Question about flying with baby on lap

[DaisyD]

The same reason other parents put their kids in the car and take them with running errands, rather than hiring a sitter and leaving the kid at home where they would be much safer.

I suggest that only those parents who have never ever done anything other than the safest possible option with their kids be allowed to tell other parents they are bad for flying with a lap baby.

Well when I run errands with my kids in a car they are in a child safety restraint. And that is with me going only 60 MPH. I can't imagine going 400 mph and not have a child restrained. How foolish.

 

[Beca]

Well when I run errands with my kids in a car they are in a child safety restraint. And that is with me going only 60 MPH. I can't imagine going 400 mph and not have a child restrained. How foolish.

But, can you imagine how many parents wouldn't restrain their kids if there was no law? Two years ago in AZ, there was a lawsuit filed by one of the local Native American tribes who cited that the "no kids allowed in the back of pick-ups" law was racist against Native Americans. They claimed that "riding in the back of pick-ups" was as much a part of their cultural traditions as anything else, and the government should not be allowed to legislate against cultural traditions.

I imagine if there was a law stating "no lap children" on a plane, people would be talking about how "stupid" it would be to have lap children, but as it is now...I would see at LEAST one lap child on every flight, usually more. Mark my words...when a law goes into effect banning lap children, people will complain like crazy, and in a few years they will forget. Then, ALL people will speak of how crazy it was that lap children were ever allowed.

 

[katerkat]

Well when I run errands with my kids in a car they are in a child safety restraint. And that is with me going only 60 MPH. I can't imagine going 400 mph and not have a child restrained. How foolish.

Actually, the argument is that there's more of a risk of a car accident on a daily basis than a lap baby being injured/killed in flight. So even with proper restraints, you're more likely to injure your child on daily errands or driving to playgroup. If you "truly" wanted your child to be safe, you'd hire a babysitter and never take them out for errands.

Of course people don't do that (well, on a regular basis!) - you think driving them around town in their seats is an acceptable risk. For others, lap babies are an acceptable risk.

For some people, taking a toddler up in a Cessna is an acceptable risk. (My husband's suggestion of what to do this weekend. )

 

[salmoneous]

It's not worth the risk...the child is worth more than that.

Every parent takes risks with their children everyday. Who are we do decide which risks are worth taking and which aren't.

Have you ever taken a risk with your child? For instance, when running errands, did you ever put the kid in a car and take them into traffic, rather than leave them at home with a sitter?

 

[salmoneous]

Beca, Not to be hard on anyone, I cannot imagine endangering a child is an acceptable risk at any time,

Every parent endangers their child every day. Do you know any that don't?

 

[salmoneous]

Well when I run errands with my kids in a car they are in a child safety restraint.

You kid is *much* safer at home than running errands with you. How many kids have been killed in traffic even though they were in their safety restraint?

Being a parent is hard enough without other parents second guessing them. You make your choice about what risks you were willing to subject your kids to. Unless they are doing something crazy, why not trust other parents to do the same?

 

[NotUrsula]

Originally posted by Beca:
I worked for Southwest Airlines. Even now, when I get on board, flight attendants will often tell me that I have to place my dd's car seat in the window. Once I explain that it does not protrude past the seat cushion, and that I used to be a flight attendant and know better, and they always say, "Oh, okay." With most domestic carriers, the flight attendants have not had children, and cannot, on sight spot carriers that will protrude past the seat cushion from those that cannot. And, even if your senior flight attendant CAN tell the difference, she often is not going to slow the boarding process to explain the differences. Therefore, they just tell you to "place the carseat next to the window" as a CYA for themselves. The senior flight attendant is the person who gets fined whenever anything is out of line, so most just interpret the rules conservatively. However, even though a flight attendant might tell you otherwise, SWA has NEVER had a rule that fwd facing car seats that to not protrude must go in the window.

Beca, with all due respect, the rules for someone like you and the rules for the rest of us, in practice, are different.

An airline's Flight Attendant Manual is a proprietary document; most members of the flying public don't have access to it. These days, most FA's do not take challenges of any kind well, and, especially on SWA, I know better than to delay boarding while I insist that an FA check his/her manual for an actual reg. I can insist on the FAR because I have access to it and can carry a copy to show. The FAR is a public document, but if the FA claims that the airline's policy is more conservative than the FAR, there is, in practice, no argument that I can make. Since 2002, it is a risky thing to argue, however politely, with ANYTHING that an FA tells you to do, unless you have your documentation in hand, and can cite the reg chapter and verse.

As to FA's trying to evict paid-for carseats, it happens all the time, and it has happened to me more times than I can count. (It happens especially often on regional carriers like Comair and American Eagle.) In this case, the rule is public record, and it is very easy for a parent to defend it. I recommend to every parent who flies with a carseat on a US carrier that you print out (on the day of your flight, so that the date is on the page) the latest version of 14 CFR 121.311, and put it in an envelope taped to the back of the seat shell. That way you will have it handy in the event you are challenged, and can politely hand it over.

BTW, I've read transcripts of old hearing testimony and reports from the Office of Aerospace Medicine from when the floor "brace position" was still the recommended thing. My reading of the testimony indicates that the logic for that one was not meant to protect the baby at all; as far as I can tell, the idea was apparently to protect the other passengers from being hit by the baby's airborne body.

The practice of lap-carrying is not likely to go away anytime soon. In August of 2005 the FAA concluded a major round of hearings on the subject of mandated CRS use, and their conclusion included language that essentially stated the equivalent of, "No, and don't ask us again." You can read the NTSB's statement on the FAA decision here: http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/mostwanted/aircraft_child_restraints.htm

Also, the FAA dual mandate was eliminated in 1996 by the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act (1996) Pub.L. 104-264, so it no longer is charged with promoting the aviation industry. The law was passed in response to the lax FAA safety rule enforcement that contributed to the crash of Valujet 592 in 1995. IMO, the law hasn't done much to change the "promote aviation" culture, though; a lot of the senior people have been there since the dual mandate, and they don't seem to go out of their way to defy airlines' wishes.

PS: (Because I just can't resist mentioning this weakness) The FAA's argument re: driving vs. flying fails to hold up in the case of kids who are over age 2 but weigh less than 40 lbs. -- they have to have a seat anyway, so it doesn't cost a parent more to put a carseat in the seat, unless the parent is an urban dweller that doesn't own a carseat. The CARES harness was actually approved over a year ago by the FAA; I posted the news here when it happened. However, the original approval intended for the harness to be supplied and installed by the airline, and [surprise!] no airline chose to provide it, not even JetBlue, who underwrote part of the testing cost. The updated CARES approval allows passengers to buy and install the CARES themselves. The FAA *could* have mandated CRS use for these older children without violating the sense of their argument, but chose not to -- and IMO the reason why has very little to do with safety and more to do with pleasing the airlines.

 

[DaisyD]

You kid is *much* safer at home than running errands with you. How many kids have been killed in traffic even though they were in their safety restraint?

Being a parent is hard enough without other parents second guessing them. You make your choice about what risks you were willing to subject your kids to. Unless they are doing something crazy, why not trust other parents to do the same?

I liken flying to driving. You can make both safer. Kids should be restrained in both. It is a shame that it will take a law instead of common sense to protect our kids. But hey, it isn't my kid flipping around from turbulance.

 

[DaisyD]

Every parent endangers their child every day. Do you know any that don't?

It all boils down to money in the case of flying. Is $110 each way too much to pay for your child? Regret is the worse feeling in the world.

 

[salmoneous]

It all boils down to money in the case of flying. Is $110 each way too much to pay for your child? Regret is the worse feeling in the world.

Perhaps I'm not making the analogy clear

Flying-

More safe option: using car seat
Less safe option: flying as lap baby

Running Errands-

More safe option: leaving child home with sitter
Less safe option: taking kid into traffic

A sitter costs, what, $10? Is $10 too much to pay for the life of your child?

You say its just common sense to protect your kids. Does that apply to you running errands, or just to people who fly?

Being a parent is tough and requires hard choices. Flying a kid as a lap baby, like taking one with you running errands, is a tough choice. No parent always chooses the safest option. How can you criticize others for choosing an option that isn't the absolute safest, when you and every other parent does the same?

 

[salmoneous]

sorry - double post

 

[Anthony1971]

I have been any flights to Orlando at least once a year For the past 10 years and most people on the flight are going to Disney. I have seen many lap babies but yet to see a car seat..... This is from NY City airports........

 

[NotUrsula]

The bottom line is that as long as carrying a lap-child is legal, people will choose to do it, for any one of a number of reasons. I'm not going to slam anyone for doing what people-who-should-know are telling them is OK.

As the US experience with carseat usage and booster seat usage shows, "recommendations" count for exactly zilch in these situations; the only way to get the majority of people to undertake the recommended safety precaution is to require them to do so, with a meaningful penalty if they do not. All the name-calling and finger-wagging in the world won't get the majority of Americans to believe that a behaviour that is completely legal is hazardous. Look at how long it is taking for tobacco -- the official warnings started appearing in 1964, but a huge number of people still smoke, and it is still considered rude to call a stranger on it.

As the FAA has now told the NTSB in so many words that they (the FAA) will not even consider mandating carseat use if the NTSB brings it up again, legal lap-babies are here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Now, for a shocking truth that a lot of us who use carseats on aircraft would have to own up to if we were being totally honest: I didn't first decide to do it for the baby's safety. That's right, evil and selfish Mommy that I am, I decided to bring that carseat so that I could eat a meal, sleep and/or be able to go to the bathroom if I had to, without fear of the spectacle of my naked baby crawling up and down the aisles while I did so, gleefully smearing poop on everything he could reach. (The kid could strip in the blink of an eye, and frequently did.) Why did I start obsessively researching the rules? So that I could successfully argue with airline personnel who told me that the seat could not be used. Along the way I learned about the safety implications, but the comfort factor was still there for me all along.

 

[DaisyD]

Perhaps I'm not making the analogy clear

Flying-

More safe option: using car seat
Less safe option: flying as lap baby

Running Errands-

More safe option: leaving child home with sitter
Less safe option: taking kid into traffic

A sitter costs, what, $10? Is $10 too much to pay for the life of your child?

You say its just common sense to protect your kids. Does that apply to you running errands, or just to people who fly?

Being a parent is tough and requires hard choices. Flying a kid as a lap baby, like taking one with you running errands, is a tough choice. No parent always chooses the safest option. How can you criticize others for choosing an option that isn't the absolute safest, when you and every other parent does the same?

And my analogy is:
Flying
More safe option: using car seat
Less safe option: flying as lap baby

Driving

More safe option: using a car seat
Less safe option: not using a car seat
That is a more equal analogy then you are giving. As I said before and you chose to ignore it. It boils down to money. We can use the babysitting analogy for both flying and dong errands but that isn't the point and you know it. You spend your money the way you want. I'll spend mine to safely transport my kids. Worth every penny.

 

[adrock1976]

And my analogy is:
Flying
More safe option: using car seat
Less safe option: flying as lap baby

Driving

More safe option: using a car seat
Less safe option: not using a car seat
That is a more equal analogy then you are giving. As I said before and you chose to ignore it. It boils down to money. We can use the babysitting analogy for both flying and dong errands but that isn't the point and you know it. You spend your money the way you want. I'll spend mine to safely transport my kids. Worth every penny.

Yeah, gotta agree here. Leaving the child at home is not an equivilent analogy. The issue here is, the child is WITH YOU, what is best way to make them safe.

 

[salmoneous]

We can use the babysitting analogy for both flying and dong errands but that isn't the point and you know it.

No - that's exactly the point. Both are choices people make that save money, but subject their child to some tiny risk. You don't like my example because it points out that YOU make choices with YOUR child that put it at risk.

Look, I'd never criticize any choice you make. It's your kid and you are trusted to do the right thing. Why do you feel the need to criticize others?

 

[DaisyD]

No - that's exactly the point. Both are choices people make that save money, but subject their child to some tiny risk. You don't like my example because it points out that YOU make choices with YOUR child that put it at risk.

Look, I'd never criticize any choice you make. It's your kid and you are trusted to do the right thing. Why do you feel the need to criticize others?

The OP asked a legitimate question and deserves a truthful answer. Not a money saving answer. Not a time saving answer. A child saving answer. You are the defensive one. I KNOW I feel I've done all for my child that I can whern I buckle them into their car seats when flying. Just like I do when I'm driving. Parenting is a full time job and not just when one choses to pony up the bucks.

 

[DaisyD]

Yeah, gotta agree here. Leaving the child at home is not an equivilent analogy. The issue here is, the child is WITH YOU, what is best way to make them safe.

Exactly. Someone that understands.

 

[NotUrsula]

I've got to agree with Sal on this one: the option of driving a car without a carseat does not contribute to a valid analogy, at least where this particular situation is concerned. Why not? Because driving the kid around without a carseat is illegal. The FAA is weighing the risk factor between two entirely legal behaviours: driving in a car WITH a carseat, and riding in a plane without a carseat.

Here's another one for you: how about smoking while pregnant? Would you call down a stranger (or even a relative) for doing that? Would you point out that that $5 pack of cigarettes is not worth a child's life?

The mantrap in this whole debate is the one that the FAA fell into so many years ago: it isn't really about saving lives -- it is about preventing injuries. When we argue the extreme position that failure to use a carseat in an aircraft endangers a child's life, we are a position that is easily disproven with mortality statistics. In any given year, many many more babies die by drowning in buckets of mop water than die onboard commercial aircraft, yet we still mop our floors using buckets. They die by falling out of highchairs, too, and yes, they die in auto accidents even when they are properly secured in carseats.

The better argument by far in persuasive terms is that using carseats onboard aircraft will help to minimize preventable injuries, from bumped noggins and bloody noses to pinched fingers. However, that's not an argument that you can really shame parents with, because all children get hurt sometimes, even when they have the most vigilant parents on the planet. This is where the assessment of acceptable risk comes in: do you accept the risk that your child might get thrown into a seatback and get a bloody nose, or don't you? (Or as my earlier post pointed out, do you choose to accept the risk that he might strip and crawl down the aisle naked and poopy if you happen to fall asleep?)

 

[DaisyD]

I've got to agree with Sal on this one: the option of driving a car without a carseat does not contribute to a valid analogy, at least where this particular situation is concerned. Why not? Because driving the kid around without a carseat is illegal.

I'm not even taking into consideration the legality of it. I'm talking common sense. The fact is that our parents never thought twice of carting us around without so much as a seatbelt. Heck, my dad used to cut the seatbelts out within a day of buying a new car! That was 40 years ago and of course most didn't know better. Now we do and we take steps to make sure all parents do what is right for their kids. It had to take an actual law before some so called parents actually did what was right for their children. It sometimes takes police force to some folks to do what is right. The only reason it isn't a law for airplanes yet is because they are afraid of the commotion caused by parents that don't want to buy that $200 seat for their precious cargo. How unfortunate for the child.