This is your CHILD we're talking about. If you're not concerned about safety in flying with children, I probably will not convince you differently although I wish your child was restrained so as not to be a projectile and hit me.

This is a ridiculous argument. I appreciate the factual information that the airline exec posted, and it seems that many credible organizations have concluded that the increase in safety could be significant, and therefore, worth requiring the increase in cost. Based upon this, I am going to reconsider whether I want to put my child in a carseat on planes vs. on my lap. But you can't just say, oh, anything that makes a child marginally safer should be done despite the likelihood of the event and the increase in cost involved. That's not going to convince anyone of anything.

I will be thinking about your post as my airplane with my poor family plummets into the ocean.

Anonymous wrote:You don't think I think driving with kids in the car is much more dangerous? Of course I do. But the lap child issue is not understood by many people. That's why it concerns me. This is your CHILD we're talking about. If you're not concerned about safety in flying with children, I probably will not convince you differently although I wish your child was restrained so as not to be a projectile and hit me. Google "number of people injured by turbulence." See what you find -- many of the people injured by turbulence are not wearing their seat belts (not restrained). And for all of you who haven't been on turbulent flights, good for you. However, they exist.

Children's safety in traveling(in many modes) is my issue. If your child's safety isn't a concern for you, move on to another thread.

I think my new tact for reading DCUM posts will be to first scan and see if someone has spelled "child" in all caps. If so, discontinue reading. The whole "I care more about my child than someone who disagrees (or is less paranoid)" is old and annoying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9:58 here - a HUGE thank you to the industry exec who took the time to post those links, and for the info on why carriers/slings aren't safe. I had no idea.

My pleasure.

I just want to say one more thing to OP: It's easy for some of us (me included sometimes) to get on our high horses about safety, but ultimately I blame the confusing regulations. The FAA simply must intervene here. It's really confusing to tell parents that it is unsafe to travel with a lap child, yet allow it to take place in what is easily the most heavily regulated industry there is. So my feeling is: either it's safe or not safe, and since every leading authority, after reviewing the strong evidence, has concluded it is not safe, then a uniform requirement must be enacted. It really seems unfair to ask parents to shell out extra money for a flight when they think they don't really have to. Surely, they conclude, if the FAA allows it it must not be *that* unsafe.

The FAA has long held that flying is so safe that it's still safer to have an unrestrained child on a flight than a child in a carseat. But, this conclusion dated back to a time where highway safety was not what it is now, carseats were not as effective, children were rear facing for shorter times, etc. Plus, the data is really hard to tease out because lap children constitute a fraction of airline passengers, so its' hard to get a meaningful statistic. So the rarity of injuries has less to do with the actual risk, and more to do with how few passengers there are. (That's an oversimplification, but it's factual). In other words, there's a decent amount of turbulence of the type capable of injuring a lap child if a lap child were on board, but, there aren't lap children on every flight. The "real" risk is hard to tease out of the actual incidences of injury. (But even just using actual incidences, it's demonstrably less safe).

In fact, the NTSB has disagreed with the FAA on this. They have challenged the FAA to reevaluate their conclusions using more current data on both highway safety, new and improved CRS's, and more statistically significant evaluation of passenger injury data (and projections). It's really only a matter of time, in my opinion, until the FAA takes action. I hope they do it soon.

I'm sure at some point, before carseats were required, that folks would say "oh brother, I rarely drive with my kids and I've never been in one accident, and the one accident I was in there were no injuries, and my kids like to sleep across the backseat" who thought it was an unnecessary bother to strap their kids in. Yet, many lives have been saved by carseat requirements. It's past due for air travel to catch up.

I don't disagree that this is true for driving, but air travel is already far far safer. I have tried to find statistics about lap child deaths, and I can't find *anything* other than the 1989 crash (which provoked the first FAA inquiry, which ultimately resulted in lap children still being allowed). Not a single news article or story of ANY other lap child deaths since then. If anyone else knows of any other documented cases, please share.

The only statistics I *could* find were these:

"An Associated Press analysis of government accident data... found that 153 people died in American plane accidents, excluding acts of terrorism, from 2001 to 2011, or two deaths for every 100 million passengers on commercial flights."
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-01/news/30580043_1_safety-reports-commercial-pilots-msnbc

That's 153 people dead in TEN YEARS on US commercial flights. Children make up a much smaller percentage of passengers, so while there is no way to know exactly how many were children, it's likely to be a very small percentage (if any).

Sure, a carseat on a plane is "safer" -- by an infinitesimal margin. I'm not going to waste my money, that could be spent making our lives safer and better in other, more important ways, on an increase in safety so marginal.

Anonymous wrote:9:58 here - a HUGE thank you to the industry exec who took the time to post those links, and for the info on why carriers/slings aren't safe. I had no idea.

My pleasure.

I just want to say one more thing to OP: It's easy for some of us (me included sometimes) to get on our high horses about safety, but ultimately I blame the confusing regulations. The FAA simply must intervene here. It's really confusing to tell parents that it is unsafe to travel with a lap child, yet allow it to take place in what is easily the most heavily regulated industry there is. So my feeling is: either it's safe or not safe, and since every leading authority, after reviewing the strong evidence, has concluded it is not safe, then a uniform requirement must be enacted. It really seems unfair to ask parents to shell out extra money for a flight when they think they don't really have to. Surely, they conclude, if the FAA allows it it must not be *that* unsafe.

The FAA has long held that flying is so safe that it's still safer to have an unrestrained child on a flight than a child in a carseat. But, this conclusion dated back to a time where highway safety was not what it is now, carseats were not as effective, children were rear facing for shorter times, etc. Plus, the data is really hard to tease out because lap children constitute a fraction of airline passengers, so its' hard to get a meaningful statistic. So the rarity of injuries has less to do with the actual risk, and more to do with how few passengers there are. (That's an oversimplification, but it's factual). In other words, there's a decent amount of turbulence of the type capable of injuring a lap child if a lap child were on board, but, there aren't lap children on every flight. The "real" risk is hard to tease out of the actual incidences of injury. (But even just using actual incidences, it's demonstrably less safe).

In fact, the NTSB has disagreed with the FAA on this. They have challenged the FAA to reevaluate their conclusions using more current data on both highway safety, new and improved CRS's, and more statistically significant evaluation of passenger injury data (and projections). It's really only a matter of time, in my opinion, until the FAA takes action. I hope they do it soon.

I'm sure at some point, before carseats were required, that folks would say "oh brother, I rarely drive with my kids and I've never been in one accident, and the one accident I was in there were no injuries, and my kids like to sleep across the backseat" who thought it was an unnecessary bother to strap their kids in. Yet, many lives have been saved by carseat requirements. It's past due for air travel to catch up.

Its my understanding that there aren't laws against carriers/slings EXCEPT during takeoff/landing.

The concern is that you could crush your child against the seat in front of you in turbulence. I guess they prefer the child flying across the cabin.

Anonymous wrote:Op, thanks for telling me to go off and google the facts about # of children injured due to turbulence--so helpful. Honestly, I think you should too so that next time you get on your soapbox you have some actual info (besides faa's official position, of course they have to say that to cover their butts) to support what you're saying.

Most of us didn't have carseats as babies/kids and yet we survived. Obviously some kids didn't, which is why they changed the rules. Having a lap baby isn't an automatic death wish.

Oh wow, you're one of the "I grew up without seatbelts, and I turned out just fine" idiots. Seriously? Yes, and many people survive today with vaccines, hospitals, seatbelts, clean air, etc etc. But if you know better -- and have access to better shit -- you use it.

9:58 here - a HUGE thank you to the industry exec who took the time to post those links, and for the info on why carriers/slings aren't safe. I had no idea.

We flew with DS in my lap when he was 2 months and swore we'd never do it again.

On three out of the four legs of our flight, DS was in the ergo and it was fine. On the fourth leg, a flight attendant insisted I take him out of the ergo.

Of course, that fourth leg was turbulent. I was terrified because I realized if the turbulence got any worse, DS was not secure at all. DH and I agreed if the turbulence got worse, I would put DS back in the ergo and just face the consequences - there wasn't anything the flight attendant, the airline, the FAA or an army of air marshals could do to me that would be worse than the devastation of knowing I let my son be injured - or worse - because I was intimidated by a bossy old hag of a flight attendant. He was so fragile, and I felt like an idiot and, frankly, a terrible mom for not just buying another seat.

Until the flight attendant told us, we didn't know FAA regs prohibit using carriers/slings. I do realize the flight attendant was technically just doing her job, even if she was horrid about it.

This is one of those things we all have to decide for ourselves. I absolutely don't judge people for not buying the extra seat. All I can do is make choices for myself and my family based on my own beliefs and experience. A lot of the PP's were dismissive of the turbulence issue raised by OP, and that prompted me to share my own experience.