JetBlue flight makes emergency landing.

[Maistre Gracey]

IF you are really interested there is plenty of information on the ntsb site about how dangerous lap children are going back to 1979 when they first issued an opinion about the subject.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Search/pages/Results.aspx?k=lap children

Not sure I saw that site. Do they have hard numbers of injuries?

I found several sites that say it's unsafe, but they don't seem to have substance to back it up.

MG

 

[Gracie09]

Not sure I saw that site. Do they have hard numbers of injuries?

I found several sites that say it's unsafe, but they don't seem to have substance to back it up.

MG

if you read the reports prepared and presented by the NTSB you will find in there numbers of children injured and killed, and reports of the crashes that caused the injuries.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

if you read the reports prepared and presented by the NTSB you will find in there numbers of children injured and killed, and reports of the crashes that caused the injuries.

Well I skimmed some of what you linked to, but to be honest I need more specifics on which item to read. There are several, and some lengthy.
I will take your word if you say they have numbers, but I didn't come across them from what I read.

MG

 

[Carriemel]

And it's not just turbulence. I refer you to this youtube video...

And this article http://jetlagged.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/the-safety-hazard-on-your-lap/ gives some figures as to numbers of injuries.

 

[dis_guy]

In severe turbulence, just like in a car accident (though different direction of forces), it is impossible to actually keep a child in your arms. The physics don't work.

True. If you can't hold onto a child in a car crash, you just don't have a chance at aircraft speeds. It sounds like that JB plane hit a nasty bit of clear air turbulence. We had a similar case here in Canada where it was actually the wake from a jumbo flying above and ahead of the 737 that was affected. The chances are extremely small that the lower following plane would even encounter the wake descending from the higher heavier jet, but it did, with similar results. Keep those belts on! I always try to get an aisle seat near the bathroom to try to minimize my exposure time should I need to use it during a flight.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

True. If you can't hold onto a child in a car crash, you just don't have a chance at aircraft speeds. It sounds like that JB plane hit a nasty bit of clear air turbulence. We had a similar case here in Canada where it was actually the wake from a jumbo flying above and ahead of the 737 that was affected. The chances are extremely small that the lower following plane would even encounter the wake descending from the higher heavier jet, but it did, with similar results. Keep those belts on! I always try to get an aisle seat near the bathroom to try to minimize my exposure time should I need to use it during a flight.

Wait!!! Holding a child in an aircraft is NOT for the purposes of a crash. Ain't nothin'... No seat belt or car seat gonna help you with an airplane crash. Now, if you're talking Sioux City, there are many truly unique things happening there. You don't want a bunch of rules made on one in a billion situations.

The lap child thing is out of my realm of expertise, but I know we have some flight attendants here that can add some valuable insight.

The extent of my knowledge is...?? Been doing it thirty years and never heard of an injury.

MG

 

[jsilvers]

No seat belt or car seat gonna help you with an airplane crash. Now, if you're talking Sioux City, there are many truly unique things happening there. You don't want a bunch of rules made on one in a billion situations

Completely, utterly, simply wrong. Looking to another NTSB report:

Because a public perception is that aviation accidents are not survivable, the Safety Board also examined the proportion of occupants who survived in each accident for the period 1983 through 2000. Contrary to public perception, the most likely outcome of an accident is that most people survive. In 528 of the 568 accidents (93.0 percent), more than 80 percent of the occupants survived (figure 3). Accidents that result in complete or near complete loss of life, such as TWA flight 800, account for a small percentage of all accidents. Only 34 of the 568 accidents (5.9 percent) resulted in fewer than 20 percent of the occupants surviving.​

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SR0101.pdf.

 

[jsilvers]

Not sure I saw that site. Do they have hard numbers of injuries?

I found several sites that say it's unsafe, but they don't seem to have substance to back it up.

MG

Hard data on injuries to lap children does appear to be hard to find, but a 2011 FAA report identifies three preventable deaths in the U.S. between 1987 and 1994. See https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/2011-12-29-child-restraint-update.pdf. (The FAA continue to takes the position that restraints for children under 2 should not be required – because doing so likely would encourage more travel by car, for which the risks are higher – but also emphasizes that: “The virtues of using proper child restraint systems are not at issue.”)

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Completely, utterly, simply wrong. Looking to another NTSB report:

Because a public perception is that aviation accidents are not survivable, the Safety Board also examined the proportion of occupants who survived in each accident for the period 1983 through 2000. Contrary to public perception, the most likely outcome of an accident is that most people survive. In 528 of the 568 accidents (93.0 percent), more than 80 percent of the occupants survived (figure 3). Accidents that result in complete or near complete loss of life, such as TWA flight 800, account for a small percentage of all accidents. Only 34 of the 568 accidents (5.9 percent) resulted in fewer than 20 percent of the occupants surviving.​

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SR0101.pdf.

Don't have time to your link at the moment, but I'm talking *real crashes*. The way the NTSB defines "accidents" is an entirely different situation.

MG

 

[jsilvers]

Don't have time to your link at the moment, but I'm talking *real crashes*. The way the NTSB defines "accidents" is an entirely different situation.

The NTSB defines an "accident" as "an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage." See 49 C.F.R. § 830.2.

In contrast, the term "real crash" is one that you've just made up, so it isn't really possible to have a discussion about it. That said, some of the worst accidents in aviation history had survivors, such as JAL 123 in 1985 and Pan Am 1736/KLM 4805 in 1977. Examples in the U.S. of what I guess you would call a "real crash" with survivors in addition to United 232 in 1989, just off the top of my head, include Delta 191 in 1985, Air Florida 90 in 1982, and Eastern 401 in 1972.

Overall, there isn't really much value in having a discussion if you're not willing to consult the information provided to you.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

The NTSB defines an "accident" as "an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage." See 49 C.F.R. § 830.2.

In contrast, the term "real crash" is one that you've just made up, so it isn't really possible to have a discussion about it. That said, some of the worst accidents in aviation history had survivors, such as JAL 123 in 1985 and Pan Am 1736/KLM 4805 in 1977. Examples in the U.S. of what I guess you would call a "real crash" with survivors in addition to United 232 in 1989, just off the top of my head, include Delta 191 in 1985, Air Florida 90 in 1982, and Eastern 401 in 1972.

Overall, there isn't really much value in having a discussion if you're not willing to consult the information provided to you.

I'm well versed in NTSB 830. The problem is your NTSB quote does not tell the entire story. It doesn't take much to achieve substantial damage to an airplane. So, there indeed are many accidents in aviation where absolutely nobody gets hurt.

The term "crash" is not defined, but I used the term simply because a previous poster used it talking about holding a child during a car crash. They then compared that to the topic at hand.
Perhaps I over estimate some folks common sense.

MG

 

[stitchlovestink]

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to stop feeding the troll in this thread. Anyone with any common sense using a brain can figure out that holding a child just isn't as safe as them being belted into their own seat. No matter what you present to the troll, the proof is not enough...
Time to stop feeding it.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to stop feeding the troll in this thread. Anyone with any common sense using a brain can figure out that holding a child just isn't as safe as them being belted into their own seat. No matter what you present to the troll, the proof is not enough...
Time to stop feeding it.

And just who is the troll??
I have admitted that lap children are better off in a car/lap seat.

That said, I doubt a troll would have 8000+ posts.
Oh by the way, I happen to be a 30+ year airline pilot. Not a safety expert, but one that can vouch for statistics.

Feel a wee bit silly now calling me a troll?
I'm the guy flying you to WDW.

Welcome aboard....

MG

 

[goofy4tink]

And just who is the troll??
I have admitted that lap children are better off in a car/lap seat.

That said, I doubt a troll would have 8000+ posts.
Oh by the way, I happen to be a 30+ year airline pilot. Not a safety expert, but one that can vouch for statistics.

Feel a wee bit silly now calling me a troll?
I'm the guy flying you to WDW.

Welcome aboard....

MG

Ok, I just want to be sure you realize I never insulted you or called you a troll!!!! Just want to be clear here!!! Don't want an angry pilot flying my plane....

I don't think there are any 'trolls' here, in this thread. Perhaps there are those that have different points of view, but certainly not trolls!!! I have to thank you all for being so civil! I realize that people have strong opinions on this type of subject. Keep it up!!!!

 

[goofy4tink]

You're right we could. Except all those items are stowed prior to take off and landing (when most accidents happen). In fact the only items not secured during take off and landing are lap children. And a pilot may know there is turbulence ahead but sally in row sixteen a doesn't and is usually not given a warning. Clear air turbulence happens everyday. It happened in the JetBlue flight that started this thread with no warning.

And this is the issue!!! During take off and landing, lap babies are held tightly! And yes, this is the time that items are properly stowed. This is not the time I have an issue with when talking about lap babies. It's those middle of the flight issues....when that plane drops thousands of feet, unexpectedly. So, yeah, cups of hot coffee, soda, laptops, and babies are going to be flying. Bins open overhead, bags fall out. These are the times I have issues with lap babies. If you can't hold onto your cup of coffee, it's going to be hard to hold onto a 20 lb unsecured child.

 

[kamik86]

I'm well versed in NTSB 830. The problem is your NTSB quote does not tell the entire story. It doesn't take much to achieve substantial damage to an airplane. So, there indeed are many accidents in aviation where absolutely nobody gets hurt.

The term "crash" is not defined, but I used the term simply because a previous poster used it talking about holding a child during a car crash. They then compared that to the topic at hand.
Perhaps I over estimate some folks common sense.

MG

Instead of saying real crash I would want the statistics for how often airplain incidents are survivable when the plane was in the air for part of the incident.

I imagine if you take out all the ones that occur during taxing those numbers go down alot.

Then if you do a second set and take out all that happen during take off and landing and only count things where the issue started when the plane was over 10,000 feet high the number where people survive would drop even more.


My understanding is the majority of airplane crashes are more like car accidents its the plane slipping off the road, hitting another aircraft, etc during taxi. I would think many of those probably only damage the wings of the plane (How many people have managed to scrape up there mirrors trying to park their car? Those stick out alot less far then airplane wings) and everyone inside is fine.

 

[jsilvers]

Instead of saying real crash I would want the statistics for how often airplain incidents are survivable when the plane was in the air for part of the incident.

I imagine if you take out all the ones that occur during taxing those numbers go down alot.

Then if you do a second set and take out all that happen during take off and landing and only count things where the issue started when the plane was over 10,000 feet high the number where people survive would drop even more.

My understanding is the majority of airplane crashes are more like car accidents its the plane slipping off the road, hitting another aircraft, etc during taxi. I would think many of those probably only damage the wings of the plane (How many people have managed to scrape up there mirrors trying to park their car? Those stick out alot less far then airplane wings) and everyone inside is fine.

Although I’m not immediately aware of fatality data broken down the way you’re looking for it, I think it’s safe to say that your understanding is dubious at best.

First, although there were some survivors, one of the worst accidents in aviation history – Pan Am 1736/KLM 4805 in 1977 – could be characterized as a taxiing accident (an impatient KLM pilot – ironically, the airline’s chief flight instructor – started his takeoff roll before the taxiing Pan Am aircraft cleared the runway; 583 fatalities, including 335 on the Pan Am aircraft - which would standing alone rank as one of the 10 worst airline accidents of all time).

Further, accidents that had their genesis in an event that occurred over 10,000 feet can be survivable by many or even most passengers. United 232 in 1989 being the example already emphasized, but some other off-hand examples are United 811 (1989), British Midland 92 (1989), Aloha 243 (1988), Air Canada 797 (1983), and Southern 242 (1977).

Bottom line: the statement that “No seat belt or car seat gonna help you with an airplane crash” is wrong. No matter how ones seeks to redefine “crash”.

 

[Carriemel]

Instead of saying real crash I would want the statistics for how often airplain incidents are survivable when the plane was in the air for part of the incident.

I imagine if you take out all the ones that occur during taxing those numbers go down alot.

Then if you do a second set and take out all that happen during take off and landing and only count things where the issue started when the plane was over 10,000 feet high the number where people survive would drop even more.


My understanding is the majority of airplane crashes are more like car accidents its the plane slipping off the road, hitting another aircraft, etc during taxi. I would think many of those probably only damage the wings of the plane (How many people have managed to scrape up there mirrors trying to park their car? Those stick out alot less far then airplane wings) and everyone inside is fine.

Here are your statistics as far as how often airplane incidents are survivable when plane was airborne. The meat of the PDF starts about page 5...

https://app.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SR0101.pdf

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Although I’m not immediately aware of fatality data broken down the way you’re looking for it, I think it’s safe to say that your understanding is dubious at best.

First, although there were some survivors, one of the worst accidents in aviation history – Pan Am 1736/KLM 4805 in 1977 – could be characterized as a taxiing accident (an impatient KLM pilot – ironically, the airline’s chief flight instructor – started his takeoff roll before the taxiing Pan Am aircraft cleared the runway; 583 fatalities, including 335 on the Pan Am aircraft - which would standing alone rank as one of the 10 worst airline accidents of all time).

Further, accidents that had their genesis in an event that occurred over 10,000 feet can be survivable by many or even most passengers. United 232 in 1989 being the example already emphasized, but some other off-hand examples are United 811 (1989), British Midland 92 (1989), Aloha 243 (1988), Air Canada 797 (1983), and Southern 242 (1977).

Bottom line: the statement that “No seat belt or car seat gonna help you with an airplane crash” is wrong. No matter how ones seeks to redefine “crash”.

So, as we agreed there is no FAA/NTSB definition of "crash", so how can it be "redefined"??

If you think a "crash", the German Wings flight for example, a car seat would save your life than I'm simply not sure what to say.

Obviously you either work for the FAA, NTSB, airlines, or are just well read.
Just come out with it so we know your credentials. We can all have a more informed opinion.
As I said earlier, I'm an airline pilot. Certainly NOT an aviation safety expert, and that's why I don't have all these numbers. I do know that I've never had an injured lap kid. I still stand by my earlier statement that a car seat is a better option, but it's still reasonably safe in a lap when properly attended (restrained).

MG

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Here are your statistics as far as how often airplane incidents are survivable when plane was airborne. The meat of the PDF starts about page 5...

https://app.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SR0101.pdf

Awesome. Only skimmed but if I was reading correctly seemed to show most accidents were non fatal. Didn't read long enough to see about injuries.. If they're in there. Also didn't see statistics on lap children. Please point me I the right direction if I missed it.

MG