Question about flying with baby on lap

[Adrienne]

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?

i have done in the past, but such is the nature of my hatred of cigarettes, a drug that is LEGAL yet kills more people every year than marijuana, which is still ILLEGAL in most western countries. We take babies away from crack using mothers, yet cigarettes can cause more birth defects in children than many other drugs, and women are legally allowed to smoke while pregnant and children's services has no power over them. I guess in the end up, its all about the government and the fact that they can make money from cigarettes and alcohol! GD i hate capitalist regimes! there isn't a squish bad govt icon

Adrienne

 

[kathi29]

My actual point was until 15-20 years ago, very few people even thought about buying a seat (full price) for a toddler. It wasn't and still isn't required for under 2 because the reality is a toddler is happier sitting in mom's lap than in their car seat if they think they have a choice which they will sitting next to her.

I disagree. The reason it is not required has nothing to do with where the child is happiest. It has everything to do with money. More people would choose NOT to fly if they were required to fork over the $$ for another ticket. Like you stated, flying is safer than driving.

But lap children are put at an increased risk over other flyers for the sake of saving a few bucks. You have to stow your tray table, put away your carryon, buckle your seatbelt... but g'head and hold that baby on your lap. Unrestrained. Waiting to become a projectile in severe turbulence or sudden loss of cabin pressure.

 

[jodifla]

i have done in the past, but such is the nature of my hatred of cigarettes, a drug that is LEGAL yet kills more people every year than marijuana, which is still ILLEGAL in most western countries. We take babies away from crack using mothers, yet cigarettes can cause more birth defects in children than many other drugs, and women are legally allowed to smoke while pregnant and children's services has no power over them. I guess in the end up, its all about the government and the fact that they can make money from cigarettes and alcohol! GD i hate capitalist regimes! there isn't a squish bad govt icon

Adrienne

So, you prefer a fascist regime in which we lock up smoking mothers?

Lots of kids do just fine when their moms smoke...in fact the whole Baby Boomer generation.

 

[jodifla]

I disagree. The reason it is not required has nothing to do with where the child is happiest. It has everything to do with money. More people would choose NOT to fly if they were required to fork over the $$ for another ticket. Like you stated, flying is safer than driving.

But lap children are put at an increased risk over other flyers for the sake of saving a few bucks. You have to stow your tray table, put away your carryon, buckle your seatbelt... but g'head and hold that baby on your lap. Unrestrained. Waiting to become a projectile in severe turbulence or sudden loss of cabin pressure.

Again, in the hundreds of flights I've taken, I've never experienced turbulence severe enough to wrench anything out of my grip, and I've flown through the edges of hurricanes before.

If you can, could you direct us to the news articles that specify all the broken and bruised children injured while flying? Because that's news, and I've never read a story about all these injured kids.

 

[kathi29]

Well, there is the Souix City crash. I'll take a look around later and see what I can come up with; google is your friend if you want to prove me wrong. There is plenty of research that shows kids are safer buckled into their own seat.

It's a parental choice. If you are willing to risk the safety of your child just because you can't find a news article that says otherwise, that's up to you. Your pocketbook is important enough to be safely tucked away, but not your kid. Okey dokey.

 

[salmoneous]

There is plenty of research that shows kids are safer buckled into their own seat.

Yes, kids are 0.00001% (or something ) safer buckled in their own seat.

Parents don't always take that option that is 0.00001% safe. You don't - no patent does. Unless you are always choosing the safest option, where do you get the right to criticize other parents for making the same choice you make.

"Yes, I can choose what's best for my baby. Sometime that's the absolute safest option. Sometime it isn't. And I'm going to criticize other parents for doing the same if their choice about what risks to take aren't exactly the same as mine."

 

[kathi29]

Where did you get that statistic? I'd like to see the source.

The FAA says:
In nonfatal accidents, in-flight turbulence is the leading cause of injuries to airline passengers and flight attendants.
Each year, approximately 58 people in the United States are injured by turbulence while not wearing their seat belts.
From 1980 through June 2004, U.S. air carriers had 198 turbulence accidents*, resulting in 266 serious injuries and three fatalities.
At least two of the three fatalities involved passengers who were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated.

and:
Did you know the safest place for your little one during turbulence or an emergency is in an approved child restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap?

http://www.faa.gov/passengers/media/childsafety.pdf

Don't you think lap babies fall under these statements?

What about the NTSB paper? http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2004/SR_A-95-51/SR_A-95-51_diversion_analysis.pdf

I didn't criticize. I said it was a parental choice that I do not understand.

 

[salmoneous]

Where did I get the statistic - I made it up based on a vague knowledge of the risks (hence the "or something".) But it's not bad. Based on 50 million passenger flights per year in the US, and your statistics of 58 accidents of any kind a year, and 10.6 serious accidents a year (266/25) and .12 fatalities (3/25) that gives us

Risk of any accident: 0.00011%
Risk of serous accident: 0.000021%
Risk of fatality: 0.000006%

So we are talking tiny risks here. I wish no kid were subject to any risk. But you can't wrap you kid in a bubble. Some risks get through.

If you honestly didn't mean to criticize, you might want to be a bit more careful with your words. And yes, I know you mean well - protecting kids and all.

Finally, if you want to understand why parents make such choices, look at the choices YOU make. Are you honestly going to tell me you never subject your kids to tiny risks? Never put them in a car when you don't have? And when the kids are in the car - do you always take the safest route - avoiding any left turns for instance - or do you take the easiest route?

I think if you look at your own actions, you will see choices you make that make your life easier, but subject your kid to 0.0001% risks. Other parents are just doing the same.

 

[kathi29]

Points taken. But this tiny risk is one that can be made even tinier by following safety recommendations. The risk is 100% for the person it actually happens to, and no parent would be able to forgive themselves if it was their child that got hurt. To know the risks and make a choice is one thing; to pretend the risk is not there is irresponsible.

Beyond that, what does everyone do when they get to their destination? Rely on rental carseats with unknown history? Continue to hold their child in their lap for the taxi ride? Hope the car rental agency even has a seat they can rent? The laws of physics and child safety do not change just because we are on vacation.

http://ashsd.afacwa.org/?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=2777
http://www.planesafe.org/safety/safetyseat.htm

 

[disneyldwjr]

So, you prefer a fascist regime in which we lock up smoking mothers?

Lots of kids do just fine when their moms smoke...in fact the whole Baby Boomer generation.

And so do the children of the Baby Boomer generation.
The government has enough control over our children and what is legal and illegal, we definitely do not need more.

 

[NotUrsula]

Ah, statistics. The issue here is one of "statistical significance". As a generality, anything under .5% is going to be considered statistically insignificant, and the fatality numbers for commercial air passengers in the developed world are well under that threshhold, as a percentage of the number of enplaned passengers total. Any time you want to pass a law requiring the use of a safety device that costs money, you have to prove that the protection provided by the device is statistically significant for the population at large. Unfortunately, the FAA is taking the position that the risk at issue is that of accidental death, and there is just no way to prove that the benefit of carseat use on a commercial aircraft is statistically significant in that respect.

The American Academy of Pediatrics published quite a few statistics in favor of carseat use in their position paper on this topic. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;108/5/1218 However, even they conceded that the risk of ANYONE dying on a commercial aircraft in the US fleet is *way* under .5% -- one in 8 million, actually. However, the numbers for injuries requiring medical attention were quite a bit higher, 852 in a 15 yr. period between 1981 and 1997, in 342 reported incidents of turbulence. As the AAP statement shows, a big part of the difficulty in getting good statistics to defend this position is the lack of a requirement that the passenger census include age data. Right now, the only way a kid is counted as a kid on the manifest is if he is flying on a child fare. We all know that at least half the time, a child fare will cost more than an adult sale fare, so most children are not marked as children on the manifests.

So here is my position on this: Lap-carrying is legal, and it is relatively safe. I don't waste my time and energy arguing with or alienating people who deliberately choose not to use a carseat for a lap child, and I would not class those people as recklessly negligent. They considered, and they chose, and they have that right. I would much rather concern myself with helping to get out information to those parents who just haven't considered the safety implications at all, especially for children who are over 2 but weigh less than 40 lbs., as the whole cost angle usually doesn't matter for them at all.

That said, I spend a LOT of time politely urging people to use carseats on aircraft. I very often offer to carry them onto and off of planes for other passengers, and even to install them if the person seems to need help. (FA's tend to be very grateful when I do this, because I've done it a lot, and I'm fast.) IME, families who use carseats just tend to end up more comfortable during the flight in every way, and yes, are better protected in the event that the unthinkable happens. I offer advice here and on other boards about how to cope with transport logistics, and installation tips. I make it a point to keep all advice positive, and never to criticize those who don't decide to take me up on it.

Jodifla and I have been around the block on this one before, and for whatever reason, I've apparently seen a lot more turbulence and near-miss ground incidents than she has. Believe me if you want to or don't; that is up to you. I can tell you that I have seen unrestrained children get injured on flights, sometimes badly enough to need medical attention, though more often, hurt just badly enough to scream for quite a while as their parents wrestled with ice packs and wads of paper napkins and worried themselves sick. Most of the time when your child gets hurt, it is only a matter of minutes before you can get medical advice about how to judge the situation, or to get emergency medical help. At 30,000 ft., there isn't much you can do, and often no help beyond the flight attendant's first aid training. Even if the situation is serious enough to warrant diverting the plane, the process of getting to medical help is agonizingly slow. My feeling is, if using a carseat will make it even a little less likely that I'll ever have to deal with that scenario, then it makes sense to do it. YMMV.

 

[DaisyD]

Again, no matter who wants to admit it, it all comes down to money. You better believe if the airlines offered a free seat if your brought a car seat then there wouldn't be one lap baby or kid ever again! It is because you have to pay for the seat that people are weighing the risk. So let see, pay $200 for .0000000001% more safety or not? Is that $200 really that more important then decreasing said risk? Is there a price on a child's life? Obviously it is to some folks but that is their choice. Thankfully for my kids I chose safety. To each his own.

 

[NotUrsula]

It is because you have to pay for the seat that people are weighing the risk.

Well, sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn't. I've seen LOTS of do-I or don't-I posts where the child in question is past his 2nd birthday. At that point, ticket cost seldom plays into the decision.

 

[jodifla]

Again, no matter who wants to admit it, it all comes down to money. You better believe if the airlines offered a free seat if your brought a car seat then there wouldn't be one lap baby or kid ever again! It is because you have to pay for the seat that people are weighing the risk. So let see, pay $200 for .0000000001% more safety or not? Is that $200 really that more important then decreasing said risk? Is there a price on a child's life? Obviously it is to some folks but that is their choice. Thankfully for my kids I chose safety. To each his own.

It's true. I looked at the risks and the costs, and chose to save the money. Because to me, the risk is so low that in translates to no risk. And for me, it all paid off. I saved about $2,500 in airfare, and DS 4, is fine. He is now past the age of car seats, so he sits comfortably in an airline seat with a seatbelt, which of course we pay for.

I think NotUrsula states the case quite well for carseats on a plane, actually. But I look at this statistics, and I think, this is a non-issue. I did drag around car seats after 2 years until DS was almost 3. The low point for me was trying to drag the carseat on alone -- DS almost took off without me at the airport while I was lugging the carseat and diaper bag...WAY MORE risky in my opinion that having that damn seat.

But there are other risks that are quite real to me. For example, I refused to have a pool in my home before DS could swim. Because the risk of drowning in a home pool are quite real, and I can name you name after name of children who drowned in home pools.

But I don't think people who have young children and pools are reckless. I think they assess the risk differently.

 

[salmoneous]

So let see, pay $200 for .0000000001% more safety or not? Is that $200 really that more important then decreasing said risk? Is there a price on a child's life? Obviously it is to some folks but that is their choice. Thankfully for my kids I chose safety. To each his own.

Don't be fooled - you do the same thing every day. Every day there are many ways you could spend money to make your kids safer, but you choose not to. You choose to save the money and subject your kids to greater risk. You aren't better than the other parents.

 

[DaisyD]

Don't be fooled - you do the same thing every day. Every day there are many ways you could spend money to make your kids safer, but you choose not to. You choose to save the money and subject your kids to greater risk. You aren't better than the other parents.

Sorry but I don't. I chose safety over money as most folks do too. It's okay though if you don't. Don't be so defensive. The OP asked a safety question and it was answered.

 

[RachelEllen]

Sorry but I don't. I chose safety over money as most folks do too. It's okay though if you don't. Don't be so defensive. The OP asked a safety question and it was answered.

I think the point was that you chose safety over money in this particular case, but I bet if you, or anyone, looks really really hard, you can find situations in which you choose money, or convienance, or making a child happy, or all sorts of things over safety. And in most cases, that's really ok.

Putting a child in a car to go grocery shopping is more dangerous than having your groceries delivered (even with the car seats). Are people who go grocery shopping bad parents? Four children die each year because televisions fall on them. Are people who own television sets bad parents?

 

[jodifla]

Sorry but I don't. I chose safety over money as most folks do too. It's okay though if you don't. Don't be so defensive. The OP asked a safety question and it was answered.

You're just kidding yourself. And most folks DON'T get seats for their under-2s. Look around you on a plane some day.

 

[goofy4tink]

Hey guys....can we not turn this into a parenting debate??? Let's try to stick to actual transportation issues rather than a debate on which parent chooses the safest things for their kids??? Thank-you.

 

[salmoneous]

Sorry but I don't. I chose safety over money as most folks do too.

I hope this post continues the discussion of safety, and not parenting...

The point we are trying to make is that flying a kid as a lap baby is no different from the choices every parent makes, every day. People have a hard time comprehending how small a risk we are talking about. There is a belief among some posters that it is somehow qualitatively different from such ordinary acts as driving a kid to the grocery store. It isn't.