Why flying with kids in carseats is important...

[catfeet]

(cheerfully ganked, with permission, from another board)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rC4Q3ofz7SI

Ann

[stillplayswithbarbies]

bumping this up

we need to add this link to the Carseat 101 post.

[heather13]

First, this gave me nightmares last night even though DD has a seat on our flight in a few weeks.

Second, I'm really curious to know the relative safety of holding a baby in arms? While I know it must be safer on impact to be in a carseat, I've also read plane crash survival stories where the ones who survive are out of the plane in seconds. What if the heat melds the buckle together? Austrian flights require that infants sit in parents' laps for take off and landing, and also require that they be attached to their parents using a special airline-provided belt. That seems like an even better solution than a loose baby.

[o_mom]

If the heat is hot enough to melt the buckle, the child is dead or will not survive long. Temperatures that extreme are not compatible with life. Heat is not the killer in most fires it is smoke.

The special extender belts on international flights are not considered very safe. Basically, you are going to fold in half at the waist on impact and sandwich the baby between your legs and torso. This is of course in addition to them being closer to the next seat and striking it with their head. Better than an unrestrained child? Maybe. But it still ignores the fact that the safest place for a child is in a child restraint.

Airlines have a very good safety record which allows them to ignore the problem of unrestrained children. If there were planes having hard landings and other survivable impacts every month we would not allow children to ride unrestrained, but it is easy to ignore the few that happen as anomolies. Additionally, they have a huge influence on the federal government and regularly pressure them not to require restraints and to continue to allow lap babies.

[vickimaggie]

Oh how awful! Thanks for posting the video. Its so sad to me that the airline industry allows parents to think that lap babies are safe :(

[egoldber]

But statistically, a lap baby on an airplane is safer than that same baby properly restrained in a car. Airplanes are MUCH safer than cars.

[vickimaggie]

Of coarse airplanes are safer than cars! But this issue is lap babies vs. babies properly restrained in a carseat on an airplane. Babies who are properly restrained WAY safer than those who are not. Lap babies can be injured in crashes, rough landings, bad turbulence, etc. I have been on flights where the turbulence was so bad people's belongings got tossed around the cabin and we weren't aloud to get up to use the restroom for hours. Personally I would not be comfortable without a seat for my child. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

[egoldber]

I agree that they are safER. Just pointing out that it is questionable to call it UNsafe (not saying you did), when it is actually riskier to put your child in a car, something most of us do every day.

[stillplayswithbarbies]

having the baby attached to an adult with the attached seatbelt protects other passengers from being hurt by a flying baby. It doesn't protect the baby. The baby becomes an air bag for you, basically.

[heather13]

Thanks for the clarification. Having never been in a crash landing (just a few emergency ones) it's hard to imagine what the impact would be like. There's always so much information on the few survivors actually making it out of the plane that I never really thought about the crashing part.

[Joolsplus2]

<<<Airlines have a very good safety record which allows them to ignore the problem of unrestrained children. If there were planes having hard landings and other survivable impacts every month we would not allow children to ride unrestrained, but it is easy to ignore the few that happen as anomolies. Additionally, they have a huge influence on the federal government and regularly pressure them not to require restraints and to continue to allow lap babies. >>>


yes!

Julie CPS Tech and mom to 3 in seats
http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/RFAlbum/SarahMA.aspx

[jenbug]

Wow, this really got to me. I fly standby because my husband works for the airlines. I will now not even consider getting on a flight unless there's a seat for myself and my 5 month old!

[emschwar]

Is it still standard procedure to put lap kids on the floor during a crash? I'm no expert, but that seems like a boneheaded idea to me.

I know car seats are safer, but it seems more like the video is just showing that it's a bad idea to put babies on the floor. ?

[supercalifragilous]

Can we get this topic pinned or added to the CarSeat 101 thread at the top? It is soooo important! It's one thing for people to know about the risks and hear horror stories, but to see this video somehow makes it all the MORE compelling/convincing.

[stillplayswithbarbies]

where else would you put lap babies but on the floor? On a lap they would be crushed acting as the airbag for the adult. In your arms with you sitting up puts you both in danger.

[hipmaman]

Think of putting an unrestrained baby on the floor as stowing loose baggage so that the risk of having them flying around hitting themselves into hard structures of the plane or other passengers.

[heather13]

The flight attendant on the clip said something about "that used to be the procedure." So kind of what I was wondering above (obviously poorly expressed) is that lap belts seem like a much better solution to the floor - looking at those options only. Of course car seats are the best choice of all. But obviously most people involved in a plane crash are going to die versus those involved in a car accident, so to Karen's point it's obvious why the FAA doesn't make it a bigger issue.

[stillplayswithbarbies]

Plane crashes where nearly everyone dies are rare. Far more common are incidents of turbulence, or minor accidents where planes overshoot a runway or land hard or bump into another plane on the runway or hit a building or something.

Those rarely get reported in the news. Someone once posted link to a place to look those up and I was surprised at how many there are. That is what I am most concerned about when I fly, and that is where a carseat is important.

Even in the serious crashes, some people survive. There was a tv show years ago about ways to increase your chance of survival in a crash and I follow their suggestions. The ones I remember are to always pay attention to the safety briefing no matter how many times you fly so it will be fresh in your mind. Wear cotton clothes so in extreme heat of a fire your clothes will not melt onto your skin (I always change out of business clothes to jeans before I fly). Count the number of seats between you and the exit, it may be smokey and you won't be able to see. Be aware that the seats may no longer be there and you'll need to feel for the bumps on the floor where they used to be. Always wear shoes that protect your feet, not heels, sandals, flip flops etc.

[kbudsberg]

Ok, not sure where my long post is that I did this morning. But here's my recap...

I was a flight attendant for 9 years and spent over 7 years of it in management, training flight attendants, and writing cabin safety policies and procedures. I've studied this flight a lot and even had a an opportunity to hear the capt. speak about it and met a surviving flight attendant when I was a supervisor at United.

There were 4 lap children on the flight (one of them was actually over 2 so should have had his own seat). 3 of the 4 survived, if I remember correctly. Here's info taken directly from the NTSB report regarding what happened to the lap children.

1.15.2 Infants
There were four in-lap occupants onboard flight 232. Three of
them were under 24 months, and one was 26 months old.
During the preparations for the emergency landing, parents were instructed to place their "infants" on the floor and to hold them there when the parent assumed the protective brace position. The four in-lap occupants were held on the floor by adults who occupied seats llF, 12B, 14J and 22E. The woman in 145 stated that her son "flew up in the air" upon impact but that she was able to grab him and hold onto him. Details of what happened to the 26-month-old child at 12B during the impact sequence are not known, but he sustained minor injuries. The mother of the 11-month-old girl at 11F said that she had problems placing and keeping her daughter on the floor because she was screaming and trying to stand up. The mother of the 23-month-old at 22E was worried about her son's position. She kept asking the flight attendants for more specific instructions about the brace position
and her "special situation with a child on the floor." The mothers of the infants in seats 11F and 22E were unable to hold onto their infants and were unable to find them after the airplane impacted the ground. The infant originally located at 11F was rescued from the fuselage by a passenger who heard her cries and reentered the fuselage. The infant held on the floor in front of seat 22E died of asphyxia secondary to smoke inhalation.

It's not in the report but I do recall reading/hearing that one of the children flew into an overhead bin which protected him.

I'm not w/the airlines any longer (I stay home w/my 3 year old) but my DH develops training programs for the pilots of an airline. We both believe the safest place for a child/infant would be on a plane in a carseat but we also feel our dd is much, much safer on a plane unrestrained than in our car properly restrained any day. We do bring our carseat whenever we fly but mainly because she's just happy in it and we can "control" her better w/it. We have flown w/her only in the lapbelt when the window seat could not be accomodated (we fly stand-by) and we've also flown w/her in our laps on occasion when she was under 2.

I've always find it amazing that of the 4 lap children on board this flight only one died and he died of smoke inhalation. I'm not making light of the situation just find it amazing. I've studied many, many crashes and really most people survive impact it's the smoke that kills them because they can't get out fast enough. So sometimes I wonder if the fact that it would take me longer to get my dd out in her carseat would play a roll. Just a thought I've had.

I think turbulance is a much more likely event and a carseat would for sure help. Injuries due to turbulance do happen but they are much less common than injuries due to auto accidents.

If you are interested in the entire report, here's a link...
http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR90-06.pdf

Anyhow, I am in no means making light of this just adding some additional information and knowledge that doesn't come up when this accident is brought up.

Kim

[catfeet]

Wow. That's an amazing link! Do you mind if I share it round some of the other boards I frequent?

Ann

[kbudsberg]

>Wow. That's an amazing link! Do you mind if I share it
>round some of the other boards I frequent?
>
>Ann


Sure, not at all share away! There is one of those filed for every aviation accident or incident. I used to read them as part of my previous life. I always found them very interesting.

Kim

[mom2acrew]

Well some of you know me as the crazy lady who wasn't allowed to use her car seat on my flight home from Lifesavers with my 6 month old but for those of you who don't here's a recap. I bought Joshua a ticket and on the last leg of my flight they wouldn't allow him to ride in it. Airline did compensate me and apologized blah blah blah.

The way I view it is I have 5 children, do I love Joshua any less to not buy him a ticket and have him unrestrained? And trust me saving that cost to take my size family anywhere would be wonderful. The airline gate checked my Graco Safe Seat and returned it pretty scratched up....couldn't tell me how it was restrained in the cargo hold and bought me a new one. We use our car seats daily and it would take me just as long to reach down and grab him off the floor as it would to unbuckle him IMO. In turbulence I didn't want him to be a projectile either...for his safety and everyone else's. I was instructed to hold him across my chest, head on my shoulder and feet tucked under my arm while I braced my self on the seat back in front of me. Not okay IMO for me to buckle myself and not him.

I'd love the FAA to change their guidelines but until then we as parents need to make an educated decision and do what is right for our families. As a side note in turbulence I don't want to risk someone else's 20# baby being hurled at me in a crash either. Just my $.02. Interesting article regarding a passengers rate of survival if injured by impact w/ an unrestrained passenger (child) http://www.flightsafety.org/ccs/ccs_nov94_feb95.pdf

[kijip]

Actually that is not altogether the case. It is not, as you argue, merely about comparing the benefits of a restrained child on the flight vs. a lap child. If the choice is retrained on a flight vs. unrestrained on a flight, the choice is clear. But it is not that simple. One must consider the cost motivator here- what other alternatives do parents have to buying an "extra ticket"? The price of buying the child a ticket *will* reasonably induce a certain percentage of price sensitive ticket buyers to consider alternatives to a plane ride. The basic alternatives are staying home, driving in a car, riding a bus or riding in a train. If a mandate to buy tickets for all children is imposed, a natural result would be more children injured or killed as some parents make the choice to drive instead. A child is much safer on, say a 400 mile trip to grandma's, in a plane vs. road or rails. While it is all fine and good for me, as a middle class parent with financial resources to shake my head and say that my babies will always have their own seat (a true statement), it is not fair for me to impose my choices, made in relative luxury, on others. So while I think it is fine to encourage those that can to use seats, I would vehemently oppose any regulation mandating that all babies must have tickets, which is what I hear a lot of safety advocates calling for. Unintended consequences *must* be considered for a potential policy to be truly a good idea.

I will soon be walking to preschool drop-offs and work. Toby, J and I will all be far safer for it since we will be in the car far less, but it is not reasonable for me to demand that everyone do the same or judge people for not doing the same. Making walking commutes if you have a child under 12 (after all, cars are the leading cause of death for children ages 1-11) a set policy would be insane, and on a smaller level I think the same of a ticket required policy for babies on planes.

[o_mom]

I don't think this would happen in practice, though. If you survey parents and ask "Would you still fly if you had to buy a ticket for your under 2yo?" of course they are going to say no. It's not like they stop flying when the kid turns 2. I would bet that the percentage that change their method of transportation would be very small in practice.

It is also a safety consideration for other passengers. I can't have a 5 lb purse unrestrained, but the person behind me can have a 30 lb 18 mo held down by nothing.

[emschwar]

Actually, we pretty much did stop flying when Noah turned 2. We just couldn't afford it any more. And around that age he got better in the car and a 6 hour drive became more feasible.

[kbudsberg]

Thanks for posting that. I've seen it before but forgot all about it. Where I received training w/the FAA was where they ran these tests.

I really wish the FAA would have require the airlines to provide a seat that would be suitable for use on a plane. Of course, to my knowledge this seat doesn't actually exist yet and until the airlines are required no one is going to buy it.

Being hit by an unrestrained child is an interesting argument. I must say I hadn't thought of it before. To give an example of the force involved. I had a f/a I supervised get hit in the foot by a coke can that was unsecured in the back galley. She was sitting in the front jumpseat and upon landing the a/c had to stop very quickly. The can was like a missil and actually broke her ankle.

That really concerns me so much more than a crash.

Kim

[o_mom]

What I find interesting is that if you look at the rows where those children were sitting 11-22, 4 of 52 adult passengers died = 7.6%. 1 of 4 infants died = 25%. Roughly 3 times the risk of death.

Additionally, the parent of the infant in row 22 that died survived with minor injuries and her child died of smoke inhalation because he could not be located. It is likely that if he had been properly restrained he would have lived.

[kijip]

>I don't think this would happen in practice, though. If you
>survey parents and ask "Would you still fly if you had to buy
>a ticket for your under 2yo?" of course they are going to say
>no. It's not like they stop flying when the kid turns 2. I
>would bet that the percentage that change their method of
>transportation would be very small in practice.

Even a tiny percent increase in kids on the roads is riskier for kids. Much riskier for kids as a tiny percent of kids moved from planes to cars is still a large number of kids and in any large group of child car passengers we know that some percentage of kids will die and more will be injured, each and every day of the year, without fail. If as many kids died in planes as in cars, we would have given up flying a long time ago as too risky. Imagine if you turned on the radio every morning and there was a plane crash every single day? In any metropolitian are, the traffic report includes multiple accidents. If safety of kids is the objective, cars are the least desirable option and airplanes the most desirable option. If other objectives, less linked to the increased safety of the largest number of children possible, and more linked to individual safety and comfort concerns are the the larger factor that is fine, but it is not purely driven by child safety. My approach is very clouded by economics here so that is my self admitted slant/bias.

Anecdotally, many parents I know or know of drive on trips they would have flown on with kids under two. One friend drives to CA from Seattle because 4 tickets (2 parents+twins) are just not in the grad school budget, IYKWIM.

ETA: The airlines oppose regulations eliminating lap babies because they know they would sell fewer tickets. Their pricing data is not pulled out of the ether and is based on more than surveys. Seriously, if it would not have a signifgant impact on the numbers of families who fly, they would be all for it- an extra sale per family! But they know that it would result in fewer ticket sales so they are willing to pour lobbying funds into maintaining those sales. If they did not have data to support this, they would not fund the lobbying to maintain it.

Any kid dying is sad, but this is *one* death in an otherwise survivable crash in MANY years, it does not make the basis for a sound policy that would put so many more kids at risk. And some factor in his death may be attributable to the fact that the airline had such an insane policy as to place babies on the floor, something they no longer suggest.

[o_mom]

I agree that there MAY be a trade off. I just have never seen a good analysis. Most of them include some huge assumptions about the number of people who would actually drive vs. fly, using data on overall traffic fatailites vs. highway travel, and so on. All of them that I have seen have used per mile estimates of death rates also, not per trip which is more applicable to air travel because most impacts in air travel occur on take off and landing.

I think one of the reasons that airlines continue to lobby is not so much the lost revenue since families with lap babies are not a huge portion of the customer base. I think it is fear that along with that may come regulations requiring legitiamate discounts (not the lame half off a $1500 fare) for children flying that would probably be needed to make the public accept it.

The other thing that bothers me is that for anyone air travel is supposedly less risky than driving, but yet we don't offer free or reduced fares for the rest of the travelling public.

[kbudsberg]

For those interested here's the actual Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR) regarding child restraints on board an airplane. FYI - The FAA does issue bulletins and advisories that override the regulation. Those are much harder to keep up w/and find unless you have direct access to them. For example, this regulation says no vests but the CARES vest is now approved.

Sec. 121.311
(B) Seats manufactured to U.S. standards on or after February 26, 1985, must bear two labels:

(1) “This child restraint system conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards�; and

(2) “THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT� in red lettering;

(C) Seats that do not qualify under paragraphs (B)(2)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section must bear a label or markings showing:

(1) That the seat was approved by a foreign government;

(2) That the seat was manufactured under the standards of the United Nations; or
<(3) That the seat or child restraint device furnished by the certificate holder was approved by the FAA through Type Certificate or[br />Supplemental Type Certificate.
(4) That the seat or child restraint device furnished by the certificate holder, or one of the persons described in paragraph (b)
(2) (i) of this section, was approved by the FAA in accordance with Sec. 21.305(d) or Technical Standard Order C-100b, or a later version.

(D) Except as provided in Sec. 121.311(b)(2)(ii)(C)(3) and Sec. 121.311(b)(2)(ii)(C)(4), booster-type child restraint systems (as
defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness-type child restraint systems, and lap held child restraints are not approved for use in aircraft; and]
(iii) The certificate holder complies with the following requirements:

(A) The restraint system must be properly secured to an approved forward-facing seat or berth;

(B) The child must be properly secured in the restraint system and must not exceed the specified weight limit for the restraint system; and

(C) The restraint system must bear the appropriate label(s).

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the following prohibitions apply to certificate holders:

<(1) Except as provided in Sec. 121.311(b)(2)(ii)(C)(3) and Sec. 121.311(b)(2)(ii)(C)(4), no certificate holder may permit a child, in[br />an aircraft, to occupy a booster-type child restraint system, a vest-type child restraint system, a harness-type child restraint system, or a lap held child restraint system during take off, landing, and movement on the surface. ]

(2) Except as required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, no certificate holder may prohibit a child, if requested by the child's parent, guardian, or designated attendant, from occupying a child restraint system furnished by the child's parent, guardian, or designated attendant provided—

(i) The child holds a ticket for an approved seat or berth or such seat or berth is otherwise made available by the certificate holder for the child's use;

(ii) The requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section are met;

(iii) The requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section are met; and

(iv) The child restraint system has one or more of the labels described in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through (b)(2)(ii)(C) of this section.

Kim

[denna]

>I don't think this would happen in practice, though. If you
>survey parents and ask "Would you still fly if you had to buy
>a ticket for your under 2yo?" of course they are going to say
>no. It's not like they stop flying when the kid turns 2. I
>would bet that the percentage that change their method of
>transportation would be very small in practice.
>
>It is also a safety consideration for other passengers. I
>can't have a 5 lb purse unrestrained, but the person behind me
>can have a 30 lb 18 mo held down by nothing.

I have to agree with Katie on this one. I think making it mandatory would cause a lot of problems for parents.

Not everyone has the luxury of living a feasible distance from friends & family and are able to just drive or take a train instead. Or have the luxury of cheaper plane tickets with in the conteniental US. We live in Italy and plane tickets can be as high as $1200 or more. We have only flown one trip with DS so far and that was when he was 4mos. At the time we could not afford ANOTHER $1200. Does that make us bad parents? No, at least not in my opinion.

We will buy him a ticket when we can afford it. But if it came to mandatory (at the time that we flew) we would have had to stay overseas and not visit our family.

[o_mom]

I think you would find (as the FAA did in at least one study) that if seats for babies were mandatory, you would see the airlines respond with true discounts for children and families. They aren't going to let your $1200 go out the door - they would rather sell you a discount child ticket too. It will only happen, though, if ALL the airlines were required to do this so none has the advantage of offering freebies.

Overseas travel does not really factor into the 'flying is safer' arguement as those trips cannot be replaced by driving.

[Joolsplus2]

Yeah, I think if we forced the airlines to compete with the freeways on a level playing field (everyone has to have a seat), they'd respond with family rates and cheap baby tickets in a flash... as it is now, they *know* you 'cant afford to buy the baby a ticket' but will buy them for yourselves....they'd rather offer you a screaming deal on a baby ticket than lose your business entirely! (I've seen ads for 'buy one get one free' plane tickets on southwest to disneyland, so it's doable). And what if we never even had this notion that lapbabies could fly free at all? Who invented THAT, anyway?
Julie CPS Tech and mom to 3 in seats
http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/RFAlbum/SarahMA.aspx

[denna]

That may be the case for certain airlines but we checked with 3 different airlines that flew out of Venice (the nearest International airport) and NONE of the airlines offered discounted child seats. DS was only 4 months and would require no food or service from the staff and still nothing. No discount. We did try however and Im not arguing that w/o a seat is safest but sometimes people just cant afford it...

[denna]

That may be the case for certain airlines but we checked with 3 different airlines that flew out of Venice (the nearest International airport) and NONE of the airlines offered discounted child seats. DS was only 4 months and would require no food or service from the staff and still nothing. No discount. We did try however and Im not arguing that w/o a seat is safest but sometimes people just cant afford it...

[o_mom]

I agree that right now it is not common to see discounts. Airlines have no reason to. Some will offer a discount, but it is usually 1/2 off the full, unrestricted fare, not a true discounted ticket.

I am saying that if the FAA said that all passengers must have a seat, that the airlines would not sit by and let whole families stop flying. I would guess they would offer child discounts in some shape and find ways to encourage families to fly on off times to fill up seats that would otherwise go empty. It is too competitive out there for them to let people stop flying.

Again, this would be for domestic travel, where the arguement has been that those people would then drive and cause more deaths. For overseas travel, that reasoning is moot. In that case it does come down to money over safety only.

[kijip]

>Again, this would be for domestic travel, where the arguement
>has been that those people would then drive and cause more
>deaths. For overseas travel, that reasoning is moot. In that
>case it does come down to money over safety only.

Money is not a moot issue for all but a few privileged families. Kids on airplanes are not all that unsafe. Some of this is purely fear based hype. If so few kids died on playground equipment or in bathtubs each year, we would consider it an accomplishment.

[o_mom]

My point was that for overseas travel the argument that more kids would be killed in car accidents is meaningless. Those families obviously aren't going to replace that trip with driving across an ocean. In those cases, it does come down to just money vs. safety, however small you see the benefit.

Pesonally, I would love to be able to afford overseas travel, but even when it was just DH and I we only went when our employers paid for it because it just wasn't in the budget.

I would guess that if most kids only took a bath once or twice a year we would see bathtub deaths go down.....

[larson]

I just logged on to this site to read reviews about boosters and read this thread first since we're flying with both our kids in a couple of weeks....

We have flown with ds #1 ~6x before he was 2. We typically put him in the baby bjorn and there was never any consistency between flight attendants. some made us 'unbuckle' it from our bodies and others were fine with him being attached to us.

Baby #2 is a spitty baby and does not like his car seat much. We often have to stop while on the road to take him out and burp him, etc.

Even if we could afford the second seat, I honestly can't say I'd buy it. I feel quite comfotable with my baby attached to my body with a carrier--I can't imagine putting him on the floor.

I am shocked to hear about accidents and how 'lap babies' survive them. It would certainly be a horrible experience.

I don't want to seem callous or appear to be unconcerned about my childrens' safety, but for the number of times we fly these days, I will take the chance. we take chances daily with hormone and pesticide ridden food, driving on the highways, etc. I wish I had enough money to buy organic, send my kid to private school, and buy them their own seats on the plane. But I don't and will have to take my chances.

Carrie

[emmasmama]

The 3 times that I flew with a lap child -- child under 1 yr of age, the flight attendants hounded me to remove the child from the carrier before we were even near ready to take off or land.

[kbudsberg]

Since many of the flight attendants don't have kids they don't realize that the Bjorn is a carrier and not a harness vest restraint. So since they don't know what it really is they will error on the side of having you remove the child since vest restraints are not allowed for taxi, takeoff and landing. The are only allowed during cruise. The FAA really doesn't address Bjorn and similiar carriers since they aren't safety devices. So they are a "gray" area.

Kim

[Joolsplus2]

Gosh, I wish they'd test that Baby Bjorn scenario and add it to the training. It's one of those things that it's so hard to imagine it being 'worse' than just holding the child, isn't it?

Thanks for chimoing in, Kim.

:)
Julie CPS Tech and mom to 3 in seats
http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/RFAlbum/SarahMA.aspx

[stillplayswithbarbies]

I would guess that it's because in an emergency situation where you need to get to the brace position quickly, you can't do that with the baby in a Bjorn or sling. It would take too long to get the baby out and put the baby between your feet on the floor. That's my guess why carriers are not allowed during take off and landing.