Question about flying with baby on lap

[adrock1976]

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

Out of curiousity, do you have children yourself?

 

[DaisyD]

Out of curiousity, do you have children yourself?

Wondering this myself.

 

[kathi29]

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.

It is different. We don't travel with our children unrestrained in our cars, but it's okay on an airplane? We have to secure our carry on bags, computers, purses, and tray tables, but not our infants? It doesn't make sense.

I realize that the risks are higher in an automobile than in a plane, but why is 2 years old a magic age that babies need to be kept safe for air travel? Flight attendants and safety organizations have been begging for years for legislation to keep infants safe.

Call it overlegislation if you want, but the fact is that people in general will do only what the law requires them to do. If we did not have car seat laws, we would have parents letting their kids bounce around unrestrained. (We still have that; I see it frequently and it makes me cringe every time.) Florida's law is woefully inadequate - take a look around and the more stringent laws other states are effecting, and then look at Florida. Here you can place yur 4 year old in a seatbelt designed for a 250 pound adult. But that is what the law says, so its okay to ignore the laws of physics and that fact that said child is just to small for the seatbelt to fit properly?

So back to air travel... infants are not afforded the same safety concern as baggage, much less an older child or adult. We don't want carry-ons, computers and purses to become projectiles, so we stow them for take off and landing, and when there is turbulence. We put our tray tables up during those same times, I'm guessing to avoid abdominal or head injuries if conditions cause our upper torso to be lurched forward. We stay buckled in our seats, even when the seat belt light is off. But we hold our infants in our laps?

 

[jodifla]

It is different. We don't travel with our children unrestrained in our cars, but it's okay on an airplane? We have to secure our carry on bags, computers, purses, and tray tables, but not our infants? It doesn't make sense.

I realize that the risks are higher in an automobile than in a plane, but why is 2 years old a magic age that babies need to be kept safe for air travel? Flight attendants and safety organizations have been begging for years for legislation to keep infants safe.

Call it overlegislation if you want, but the fact is that people in general will do only what the law requires them to do. If we did not have car seat laws, we would have parents letting their kids bounce around unrestrained. (We still have that; I see it frequently and it makes me cringe every time.) Florida's law is woefully inadequate - take a look around and the more stringent laws other states are effecting, and then look at Florida. Here you can place yur 4 year old in a seatbelt designed for a 250 pound adult. But that is what the law says, so its okay to ignore the laws of physics and that fact that said child is just to small for the seatbelt to fit properly?

So back to air travel... infants are not afforded the same safety concern as baggage, much less an older child or adult. We don't want carry-ons, computers and purses to become projectiles, so we stow them for take off and landing, and when there is turbulence. We put our tray tables up during those same times, I'm guessing to avoid abdominal or head injuries if conditions cause our upper torso to be lurched forward. We stay buckled in our seats, even when the seat belt light is off. But we hold our infants in our laps?

The infant is secure....in your arms. Simple as that.

Also, purses, bags, etc. often are not "secure." They are simply sitting on the floor under a seat. More overdramatization.

 

[DaisyD]

The infant is secure....in your arms. Simple as that.

Also, purses, bags, etc. often are not "secure." They are simply sitting on the floor under a seat. More overdramatization.

You can't believe that infant is secure in ones arms? You are kidding yourself just to save a little bit of money. If an infant was safe on ones arms then there wouldn't be car seat laws. Simple as that.

 

[jodifla]

You can't believe that infant is secure in ones arms? You are kidding yourself just to save a little bit of money. If an infant was safe on ones arms then there wouldn't be car seat laws. Simple as that.

It wasn't a little bit of money...it was thousands of dollars.

And, cars are not airplanes. They are mass transit. There are no car seats on buses, trains, subways, etc. Do parents who use this forms of transit "just kid themselves" too? Using these forms of transportation without a car seat is much more risky than an airplane.

 

[kathi29]

The infant is secure....in your arms. Simple as that.

Also, purses, bags, etc. often are not "secure." They are simply sitting on the floor under a seat. More overdramatization.

Funny, the FAA disagrees with you
http://www.faa.gov/passengers/media/childsafety.pdf

Purses, bags, etc. are more secure under the seat than they are sitting on your lap. In the event of turbulence, those items are less likely to become projectiles if they are stowed under the seat or in an overhead bin.

 

[jodifla]

Funny, the FAA disagrees with you
http://www.faa.gov/passengers/media/childsafety.pdf

Purses, bags, etc. are more secure under the seat than they are sitting on your lap. In the event of turbulence, those items are less likely to become projectiles if they are stowed under the seat or in an overhead bin.

I know that this is what they say, in an effort to get you to spend money and buy a seat, but the statistics don't back it up.

And you didn't address that kids ride around all over the country without seat belts in buses, trains, subways, schoolbuses, etc. So the person who was all wound up about a carseat on a plane gets on a bus with their 1 year old. Really, do you not see the irony here?

 

[DaisyD]

It wasn't a little bit of money...it was thousands of dollars.

And, cars are not airplanes. They are mass transit. There are no car seats on buses, trains, subways, etc. Do parents who use this forms of transit "just kid themselves" too? Using these forms of transportation without a car seat is much more risky than an airplane.

So you saved thousands of dollars to reduce the safety for your child. When DS was a baby we spent thousands of dollars for his seat every time we flew to Italy and back. We did that every 3 months. I could have saved over $15,000 in one year by not buying him a seat but he was worth a tad more then that to me. We all make our choices. I don't feel guilty about it either.

 

[DaisyD]

I know that this is what they say, in an effort to get you to spend money and buy a seat, but the statistics don't back it up.

And you didn't address that kids ride around all over the country without seat belts in buses, trains, subways, schoolbuses, etc. So the person who was all wound up about a carseat on a plane gets on a bus with their 1 year old. Really, do you not see the irony here?

Seatbelts are not safe when using on a schoolbus. Period. I never rode with my kids on public transportation when they were car seat age. They have never taken a train or subway. When we have a towncar pick us up from airports we had our own car seat because we used them on the plane.

 

[kathi29]

I know that this is what they say, in an effort to get you to spend money and buy a seat, but the statistics don't back it up.

And you didn't address that kids ride around all over the country without seat belts in buses, trains, subways, schoolbuses, etc. So the person who was all wound up about a carseat on a plane gets on a bus with their 1 year old. Really, do you not see the irony here?

Right. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with them knowing the risks and wanting to keep their passengers safe. It's all about getting people to spend money on a seat. If that is what someone chooses to think in order to justify their actions, there isn't a lot anyone else can do about it.

I found this nice physics analogy (weight x speed) Secondly, heavy turbulence may result in a lap baby being plastered to the ceiling of the plane. A rough landing or an emergency landing are both very dangerous situations for lap babies. For those of you who are scientifically inclined, my physics-oriented husband explains that a 20-lb child going 600 mph has the inertia of a 400-lb man going 30 mph. Try holding on to that much weight during a crisis!

Buses use something called compartmentalization to keep kids safe. Seatbelts would serve a purpose only to stop a child from being ejected, but in most cases would do more harm than good. Besides, schoolbuses are a statistically safe mode of transportation.

And no, I would not (if I had one) take a 1 year old on a bus. Fortunately I have other options, and I think it is a fairly safe assumption that if someone can afford to go to Disney, they also have other options. I don't have any specific knowledge of child passenger safety on trains and subways, so I can't address it.

Then there are the people who not only carry their infant on the plane, but don't want the hassle of a seat at their destination so they continue to take chances with their child's life because it isn't convenient to do otherwise.

 

[jodifla]

We've had this round and round argument before, so there's no point in continuing.

For what it's worth, I do listen to your arguments, I just don't agree with them. For me, some risk in life is acceptable. And a one in 8 million chance won't cause me to alter my behavior.

 

[DaisyD]

We've had this round and round argument before, so there's no point in continuing.

For what it's worth, I do listen to your arguments, I just don't agree with them. For me, some risk in life is acceptable. And a one in 8 million chance won't cause me to alter my behavior.

True. Thanks for the civilized debate though!

 

[NotUrsula]

Besides, schoolbuses are a statistically safe mode of transportation.

Which backs up the case of all the folks you are arguing with -- a large commercial aircraft [in the US fleet] is statistically MUCH safer than a schoolbus, or ANY form of ground transit vehicle, which is why the FAA is reasoning that requiring the passenger to buy the extra seat might cause them to drive instead. A personal automobile is the riskiest vehicle of all, statistically speaking; MUCH more risky for the child, even if the child is properly secured. If you accept the statistics for one type of vehicle, you logically should accept them for the others. [Of course, the idea that the price of the seat for the baby is going to send them to a personal auto doesn't really hold water, IMO; most of these folks have already decided to fly.)

I do believe that carseats or an upper body harness system should be required for kids under 40 lbs., but you are just not going to win the argument by relying on risk statistics -- they will undercut the pro-carseat argument every time. As I've said before, the risk of death is a red herring in this debate. If you argue from the motivation of preventing *injury*, then you get farther, but there is currently no mandate to record accurate information on minor injuries suffered by lap babies -- if the parents don't ask for help from the FA, no one writes it down.

The airlines also do not keep accurate statistics on how many children fly; so there is no accurate way to measure the incidence of children being injured against the number of children who fly. The only statistic we get is the number of injured children as a percentage of *total* passengers, which isn't really helpful. The number of <40# children on aircraft is a relatively small population [pardon the pun], so if there was an accurate census, we could get more accurate risk data, but we haven't got an accurate census.

BTW, one of the things that makes personal vehicles more dangerous than mass transit is the distraction factor. The presence of the child distracts the driver's attention from the road, and the need to concentrate to drive distracts the adult's attention from the child. That factor does not come into play on mass transit, because it is not your job to drive.

 

[kathi29]

It's apples and oranges to me, though. Airplanes do not rely on compartmentalization as a safety measure; buses to not experience turbulence or sudden drops in air pressure.

 

[NotUrsula]

The structure of the vehicle doesn't matter in the statistical argument comparing vehicles; you are confusing that with the seat-belt on cars vs. seat belts on busses argument.

Personal motor vehicles are hugely dangerous to children, and the bigger the personal motor vehicle, the more dangerous it is, because of the danger of rollovers and/or back-overs. Mass transit vehicles *of any kind* are exponentially safer for young passengers than personal vehicles are, and not because of compartmentalization or carseats -- it is primarily because of the relative number of accidents compared with passenger miles travelled. Granted, if they have restraint devices installed the numbers become even more favorable, but even accounting for the lack of restraints, they are safer than personal vehicles used in conjunction with carseats.

In the US, mass transit vehicles are operated by professional drivers/pilots who must undergo mandated operator training (in the case of pilots, even moreso), and the vehicles are kept on regular maintenance schedules. Personal vehicles are driven by amateurs who may or may not maintain them, and there are a lot more of them on the road. While you may be in control of your own driving safety, you are not in control of the other drivers on the road, and they are the ones most likely to harm your passengers. On the ground, the sheer size of a mass transit vehicle means that occupants are less likely to be harmed if a personal vehicle strikes the bus or train. In the air, the air traffic control system does a VERY good job of preventing mid-air collisions, except for bird strikes. (BTW, compare what happens if a 737 hits a goose to what happens if a minivan hits one -- on the plane you'll feel a momentary jolt, but the minivan is likely to be totaled.)

 

[kathi29]

I'm not arguing statistics. I'm arguing that you (the collective you) cannot reasonably expect to be able to hold onto your lap baby in the event of turbulence or a sudden drop in altitude. Those who don't believe that are citing other forms of ground transportation for comparison and the two can't be compared that way because of the different concerns of each type of transportation. Holding a baby when the bus hits a big pothole is not the same as holding a baby during severe turbulence.

 

[NotUrsula]

Of course you (collective you) can't, and you'll note that I never supported that contention. If you care to search way back through the archives, you might even find my famous "would you try to hold a baby while riding RNRC?" post. MOST of the posters who are going to choose to lap-carry don't really believe that they could hold on through turbulence or a drop, either; rather they are betting that due to the low incidence of such situations, they will never have to try.

We're speaking at cross-purposes. I was addressing the comments made about transporting children on mass transit ground vehicles -- the comments that implied that someone who was really concerned about child safety wouldn't use mass transit for a small child because it doesn't accomodate a carseat.