Anyone know Frontier's policy on carseat facing?

[maestramommy]

We just went to Boulder last week, and flew Frontier airlines for the first time. On the way we installed Dora's RA Rfing. The flight attendant initially told us we need to turn her around, but when we said, "actually the weight limit says she's supposed to be rear facing, this is the way she rides in the car," she immediately backed off, and said, "oh, in that case go ahead. I'm not a carseat expert, so you know better than me." But I saw her talking to another attendant about it later, reiterating she doesn't know anything about carseats. On the way back another attendant told us we had to turn her around. In fact she came back a second time and said we had to turn her around before the flight could take off. When we said the same thing, she said, "that may be, but in on the airplane she must be ffacing. That's the safest position to be." When I pointed out that in the outgoing flight we were allowed to rface, she said, "someone might have let it go, but you're supposed to turn her around. Really! it's the safest position for her to be in." She was very nice about it, but firm. So we turned her around.

I am confused now. Do different airlines have different rules? We've always flown SW before this, and no one has even mentioned the carseat before. And what kind of crash is RFing supposed to provide the best protection?

[californiagirl]

US airlines don't get to have policies on carseat facing; they get to follow the FAA rules, which say it MUST be installed the same way it goes in a car. Period. However, most of them do a bad job of educating their flight attendants, who make up all sorts of stuff. It's handy to carry a printout of the FAA regs, particularly if your kid is still rearfacing. Here's a nice summary link: http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/

Southwest does a much better job of flight attendant education than most airlines.

[maestramommy]

Thanks! I just went and read the link. Unfortunately, it's rather vague. All it says is that the FAA recommends that:
children less than 20 lbs in a rfacing child restraint system
children 20-40 lbs in a ffacing child restraint system

And of course all CRS must be FAA approved. In fact, when we first boarded, the flight attendant asked if our carseat was approved. We didn't even know until she looked that there was a sticker saying that it was. Well, at least now we know that Dora has to be ffacing in airplanes, and I don't have to feel badly for the passenger in front of her.

[o_mom]

nak - The FAA statement is rather vague and very outdated, but when you get down to the actual regs, it says (in my paraphrasing) that:

a. they must let you use a seat if it is FAA approved and you have purchased a seat

b. the carseat must be installed on a forward facing _airplane seat_ (this is probably what confused her)

c. The parent is responsible for installing the seat and the crew just checks that it is used according to the instructions


You were correct and the FA was wrong. :-)

[californiagirl]

She does not HAVE to be forward facing on airlines -- she has to be in a seat installed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Personally, because airplanes are safer than cars and I basically trust the FAA, I faced DD forwards on airplanes (but not in cars) at 1 year (since she was over 20 lbs before then). But you don't have to; you can install it any way that the manufacturer allows. I didn't find it worth the hassle over a year, some people do.

Now we use a CARES harness. http://www.kidsflysafe.com/ You still have to carry around the FAA printout, but I end up less bruised.

[kelly ann]

The guidelines are vague, but I think it does sound like Dora should be forward facing (I am assuming she is over 20 pounds). Especially since they do outline rear facing above it for less than 20 pounds. Wouldn't it be nice to have these guideline readily available on airplanes though???

[mamicka]

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8400/fsat/media/fsat9509.txt

I know that this is from 95 & so I don't know that this hasn't been updated to change this wording, but this keeps coming up when I search. The wording here is a bit more clear, to me.

"(2) In the case when the approved car seat is supplied by
the parents, the parent is primarily responsible for
ensuring that the car seat is approved, the child is the
right size and weight for the car seat, the child is
properly restrained in the car seat, and the car seat is
properly installed in a forward-facing, passenger seat.
In this case, flight attendant responsibility is limited
to checking with the child's parent to ensure that the
above conditions have been met, that the child appears to
be properly restrained in the car seat, and that the car
seat appears to be properly installed in the passenger
seat. Finally, it is the responsibility of the parent to
ensure that the car seat is free of any obvious defects
and that it functions properly."

The way I understand it, you use the carseat in the same way that you would in a car. I think that the wording that the FAA uses is outdated - they haven't changed it to reflect the large number of carseats that allow children to remain rearfacing at weights in excess of 20 lbs. I know that much of the literature that I receive about carseats (from the peds office, etc) still also uses the same outdated wording, not acknowledging that carseats have changed to allow children to rearface longer.

Allison

[pb&j]

I used to be an airline captain, so here's my take on it, FWIW...

The big benefit to RFin in a car is that in the event of sudden deceleration, the occupant's head and body are cradled by the seat. FFing, the body is restrained, but the head continues to travel forward. Most auto crashes are frontal, hence RFing being significantly more safe most of the time.

On an aircraft, accidents/incidents aren't limited to two dimensions, and generally are not similar to car accidents. Airplanes just don't run into each other head on on the ground going 35 mph.

For accidents on to/ldg in aircraft, you're not likely to run into an obstacle that would cause such a sudden deceleration as you might think, due to the requirements for clearways and such when runways are built and certified. The deceleration will probably be more gradual. But you're dealing with a whole other set of dangers: danger of fire and smoke coupled with inability to egress, emergency egress itself which is notorious for being the source of many injuries, the airplane departing the runway surface and not remaining level (this also makes egress more difficult), and other factors which could cause rolling/yawing moments. None of these would be mitigated at all by a seat being RF.

Injuries caused by turbulence are more common than those caused by crashes. Turbulence generally occurs up and down, and without the severe decel found in auto crashes. So the most important thing is to be restrained, and it makes not a whit of difference which way you're facing. Wake turbulence generally occurs as a rolling moment, again, it only matters that you're restrained.

I don't know offhand of any cases where a FF child/infant incurred serious or fatal injuries that would have been prevented by RF. There are a few notable cases (Sioux City for one) where unrestrained infants *might* have survived had they been in *any* type of restraint. In reality, no one should have survived Sioux City and that ~1/2 the passengers lived was a complete miracle.

In a nutshell, the forces involved in aircraft incidents are very, very different than those in car accidents, and I wouldn't sweat RF vs FF on an aircraft. I know folks here will raise a ruckus with airlines for not properly training their FA's about the benefits of RFing, but those benefits are somewhere between marginal and nonexistant on aircraft, and training/safety dept's have much bigger fish to fry.

Bottom line, your child is safest on a plane when he/she is restrained. Period.


-Ry,
mom to Max, age 1.5
and my girl in heaven

http://www.windsorpeak.com/dc/user_files/37124.gif

[bubbaray]

>In a nutshell, the forces involved in aircraft incidents are
>very, very different than those in car accidents, and I
>wouldn't sweat RF vs FF on an aircraft. I know folks here
>will raise a ruckus with airlines for not properly training
>their FA's about the benefits of RFing, but those benefits are
>somewhere between marginal and nonexistant on aircraft, and
>training/safety dept's have much bigger fish to fry.
>
>Bottom line, your child is safest on a plane when he/she is
>restrained. Period.


ITA with the above. This exactly what our best friend told us and he too is a pilot.

Just be thankful they let you use the seat and that Air France, Alitalia and Quantas don't get to make the rules for the rest of the airlines! :(


Melissa

DD#1: 04/2004

DD#2: 01/2007

[kbudsberg]

I was a flight attendant for 9 years. For over 7 years I was either a trainer for flight attendants, supervising the flight attendant training depart (involved in working w/the FAA and writing policies and procedures as well as flight attendant manuals) and supervised flight attendants. What many of the pp have stated is correct.

You can use it rear-facing to the limit of the seat. The FAA doesn't say specifically in the regulations whether the carseat is forward or aft facing. Here's the regualtion: "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)." I found many f/a's get confused and see forward facing and think the child seat should be forward. The regulation is refering to the actual pax seat. It shouldn't be that way but it happens.

Here's the FAAs recommendation: The FAA recommends that a child weighing:

* Less than 20 pounds use a rear-facing CRS
* From 20 to 40 pounds use a forward-facing CRS
* More than 40 pounds use an airplane seat belt
* A child may also use an alternative device, such as a a harness-type device, if it is approved by the FAA. The FAA has approved one device appropriate for children weighing between 22 and 44 pounds. This type of device is not safe for use in motor vehicles.

This is most likely what is in the f/a's manual. I remember when this first came out (probably 10 years ago at least) and I don't think a CRS was rear-facing beyond 20 pounds. So that's where this came from. It is really outdated and should be updated. In fact even today not a lot of seats do and how many parents use seats in cars rear-facing beyond that? Add to it, that fewer use a car seat on the plane and fewer yet rear-face on the plane.

So yes you can if you would like, but you may encounter some resistance/confusion from flight attendants because the faa wording is confusing and they just don't encounter many people using convertible seats rear-facing on the plane. Right or not now-a-days you really have to be careful in arguing w/a crewmember. There is also a regulation that requires passengers to comply w/crewmember instructions. If you are really want your child rear-facing on the plane, best thing to do is to carry the FAA info w/you and point out the label on your seat showing that it is approved to rear-face beyond 20 pounds. Then you are not exceeding the manufacturers weight limit as the FAA requires in the regulation.

Hope that helps.

Kim

[kcandz]

Just be thankful they let you use the seat and that Air France, Alitalia and Quantas don't get to make the rules for the rest of the airlines!
-------

What does that mean specifically? I just read this thread twice and I can't find the reference. Do these airlines not allow carseats on board? I'm looking into some Alitalia flights now.

Thanks.

[bubbaray]

Air France & Alitalia apparently won't let you put a child in a car seat during takeoff and landing. They force you to hold the child on your lap during those times, even if you pay for a seat.

I can't remember the issue on Quantas, I think its something similar.

There is lots more info on this on the car seats forum.

Melissa

DD#1: 04/2004

DD#2: 01/2007

[o_mom]

Check in the carseats forum, this has been discussed recently. Many foreign airlines have strange rules. Some that have been seen:

- you cannot use a seat at all
- you can only use the airline supplied seat for certain children
- you cannot purchase a seat for a child under 2, they must be a lap child and if you do purchase a seat they will force you to buy a child fare at last minute rates when you check in
- you can only use a 'pre-approved' seat
- you can only use a seat during flight, not takeoff, landing or turbulance

US airlines must follow FAA rules, so as long as the plane is operated by a US airline you should be allowed to use a carseat (other than uninformed FAs). Foreign airlines are not bound by the FAA rules, so they follow their country's rules. It is the airline that owns the plane that makes the rules, not the ticket issuer. So, on codeshare flights you go by the airline that operates the flight.

[californiagirl]

The rules about carseats are made by the country where the airplane is owned. Some countries are very specific; others are not. I don't know the rules for France and Italy, but Air France and Alitalia don't allow carseats when the seatbelt light is on, and they almost certainly get this from their national rules.

Qantas is a different deal. Australian rules leave it up to the airline whether or not to allow carseats. Qantas is actually one of the better Australian carriers, in that their regulations DO allow carseats. However, their FA training is bad and their customer service on this issue is worse. (There are also some Australian/US carseat issues that confuse matters.) For flights within Australia, Qantas is often your only choice, because their major Australian competitors are too fond of their leather seats to allow carseats at all, which I think is evil.
For flights to Australia, I recommend Air New Zealand -- which also has seatback video-on-demand in coach for your FF child, which is The Best Thing Ever.

[maestramommy]

thanks Ry! This is really helpful. I will forward this to Dh. So now we can ff with more confidence on plane rides :-)

[gigoteuse]

We flew Alitalia with our 2 year-old DD in June/July and no, you can't use a carseat on Alitalia. She had to use the same seatbelt as we did, and she complained every time we had to put it on (I also doubt it would be that useful because of where it sits on such a small body). And you can't buy/use a seat for an infant (check with Alitalia to confirm the age), they have to be on your lap.

Also, the carseat becomes one piece of luggage which was a problem for us since we had a lot of stuff to bring to Italy.

And they were also horrible to us on the way back. The staff at check-in gave us 3 seats apart and when we told them that my daughter couldn't possibly travel alone, it didn't make a difference. Then, the person at the gate printed something to show us that you can't make seat reservation on Alitalia, so there was nothing she could do. When we boarded the plane after 3 hours of me freaking out about it, the FA told us that there was nothing he could do either. Thankfully, the FA who responsible for our seats sat us together and said that he would take care of it if anybody complained (which strangely didn't happen).

Sorry for the highjack, but I am so annoyed with Alitalia, I would recommend you fly with another airline.

(they also showed a cheesy 1989 movie on both flights!)

[kcandz]

Thanks so much for all this information, and especially about how unreasonable Alitalia is. I'm shocked at the idea that any reasonable employee associated with that flight thought it was a good idea for a 2 year old to fly in a separate seat from even one parent.