I've been flying a lot lately and have noticed something dangerous on the planes. In the last 2 trips I've taken I sat next to women carrying toddlers on their laps. Now go figure how the airlines carry on about their passengers being belted in at all times during the flights to keep them safe if and when turbulence is encountered. People have been seriously injured that have been thrown around during a flight, and if I remember correctly a young child once died because they weren't wearing a seatbelt when the ride got rough. Not only that but a person not wearing a seatbelt is a potential hazard to other passengers on that flight if bad turbulence should occur. Why on earth would airlines allow a young child to not be secured during flight? Why would a parent endanger their child's life by carrying them on their lap unsecured?

Hi Barbara...

You have touched on a topic that is important to all of us involved in passenger safety. I don't think there is an airline or regulatory authority anywhere that does not recommend, encourage, and cajole parents to pay for that extra seat and protect their infant by using an approved child restraint system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BF:
[qb]Why would a parent endanger their child's life by carrying them on their lap unsecured?[/qb]

---

That is a question that I often ask myself. Clearly, these parents fall into one of two groups: either they have put a price on their child's life (the price of a seat ticket) or they simply do not comprehend the potential hazards to their children while hurtling through the air at a high rate of speed (likely, the same parents that let their children crawl all around the car as they speed down the interstate).

Personally, I'm fairly passionate about recommending the use of approved child restraint systems (CRS) on board aircraft and tell parents that whenever the opportunity presents itself.

There is alot of information on the 'net regarding the pro's and con's of mandating the use of CRS on board aircraft. Probably the biggest hurdle faced by regulators on this issue is the possibility of 'divergence'. This is the term that has been applied to parents who would opt not to pay for an additional seat for their child on board the aircraft if CRS are mandated and would rather 'divert' their mode of travel to their car where, statistically some groups feel there is a greater threat to injury or death.

Here are some links with more information:

CEI: Comments to the Federal Aviation Administration on the draft of the Child Restraint Study Report

Testimony of Barry Sweedler, Director Office of Safety Recommendations NTSB

A Change Is In The Air: Child Restraint Systems

FAA - Cabin Safety Issues

Tips for Parents Using Child Restraints on Aircraft

Examination of the Enhancement of Cabin Safety for Infants

FAA: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) - Child Restraint Systems

Child Restraint Regulatory Developments in the United States

Association of Flight Attendants: Child Restraint Systems

National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation: Child Safety Seat Press Release

AAP CALLS FOR AN END TO LAP TRAVEL FOR CHILDREN ON PLANES

Transport Canada Tips: Travelling With Children

Transport Canada FAQ: Infant Car Seats

Transport Canada Advisory Circular: Child Restraint Systems

Chris, Thanks very much for the information and I totally agree with your feelings on this. Of course as I found out in a terrible way, all the attempts at keeping your child safe can fail anyway, but still you would think parents would want to stack the odds in their favor. I must admit though, that I am appalled that the airlines wouldn't insist on having children belted in, because as I stated before, a child flying through the air during violent turbulence is not only in danger themselves but is also a hazard to other passengers in their path. It sounds to me like they are again putting potential loss of revenue before safety and that should be unacceptable.

In last week's Air Safety Week, one of the items mentioned that the NTSB is still trying to get passed is children occupant protection on aircraft. Apparently Jane Garvey the former head administrator of the FAA stated that she was committed to the agency 'ending the practice of lap children.' It never happened.

Air Safety Week:

Child occupant protection. This item was added to the "Most Wanted" list in May 1999. The NTSB's Weinstein recalled that in December 1999 former FAA Administrator Jane Garvey committed the agency to ending the practice of lap children. At that time, Garvey declared, "We are committed to mandating child restraint systems in aircraft to provide equal protection for adults and children." (See ASW, May 20, 2002) Weinstein said, "Today, there is still no requirement that children be buckled up for takeoff and landing."

Barbara...

The FAA did publish an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in 1998. Although the comment period was supposed to close some time ago (the document from the Federal Register says June 18th, 1998), comments are still being added to the docket.

"The FAA seeks public comment on issues relating to the use of child restraint systems (CRS's) in aircraft during all phases of flight (i.e., taxi, takeoff, landing, or any other time the seat belt sign is illuminated). Specifically, the agency seeks crash performance and ease-of-use information about existing and new automotive CRS's, when used in aircraft, as well as the development of any other new or improved CRSs designed exclusively for aircraft use.

This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) responds to a recommendation made by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security and is intended to gather information about the technical practicality and cost feasibility of requiring small children and infants to be restrained in CRS in aircraft. This information is needed so that the FAA can determine the best way to address the safety of children while on board aircraft. After reviewing the comments, the FAA may issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with specific regulatory proposals that respond to the Commission's recommendations regarding the use of CRS's.

Document FAA-2001-9483-1 ~ Child Restraint System ANPRM

There is also now a Minimum Performance Standard identified for the design and manufacture of CRS intended for use in transport aircraft. This MPS has been adopted by the FAA and included in TSO C100b.

This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) defines minimum performance standards and related qualification criteria for add-on child restraint systems (CRS) which provide protection for small children in passenger seats of transport category airplanes. The AS is not intended to provide design criteria that could be met only by an aircraft-specific CRS. The goal of this standard is to achieve child-occupant protection by specifying a dynamic test method and evaluation criteria for the performance of CRS under emergency landing conditions."

Performance Standard for Child Restraint Systems in Transport Category Airplanes

TSO-C100b ~ Child Restraint Systems (CRS)

CD, Thanks for the information. It's good to see that this issue is still being addressed but I think a good place for the FAA to start would be to completely ban young children from sitting on their mother's/father's laps unrestrained effective immediately. The 2 situations I saw around the Xmas holiday involved children that appeared old enough to have been safer belted into their own seats as is required for adults.

I wonder if any regulations regarding child restraint will be enacted anytime soon as the airlines are doing so poorly that they are desperate for any business and don't want to have to turn away families of young children who don't want to pay for that extra ticket. I think the FAA isn't anxious to rock the boat with the industry especially when so many airlines are going bankrupt.

Unfortunately safety concerns tend to be put on the backburner to some degree when the airlines aren't doing well. It seems as if the FAA allows things to drag on too long (mylar insulation replacement) unresolved until tragedy (and often multiple tragedies) force the issue. I hope this won't be true in this case.

Barbara