting the baby in a snugli carrier, the middle child in the stroller and using a backpack carrier for one carseat, and strapping the other to the back of the stroller or to our rolling carry on bag. My oldest loves to roll that bag for me (or DH does), and my diaper bag goes in the bottom of the stroller, which I gate check. It takes me a few minutes to unpack everyone at security but DH and I have a system to get through there too.

DH is first through the gate, then the walking kids get sent through with all the stuff. Then Baby and I are last. The girls don't go until Dad is cleared (everyone once in a while he beeps or is selected for additional screening) so they have some to go to. We had a bad experience in Portland once where we each had a child and we both beeped. Never again.

 

[NotUrsula]

BUMPING to bring up new FAA regs, effective today, 9/26/2005.

(To clarify, the regulation has been in effect for years, but this version contains some new changes effective 9/26/2005.)

 

[tlbwriter]

BUMPING to bring up new FAA regs, effective today, 9/26/2005.

I wonder if any airlines are using this yet? If it works, it looks like it would be a great help to many parents.

 

[Captain Blue Sky]

The Federal Aviation Regulation that is cited in an earlier post has been practiced on a daily basis with US carriers, and foreign carriers that land on US soil, since early 2002. This is nothing new or different from current practice. All restraints that are used on board an aircraft must have an FAA certification sticker on the child restraint otherwise it cannot be used inflight. This requirement is for those child restraints that have a 3 or more point harness. This is necessary in case the aircraft rolls during flight or for severe turbulence...

Originally Posted By NotUrsula:
BTW, most impacts experienced onboard an aircraft are survivable, because most of them take place when the aircraft is on the ground.

This comment just did not sit well with me. What kind of impacts are you referring to? The greatest threat to anyone while flying is unexpected turbulence and people and items not being secured when the turbulence occurs. Impacts on the ground? When was the last time you experienced an impact on the ground? A hard landing is not an impact. A collision is an impact, a crash is an impact.

Originally Posted By NotUrsula:
"Falling out of the sky" is very rare; the average flyer is much more likely to experience a hard landing, a runway overshoot, or an on-ground collision with another plane than a fall from cruising altitude.

Oh, these comments are even more concerning... You make it sound as if the average flyer will experience these as a matter of course. I can't agree with anything you are saying here. None of these incidences are likely to happen to the huge majority of travelers in their lifetime...

And they usually don't happen to professional pilots, either.

But apart from that, the issue of child restraints on board aircraft is nothing new.

It is more of a revelation that the FAA has decided not to ban lap sit children as it "...would deter families from travelling by air..." as they phrased it.

I think that is a far more important issue, particularly when the American Academy of Pediatrics does not endorse lap sit children on aircraft. They prefer using an FAA approved child restraint.

 

[tlbwriter]

Originally Posted By NotUrsula:
BTW, most impacts experienced onboard an aircraft are survivable, because most of them take place when the aircraft is on the ground.

This comment just did not sit well with me. What kind of impacts are you referring to? The greatest threat to anyone while flying is unexpected turbulence and people and items not being secured when the turbulence occurs. Impacts on the ground? When was the last time you experienced an impact on the ground? A hard landing is not an impact. A collision is an impact, a crash is an impact.

I think the point is not that impacts are more common than turbulence (which of course is not true), but that when there is an impact, it tends to happen while the plane is on, or close to, the ground. Do you not agree?

Originally Posted By NotUrsula:
"Falling out of the sky" is very rare; the average flyer is much more likely to experience a hard landing, a runway overshoot, or an on-ground collision with another plane than a fall from cruising altitude.

Oh, these comments are even more concerning... You make it sound as if the average flyer will experience these as a matter of course.

Not at all. Just that if *one* of these rare things is going to happen, it's much more likely to be on/near the ground. I think you are reading things that aren't there.

 

[Captain Blue Sky]

tlbwriter:

When was the last time you experienced an impact while in an aircraft? To try to make the issue a broad, commonly experienced occurrence as NotUrsula was suggesting is completely inaccurate. I've been flying professionally since the late '80s and the only incident I experienced, that was even remotely close to being dangerous, was a 15-second period of very pronounced turbulence while flying to Brussels, Belgium as a passenger in a B747. And I've flown the equivalent of over 12 million nautical miles!

So by all means, talk impacts if you will, but you must also talk rates of prevalence of their occurence. And I haven't seen you write anything about that...

The ball is in your court...

 

[tlbwriter]

tlbwriter:

When was the last time you experienced an impact while in an aircraft?

When someone kicked the back of my seat on the way to Orlando last December.

So by all means, talk impacts if you will, but you must also talk rates of prevalence of their occurence. And I haven't seen you write anything about that...

Then you haven't been paying attention.

The post you are replying to says, and I quote:

if *one* of these rare things is going to happen

Please note the use of the word "rare," which refers to the "prevalence of their occurence." Impacts are rare. Survivable impacts that occur during landing or takeoff are rare, but the unsurvivable "plane falling out of the sky" scenario is even more rare. Severe turbulence is also rare, but it is less rare than impacts. Do you disagree with any of these statements? Do they not correspond to your experience? If so, I want to find out what airline you fly for, so I can avoid it.

 

[NotUrsula]

tlbwriter read my intent correctly. I never meant to imply that any impact is common, but the sort that I described is statistically more likely than a TWA800 sort of crash, which is the type of impact that people are saying that a carseat won't save a child from. Of course it wouldn't, but who would expect it to?

Perhaps I'm just unlucky. While I've never been in an aircraft that overran the end of a runway, I have been involved in 2 incidents of minor taxiway collisions, a couple of near-misses that required hard braking, and a situation where we hit debris on takeoff. The most recent incident of that sort that I experienced was about two years ago. I've also seen turbulence bad enough to knock an FA off her feet several times.

I also did not mean to imply that the FAA regulation was completely new, only that changes to it became effective yesterday. I cited the report because someone asked at what weight the lap belt becomes as effective as the CRS, and the data is in the report.

 

[justhat]

I have never been involved in an 'impact' so to speak, but when my daughter was both 3 months and 4.5 months old we had very, very severe turbulance, both resulting in aborted landings. The first was her 2nd flight ever, on the way home from WDW the day before she turned 3 months old. I bought her a seat for the plane based on things I read here on the DIS and I was the mos thankful mommy ever when the plane was so violently turbulent that I worried that I would not have been able to hold her without hitting her head onto an armrest, the seat in front of me, or another passenger or the window if I had not had her carseat. Instead, however, Madison slept soundly in her carseat. We ended up aborting the very scary landing we had attempted and flew back to southern VA and circled for awhile. When we got home I kept telling my husband how thankful I was that we got the seat. 6 weeks later we flew again (her 6th flight now) and again the turbulence was horrible. This time after our landing in Charlotte was aborted we flew to an airport in SC and had to wait out the storm. A few hours later we were back in the air en route to Charlotte with okay weather.

After those 2 incidents I vow never to try to save money by not getting my daughter a seat (she's still under 2 so she could still go free). We just booked a last minute trip to WDW for this weekend and when buying our plane tickets there were only 2 seats left at the cheap rate so my husband bought them and thought that we could just bank on an empty seat on the way home and use that for our daughter's carseat. He looked at the seat chart and the plane was showing as half full so he thought we'd be okay (this was just last Sunday, so less than 2 weeks before the flight). Then I see that JetBlue landing in LAX and I started crying thinking about if we were on that flight and something happened to our daughter because we were too cheap to buy her a seat. My husband agreed with me and immediately went online and bought her the seat for the way home not to take the chance.

 

[brymolmom]

I have researched the car seat on an airplane thing before and am always angry at the vague data I've found. Has anyone ever found studies/statistics on the number of injuries to lap children vs. injuries to car seated children? I understand that 'most' of the problems on planes likely do occur near/at takeoff and landing and that is when the lap child is restrained b the parent, just wondering if there has been significant difference in the outcomes of parents holding vs. restrained in a car seat? I have never found this information and have not always brought car seats on the plane. On our most recent trip we were using WDW transportation and didn't want to lug the car seat around just for the plane.

One other thing to consider besides safety (safety being first, of course) is that planes have other passengers that parents and staff need to try to be considerate of. On our plane trip 2 weeks ago, my almost-2 year old was on my lap for landing and there were extra seats available, so a flight attendant 'yelled at' me and berated me asking if I put her in a car seat at home and reminding me that we were going 500 MPH (I refer back to a pp who mentioned - at 500 MPH is it really going to matter? I agree not so much). Anyway- I put her in her own seat an forcibly held her hands because she liked to play with the lap belt and since they are so easy to un-latch, even a 1 year old can do it - she was doing it. Anyway- this resulted in screaming at the top of her lungs for the last 15 minutes of the flight. Almost (but thank goodness, not quite) to the point of throwing up. Anyway-I felt the most badly for those around us. I had her content and happy on my lap - but the flight attendant insisted that she upset the travel of everyone in our area. 2 year olds don't understand the whole ear- thing and some (depending on tiredness, etc.) might be a heck of a lot happier on the parent's lap. So, it's a hard call for me - I like to try to be considerate to those around me but if someone could prove to me that she is considerably safer in a car seat - I would choose that first.

I just have never been able to find conclusive studies or numbers.

 

[tlbwriter]

I have researched the car seat on an airplane thing before and am always angry at the vague data I've found. Has anyone ever found studies/statistics on the number of injuries to lap children vs. injuries to car seated children?

Did you read the FAA link NotUrsula posted earlier? It contained this text:

3. Normal lap belts, for children who weighed 33 pounds, provided
adjustable tight fit, a belt path over the pelvic bone, and no
indication of submarining or roll out during dynamic tests. However,
because lap belts are not designed to inhibit upper torso flail, head
impacts against the seat structure that were severe enough to cause
head injury occurred during testing. These impacts were substantially
higher than those exhibited in the forward CRS tests.

So, while it's not a statistical comparison, it is a test that showed that for children weighing 33 lb (or less, one may presume), children in lap belts would suffer "substantially higher impacts" than children in a CRS. As for children being "restrained" by a parent's arms:

On October 15, 1992, the FAA broadened the categories of CRSs that
were allowed to be used on aircraft to include CRSs that meet the
standards of the United Nations or are approved by a foreign government
(57 FR 42662; September 15, 1992). NHTSA does not set these standards.
In the preamble, the FAA stated ``Using these restraints in an aircraft
will provide a level of safety greater than that which would be
provided if the young children were held in the arms of adults or if
safety belts alone were used.'' (57 FR 42664) (emphasis mine)

One other thing to consider besides safety (safety being first, of course) is that planes have other passengers that parents and staff need to try to be considerate of.

As a passenger, I appreciate your consideration. But I find it unnecessary. As a parent, my child's safety will always, always, always come first. And I expect the same from other parents. If your child is screaming to get out of her carseat, I will give you a pat on the back for keeping her there. Some people will complain. I really couldn't care less about those people. No, of course that's not true... I don't want them to be miserable. But if it's a choice between them having an unpleasant flight or me risking the serious injury or death of my child just because it's more comfortable or convenient, it's a no-brainer. I will do whatever it takes to lessen the impact on other passengers. I will stop her from kicking your seat, even if means I have to hold her legs down myself during the entire trip, and I will do everything I can to keep her quiet, even if it means feeding her M&Ms for the entire trip. But I will NOT compromise on the carseat.

On our plane trip 2 weeks ago, my almost-2 year old was on my lap for landing and there were extra seats available, so a flight attendant 'yelled at' me and berated me asking if I put her in a car seat at home

It sounds like the FA was rude, and that was uncalled for. But she was right -your child would be safer in a carseat.

and reminding me that we were going 500 MPH (I refer back to a pp who mentioned - at 500 MPH is it really going to matter? I agree not so much).

That's simply incorrect. There have been several posts, in this thread and others, pointing out that a carseat DOES make a difference. Most crashes are survivable. And children in carseats are more likely to survive than lap babies.

I like to try to be considerate to those around me but if someone could prove to me that she is considerably safer in a car seat - I would choose that first.

I just have never been able to find conclusive studies or numbers.

See above. And see also this position paper from the Association of Flight Attendants, which says in part

In July, 1994 during the fatal crash of a USAir plane in Charlotte, North Carolina, another unrestrained infant was killed when her mother could not hold onto her on impact. The available seat next to the mother survived the crash intact. The National Transportation Safety Board believes that had the baby been secured in that seat, she would have been alive today. In fact, in a FAA study on accident survivability, the agency found that of the last nine infant deaths, five could have survived had they been in child restraint devices. (emphasis mine)

The type of studies you're looking for may not exist. But there is plenty of evidence showing that children in a CRS are much more likely to survive a crash than those who are held in their parents laps, and that smaller children are safer in a CRS than in an adult seatbelt.

 

[NotUrsula]

I'll look for some data on injuries this weekend, but my guess is that other than the crash tests for the report cited above, the numbers have not been separately compiled. Children in this age group remain a very small part of the air passenger population, unlike the number of children who travel in automobiles on a regular basis. Though I think that the FAA's reasoning is somewhat faulty on the drive-vs.-fly decision, I will freely concede that anyone, regardless of age, is statistically safer travelling on a commercial aircraft than by ground motor vehicle.

The thing is, it is a judgment call for the parent. Putting a child who is under the recommended weight in a carseat is safer than not doing so; that much is a fact, as the crash tests demonstrate. However, since the FAA has chosen not to make carseats (or the newly approved AMSAFE harness) mandatory for children who fit the weight recommendations, the choice of what level of safety precaution to take is up to the parent.

If you feel comfortable with the level of risk you are assuming, then you are within your rights to assume it, and I personally don't feel that it is my place to judge anyone on how they handle this. My personal decision is to always use a carseat for an under-40 lb. child so long as I am permitted by law to do so. The truth is that initially my primary reason for doing so was my comfort and that of my fellow passengers; my squirmer would never sit still unless restrained, and would constantly struggle to get down if we tried to hold him. I also could not sleep on overseas flights if I did not feel assured that he could not wander while I slept. I didn't start deeply researching the state of the FAA regulations on the subject until I encountered airline personnel who told me that I could not use the seat.

 

[D L and K's Mom]

DD's first flight was when she was 6 months old. We brought along her infant carrier and the "Cradle" that it locked into. We had it locked into the plane seat just like we used it in our car when the Flight Attendant came over and said we needed to remove the base and just lock the baby carrier in with the seat belt and not use the base at all as it was not FAA approved. I didnt know that as the car seat had a sticker on it. If you are using a car seat ask the flight attendant if it is secured properly and if it is approved. If they are not busy I am sure they will help out. Last time we took our seat DD was 2 and we took our Britax...it was horribe. It took forever to buckle into the seat and we could not get it off. (The belt slipped behind the seat and the buckle was inside....it took my 13 year olds skinny arm stuck into the car seat to unbuckle the seat belt to get it out...it was HORRIBLE and took such a long time I thought we were going to miss our connection. I would take a seat again but I would look into another type as the BRITAX sat up high in the seat and she kicked the seat in front of her and her legs and knees were squished the whole ride. We always get her a seat but the last time we didnt use the car seat coming home just the belt. I think a booster would be a better choice.

 

[Captain Blue Sky]

Originally quoted by tlbwriter:

In July, 1994 during the fatal crash of a USAir plane in Charlotte, North Carolina, another unrestrained infant was killed when her mother could not hold onto her on impact. The available seat next to the mother survived the crash intact. The National Transportation Safety Board believes that had the baby been secured in that seat, she would have been alive today. In fact, in a FAA study on accident survivability, the agency found that of the last nine infant deaths, five could have survived had they been in child restraint devices. (emphasis mine)

As I had mentioned in my earlier post, the REAL issue here is the recent announcement by the FAA that they will not ban lap sit children on US carriers in leu of restraining them in an approved restraint in a seat because the FAA does not want to discourage air travel by families with small children.

And tlbwriter illustrated this very well. That is the REAL issue, more worthy of discussion than making global generalities and then claiming that you didn't.

And I already mentioned the airline I fly for.
Originally quoted by tlbwriter:

If so, I want to find out what airline you fly for, so I can avoid it.

As far as I'm concerned, you can walk to your destination!