A good day for car seats in the news

[BabyBearsMom]

First the NPR article and now this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40587353/ns/us_news-life/

A good day for car seat knowledge!

[jjordan]

Did you link the wrong article or is my internet being wonky? It took me to an article about a church picketing the Edwards funeral.

[Joolsplus2]

This one? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40575974/ns/travel-family_travel/

[BabyBearsMom]

This one? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40575974/ns/travel-family_travel/

Oops! Yeah that is what I meant. I think I am having a mommy brain day! Too much interesting news!

[jjordan]

Thanks!

Side note, I think it's interesting when they use that Iowa emergency landing to make the case that lap babies are unsafe. 25% of the lap babies on the flight died, compared to 37.5% of the crew/passengers (who, one would assume, were all buckled up). Not to start a debate or anything... I've just always (well, since I first heard it) thought that was interesting.

[Joolsplus2]

Yeah, and I'm always wondering, is that it? I mean, yes, it was tragic, I feel horrible for that dead kiddo and their family, but 1 in 20 years? Is there no other statistic to draw on? No wonder people don't take the plea for restrained children seriously :(

[lhafer]

I just flew with my 9 month old and 4 year old to Disney. Didn't take car seats for either one of them. My 4 year old stayed buckled in her seat the entire flight. I had my 9 month old strapped into my Ergo the entire flight and she slept 80% of the time. I personally am grateful that I didn't have to pay for an extra seat for the baby, especially considering I wasn't going to be using the car seats once we at Disney. But I wasn't comfortable with just "holding" the baby on the plane either. Glad I had her in the Ergo. Made it really easy.

[edurnemk]

I just flew with my 9 month old and 4 year old to Disney. Didn't take car seats for either one of them. My 4 year old stayed buckled in her seat the entire flight. I had my 9 month old strapped into my Ergo the entire flight and she slept 80% of the time. I personally am grateful that I didn't have to pay for an extra seat for the baby, especially considering I wasn't going to be using the car seats once we at Disney. But I wasn't comfortable with just "holding" the baby on the plane either. Glad I had her in the Ergo. Made it really easy.

Did they let you wear her in the Ergo during take off and landing? I've heard that they don't allow it, so I'm curious, not that I could wear DS now.

[Joolsplus2]

Yeah, they aren't supposed to allow you to have your baby attached to you during takeoff and landing. Either the flight attendants didn't notice or somehow forgot the standard policy :/. I guess the theory is baby should not be your airbag in a crash? But during turbulence it's ok because you aren't going to fly forward and crush the child..? Something like that.

I dunno, if we had no choice, we'd buy babies tickets. If we'd never known any different, that would just be the way things are. And there'd be enough oxygen masks for everyone, too :/.

Some commentary on the blog... http://carseatblog.com/6599/airplanes-carseats-and-kids%E2%80%94what-you-need-to-know-pt-1/

http://carseatblog.com/6635/airplanes-carseats-and-kids%E2%80%94what-you-need-to-know-pt-2/

[lhafer]

I am pretty sure I had her attached to me at least during one take off and or landing. I had her out on my lap for a bottle during the take offs/landing to help with the ear pressure. No one said anything to me and I was on the isle seat both ways.

My sister who is an FAA cabin safety inspector suggested that if we didn't get her her own seat to have her in a carrier on me at the very least.

I have never understood why babies can't be attached to you during take offs and landings. This is when 99% of crashes occur. So if the plane goes down, me just holding her will suffice?? And I have never understood the rearfacing aspect of a car seat when flying either.

[Joolsplus2]

omments from blog 1.....


There are actually two “menaces” in the air. One is take-off and landing, which can mean a strong forward thrust. The other is turbulence, which can really be in any direction, can be strong but is not usually. It’s not predictable.
Since the forces on take-off and landing ARE the same as in a car so it DOES make a difference if the child is rear or forward facing. They are much safer rfing.
What I did, when the pitch was tight, was turn the seat around once in the air. I only recommend this as a last-ditch attempt, if someone can’t recline their seat or whatever. During the “cruise portion” of the flight, the issue of which direction the seat isn’t as important.
Hope that was clear. Often, putting a family member in front does the trick, or someone else who is traveling in your party.
hth!
Former Flight Attendant, 13 years, 2 companies
#9 WRITTEN BY SHARON ON AUGUST 31ST, 2010 @ 8:11 AM

Great post. As a Flight Attendant I am a HUGE advocate of putting all children that should be in a carseat, into a carseat. I have dealt with the aftermath of babies who have become projectiles during turbulence. Because, let’s face it, on a five hour flight you wouldn’t be holding your child tightly to your body the entire time. I have also experienced a rejected take off. This is essentially when the captain has to hit the brakes at a really high speed because for whatever reason we can not take off (once was another aircraft mistakingly took a wrong turn and almost went on to our runway so you never know what could happen on taxi). This means that you are thrust forward at a high amount of g-force. Thank goodness there were no babies on board that day because even if you could hold your child they would likely be seriously injured by your body when you are thrown forward. There were numerous injuries but luckily nothing serious.
I know this has already been commented on but the brace position for lap held infants has changed you do hold them. Many years ago they thought that if you wrapped the infant and put them against the bulkhead or under a seat they wouldn’t become projectiles and would therefore be safer. *rolls eyes* Boy we’ve come a long way eh? Haha.
Thoroughly enjoyed your post.
Flight Attendant, 18 years
#10 WRITTEN BY KAYO ON SEPTEMBER 7TH, 2010 @ 8:13 PM

[AnnieW625]

I have never understood why babies can't be attached to you during take offs and landings. This is when 99% of crashes occur. So if the plane goes down, me just holding her will suffice?? And I have never understood the rearfacing aspect of a car seat when flying either.

My FIL used to work for the FAA certifing small jet engine plane pilots (Cessna Citatation, etc. size planes), and he also would do ride alongs on commercial flights (this was pre 9-11 and air marshalls) and I vaguely remember him questioning those same things. DD2 usually sleeps really well in the Beco too so if we do a long haul flight w/her before she turns 2 we might have to try that.

[kbud]

Yeah, they aren't supposed to allow you to have your baby attached to you during takeoff and landing. Either the flight attendants didn't notice or somehow forgot the standard policy :/. I guess the theory is baby should not be your airbag in a crash? But during turbulence it's ok because you aren't going to fly forward and crush the child..? Something like that.

I dunno, if we had no choice, we'd buy babies tickets. If we'd never known any different, that would just be the way things are. And there'd be enough oxygen masks for everyone, too :/.

Some commentary on the blog... http://carseatblog.com/6599/airplanes-carseats-and-kids%E2%80%94what-you-need-to-know-pt-1/

http://carseatblog.com/6635/airplanes-carseats-and-kids%E2%80%94what-you-need-to-know-pt-2/

Putting my previous flight attendant and flight attendant training supervisor hat on, there are extra oxygen masks. Lap children cannot sit in rows w/out extra masks. So there is a mask for everyone, lap children included.

Yes, you are correct the concern is the adult crushing the child. My understanding was this restriction was really referring to devices (mostly European) that were designed to restrain a lap child on the parents lap, not baby carriers.

[kbud]

Of course using carseats on the plane is the absolute safest thing to do, no question about it. But flying restrained or not (child or adult) is still much, much safer than driving even being correctly restrained. We take our children out on the road everyday for unnecessary trips and think nothing of it. I used to say as a flight attendant the most dangerous part of my job is driving to and from the airport. I've been in severe turbulence too, so I get that. It's all about balance. I consider myself a carseat freak. My children are always the last to go forward facing, move into a booster, etc but I will fly with a lap child. If I can restrain them of course I do, but I have no concerns and feel, very, very safe with them on my laps, when they were under 2. My dh still works for the airline so we fly stand by and often we couldn't get a window seat for the carseat. I'm not arguing that it's not important just that it's so, so safe to fly. The statistics for flying safety are so much better than driving. So put me on a plane over in a car any day!

I also always wonder why we don't worry too much about seat belts on school buses. That concerns me much more.

[kbud]

Thanks!

Side note, I think it's interesting when they use that Iowa emergency landing to make the case that lap babies are unsafe. 25% of the lap babies on the flight died, compared to 37.5% of the crew/passengers (who, one would assume, were all buckled up). Not to start a debate or anything... I've just always (well, since I first heard it) thought that was interesting.

I've studied this crash in and out as a flight attendant trainer and training supervisor. I've also been privileged to meet the Capt, Al Haynes. The whole thing was just amazing.

Yes, the lap children actually faired very well. In fact the one that died, died of smoke inhalation, not crash forces. At the time of the crash the lapchild procedure was to place lap children on the floor. This has since changed to holding the children and bracing with them. So this statistic was with the old policy too. Most airplane crashes are survivable. Fatalities usually occur due to smoke inhalation not crash forces, although this was not the case with the Sioux City crash, but if you've seen the video it's amazing anyone survived!

[Joolsplus2]

Ooooh, scary picture... http://iphone.usatoday.com/News/2249871/

kbud, remind me why I don't just search for your name every time this subject comes up? Maybe we can attach some of your excellent commentary to the sticky thread on the top so that we never lose you again.

[lhafer]

You know, it would probably behoove the airlines if they would purchase some car seats (infant seat, convertible, booster) for young children. And then make them available for the flight for those with children who don't have car seats. And make those seats cost a little less or something.

Of course they would never do this. But it sure would help alot.

[jjordan]

I've studied this crash in and out as a flight attendant trainer and training supervisor. I've also been privileged to meet the Capt, Al Haynes. The whole thing was just amazing.

Yes, the lap children actually faired very well. In fact the one that died, died of smoke inhalation, not crash forces. At the time of the crash the lapchild procedure was to place lap children on the floor. This has since changed to holding the children and bracing with them. So this statistic was with the old policy too. Most airplane crashes are survivable. Fatalities usually occur due to smoke inhalation not crash forces, although this was not the case with the Sioux City crash, but if you've seen the video it's amazing anyone survived!

Thank you for sharing your expert opinion!

[o_mom]

Thanks!

Side note, I think it's interesting when they use that Iowa emergency landing to make the case that lap babies are unsafe. 25% of the lap babies on the flight died, compared to 37.5% of the crew/passengers (who, one would assume, were all buckled up). Not to start a debate or anything... I've just always (well, since I first heard it) thought that was interesting.

I have to run, so I can't go into detail now, but when I read report, the lap babies were all/mainly in the least damage/most survivable section of the plane. They were actually MORE likely to die than the passengers in the seats next to them.

[kbud]

Ooooh, scary picture... http://iphone.usatoday.com/News/2249871/

kbud, remind me why I don't just search for your name every time this subject comes up? Maybe we can attach some of your excellent commentary to the sticky thread on the top so that we never lose you again.

LOL, don't worry I'll always chime in!

[jjordan]

I have to run, so I can't go into detail now, but when I read report, the lap babies were all/mainly in the least damage/most survivable section of the plane. They were actually MORE likely to die than the passengers in the seats next to them.

... and then I heard on another forum that the one lap baby who DID die, died of smoke inhalation, and not as a result of the crash. The more I hear, the more confused I am about why this crash gets brought up when talking about lap babies!

[kbud]

... and then I heard on another forum that the one lap baby who DID die, died of smoke inhalation, and not as a result of the crash. The more I hear, the more confused I am about why this crash gets brought up when talking about lap babies!

Yep, that is true. One of the lap children flew into in overhead compartment 15 rows behind the mother and was actually protected by the compartment. Fortunately, another passenger heard him crying and took him out otherwise he probably would have died from smoke inhalation as well. So another reason to restrain babies is so they are not separated from the caregiver during an emergency and can be evacuated. It's likely no one saw the baby who died so he was not evacuated.

I think there are several reasons this crash comes up. The NTSB made recommendations regarding lap children based on this crash. Also one of the flight attendants on this flight (Jan Brown Lohr), is a huge advocate for requiring children under 2 to be restrained and has lobbied for changes based on her experiences. She stopped the mother of the boy who died from returning to the burning wreckage. The mother told her "You told me to put my baby on the floor and I did. And now he is gone." She feels she needs to be this boys voice.

This is from the NTSB crash report:

There were four in-lap occupants onboard flight 232.6 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. The Safety
Board addressed the infant restraint issue in Safety Recommendations A-90-78 and A-90-79 issued May 30, 1990.

If anyone is interested in the full report here's a link.

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR90-06.pdf

[edurnemk]

I also always wonder why we don't worry too much about seat belts on school buses. That concerns me much more.

:yeahthat: Where we live it's mandatory for kids 5 yo and up to use the school bus and I freak out about the safety of it.