seat for infant - no flames please!

[Alysa]

Just got back from a wonderful trip - just wanted to post some info though. On our way down the flight was quite empty and we got to bring our DS's car seat on and buckle him in even though we had not purchased a seat for him. On the way back the flight was packed. I went to put him in my baby bjorn and the stewardess said no, that they had done studies and infants fared better in a crash if they were out of a harness, just flying loose about the cabin. I didn't realize I couldn't have him strapped to me but those words were enough to make me swear never to travel without proper seats for both my kids from now on. I felt like the worst Mom ever.

 

[KimberlyC]

I can't believe they actually said that to you. I agree that seats are safer but I find it hard to believe infants fare better "flying loose about the cabin" than strapped in. If that's the case I'm leaving my belt off from now on. You're not a bad mom. If it was so important, it would be a law like it is in cars. Now granted, I'm using a seat for DS's first flight but its more to contain him. If we crash, well not to be morbid, but its not going to make a difference. Thanks for the headsup, but don't kick yourself. You're not a bad mom.

 

[tjmw2727]

I am so sorry that happened to you The FA was correct in not allowoing the snugli but IMHO out of line in her commentary.

The regulation comes from the FAA not the airlines and allows only child restraint devices that have been approved for aircraft use. Your carseat has a sticker on the back indicating its approved, the snugli is on a list of non-approved devices.

From American Airlines:
FAA Non-Approved Infant Seat or Child Restraint Devices
The following may not be used when an infant seat or child restraint device is required:
Any device without an approval label
Booster seats without an approval label or shoulder harness
Belt extensions that attach to the parent or the parent's restraint
Any device that positions a child on the lap or chest of an adult

The reason has little to do with your child flying around the aircraft. Devices that attach the baby to the parent cause the baby to act as the parents airbag in turbulance or sudden force. Since turbulance is fairly common and situations that cause a baby to become a projectile are less common the airlines have taken this approach.

For those flying in the future its a good idea to check the website for your particular airline prior to flying with baby or toddler.

For the OP - glad you had a safe flight!

TJ

 

[ESN]

They have thought about making it a law - The reason that child safety seats are not required on planes is simply a cost issue.

Specifically - the gov't has determined that if the cost of purchasing an extra seat dissuades a family from flying - and they drive instead - they are actually at an increased risk of death (since car accidents are so much more common)

That is the main reason why car seats are not required for children on planes.

FYI - I have done both - traveled with and without car seats for my kids - so I don't mean to preach - but I always feel much safer with them in car seats (and less harassed - since they know they can't get up from their car seats !)

 

[dawnball]

As terrible as it sounds, infants are safer loose than in a baby bjorn.

If you're sensitive, you might not want to read the rest of this.



It's a simple matter of physics - Force = mass (weight) times accelleration. The problem with a baby bjorn is that in a crash, you (and the baby) go flying forward to the end of your belt extension with a large amount of force (the force generated by your weight plus the baby's weight). Then everyone goes backwards again (it's the same process that gives you whiplash in a car accident). Babies in a baby bjorn are *much* more likely to be smashed by the back of the seat in front of them (squeezed between you and the passenger ahead of you) .

A loose baby, on the othyer hand, flies forwards with very little force. They typically sail over the heads of other passengers and are stopped by overhead bins or bulkheads. As terrible as that sounds (and as horrifying as it would be to witness, the baby generally survives with no or minimal injuries, because they are very resilient, and very lightweight, sso they don't hit as "hard" as you would think.

The really interesting thing is that carseated babies are at equal risk as loose babies. The problem with a carseat (to increase the actual risk, since you'd think a baby in a carseat would be very safe) is that carseats on airplanes are only restrained with a lap belt. They pivot on the belt connection and rock forward, banging their head into the seat in front of them. In addition, carseats (especially the ones that are safer in a car, because they tend to be heavier) increase the mass of the baby, so the baby hits with more force than expected.

A baby in a carseat with an *empty* seat in front of them fares better than a lose baby. A baby in a carseat with a light adult in front of them fares about equally with a lose baby. A baby in a carseat with a very heavy adult in front of them does poorly. There's a recent FAA study on this very topic that. I might still have the cite for if anyone is interested. In previous studies they had only used empty seats in the rows ahead of and behind the carseat. A fully loaded row behaved much differently, increasing risks for babies in carseats.

 

[Tinky]

Thanks for the information!
And you did warn not to read if you were sensitive but that really made me sick to my stomach to read.
I had never thought about it in that way but it makes perfect sense.

 

[all4fun]

Dawnball makes some good points. To add to that here's some information about rear-facing on an airplane. (Remember, most convertible car seats can rear-face up to 30-35lbs):

Rear-facing on airplanes

Air travel is proven to be much safer than car travel; however, rear-facing on aircraft is even more important than in cars, as the spacing between airplane seats is so limited that a child in a forward-facing seat will very likely impact the seat in front of them...even in a minor crash or during turbulence. For those who need information to take with them to educate the aircraft crew on the necessity and safety of rear-facing, the following links and quotes should help.

~and~

"The reason for putting the children rear-facing is that there is so little space between plane seats that there isn't room for the typical head excursion. Granted, the most common problem is clear air turbulence; however, when CAMI did the testing on safety seats on airplane seats, that was their recommendation. The reason one uses the forward-facing seats at all is that in turbulence, the child does better with harness straps. But there isn't a much likelihood that the seat wouldn't strike the seat in front."

"The best way for young children to ride on aircraft, given the spacing in the ordinary cabin, is rear-facing for as long as the safety seat, preferably a high-weight rear-facing one, is certified to do so."

"You are 100% correct, based on FAA testing at CAMI, that children should ride rear-facing on aircraft even longer than in automobiles because of the very limited spacing between airline seats. Although a forward facing seat is safer than nothing, it is likely, in a severe impact, that the child might strike the seat in front. Therefore, I have advised parents whose children were already forward-facing and over a year to consider rear-facing the child on the airplane (with the appropriate seat, of course)."

 

[jodifla]

Dawnball makes some good points. To add to that here's some information about rear-facing on an airplane. (Remember, most convertible car seats can rear-face up to 30-35lbs):

Rear-facing on airplanes

And the way a lot of planes are built these days, there's not enough room to put a convertible car seat in rearfacing. Heck, there's barely room in cars.

Mine only fit in the middle seat of my car rear facing.

 

[labdogs42]

Interesting about rear-facing. I hadn't read that before. If my seat fits, then DS will be flying backwards to Orlando in May! I wonder if they'll give me a bulkhead row? I don't think it was available when I picked my seats online. Do they save those for last-minute changes? Hmmm....must investigate. Thanks again!

 

[jodifla]

Interesting about rear-facing. I hadn't read that before. If my seat fits, then DS will be flying backwards to Orlando in May! I wonder if they'll give me a bulkhead row? I don't think it was available when I picked my seats online. Do they save those for last-minute changes? Hmmm....must investigate. Thanks again!

But you'll most likely be making it impossible for the person in front of you to recline their seat then.

 

[stacy6552]

I would really like to know where Dawn got her information. Having strapped carseats into airplanes more than a dozen times, I can state from experience that, if properly installed the seat would not move around or pivot or tip. And having followed the lobby to require restraints since 1990, her information has never been brought up, even by the opponents.

 

[Hannathy]

Remember with the bulkhead seat that you can't keep anything down with you ie diaperbag so if you need something and the seatbelt sign is on you can't stand up and get it from overhead. I hate the bulkhead with kids for this reason.

 

[tracilicious]

I would really like to know where Dawn got her information. Having strapped carseats into airplanes more than a dozen times, I can state from experience that, if properly installed the seat would not move around or pivot or tip. And having followed the lobby to require restraints since 1990, her information has never been brought up, even by the opponents.

I too would like a source just for educational purposes, but you aren't going to be able to inflict the same amount of force that a crash would. I can see how a seat would tip forward in a crash. However, a shoulder belt isn't required to install a seat properly in a car, either.

 

[tjmw2727]

But you'll most likely be making it impossible for the person in front of you to recline their seat then.

I always put DH in front of the carseat so as not to inconvience another passenger, works for rear facing as well as front facing if you happen to have a kicker.

TJ

 

[dawnball]

I saw the study about 8 months ago, and it was being reported as "new" then. I'll see if I can dig it up again and post a link.

 

[tjmw2727]

I saw the study about 8 months ago, and it was being reported as "new" then. I'll see if I can dig it up again and post a link.

Thanks, I would like to see that as well. I have been following the CRS/Airline issue and I looked for something like what you posted today with no luck. It almost looks like a conversation?

TJ

 

[dawnball]

I'm having some difficulty finding the study, but I'm pretty sure now that the triple-row study I saw wasn't an FAA study (since it isn't on their website). I'm wondering now if it was a european study, but I'm positive I didn't hallucinate the whole thing. However - I did find the '94 study (which used empty seats in the row ahead of the carseat)

It found head contact with the forward seat in all 8 of the forward facing convertible seats tested. It also found forward excursion of the CRD in all cases. 6 of the 8 devices exceeded maxium head impact acceleration. See http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/1990s/media/AM94-19.pdf if you haven't read it and are inclined. It's fairly unpleasant reading IMO though.

Rereading my earlier post, it looks like I was a little hasty when I posted. I intended to say that in an actual crash, car seats aren't statistically safer than unrestrained. Turbulence is a different matter entirely (and really, the more likely risk).

Oh, and yes - we did discuss the studies at length when I came across them. At the time I was working with a group that did research on dangers to children - and we had 6 babies born that year, it was discussed into the ground, which may be why the details are fuzzy in my head - my apologies.

With alll that said, more to the topic - I'm buying a seat for my daughter on our next flight, but I have a hunch that the wizard isn't going to fit in the seat. bah.

 

[Alysa]

So FAA advice is to buy a seat for your child and put them in the seat rear facing until they are out of the bucket seat? How old/big until they can be front facing? Thank you for this dawnball!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

So it sounds like that once they are of forward facing age--sounds like they'd be safer in a lap belt than in a car seat.

I did not know about the physics dangers of a car seat.

I too would like a source just for educational purposes, but you aren't going to be able to inflict the same amount of force that a crash would. I can see how a seat would tip forward in a crash. However, a shoulder belt isn't required to install a seat properly in a car, either.

You are right they are not--but car seats now come with tethers--so that you can tether the seat b/c if the force is great enough--the seat will come forward in a crash.

One can argue well it is not the law--well neither is having a child on a plane under the age of 2 ticketed.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

So FAA advice is to buy a seat for your child and put them in the seat rear facing until they are out of the bucket seat? How old/big until they can be front facing? Thank you for this dawnball!

Not sure--but there is a size limit on how long the car seat can be used rear facing. Be sure to check the sticker. There is a point where rear facing becomes unsafe.