SO, if you have flown with an infant, seat or no???

[bettyandbob]

to me it's a safety issue. the infant is safer in an approved carseat. Any turbulence the child is an isn't projectile. infants have died as a result of being projectiles in turbulence -- I know the number is few, but that's a few too many for me.

 

If you were permitted to keep the baby in a sling I'd say go with the sling, but anytime the pilot calls for seatbelts (take off, landing and turbulence) you aren't permitted to have the infant in the sling. These are the times the infant is most likely to become a projectile.

[DianeW88]

I have always purchased seats for my children, regardless of age. In the extremely unlikely event that the plane crashes, a carseat is the only safe place for a baby. Plus, I found it much easier to keep my sleeping kiddos in their carseats than to hold them.

[DianeW88]

I have always wondered though...in times of needing oxygen, is there an extra mask for the lap children? I never figured that out. :confused:

 

Only if the seat next to you is empty. Otherwise, there may be an extra one, but not in every row. It depends on the aircraft.

 

Edited to add: I just read that you should never have more than one lap child in the same row, as there will not be enough masks, and in some aircraft, they now only have one extra mask per "section"....however many rows that includes, I'm not sure. Apparently, with airline cutbacks, things that used to be regularly available...diapers, formula, babyfood....oxygen....are now limited. With diapers, formula and babyfood not carried at all on most aircraft anymore. So, if that is a concern for you, I would suggest contacting the airline and asking specifically if there are oxygen masks for lap children. I wouldn't be surprised if more and more the answer is "no".

Edited June 27, 2011 by DianeW88
found more accurate info

[kamom]

I flew last yr with a 8 month old on my lap. I figure since there are no laws stating that you should buy a seat for your baby and bring a car seat along, then it must be relatively safe since there are so many laws regulating everything to do with safety. No I do not feel bad for not buying a seperate seat and strapping him in.

 

The last cross country flight I was on, no way would I have been able to get his large carseat in with us.I can't imagine anyone expecting it. We literally squeezed sideways down narrow rows. We were so crowded I believe he couldn't have flown out of my arms if he would have wanted to. We felt like sardines. Actually the last six flights I was on the seat in front of me was a mere six-eight? inches away.:001_huh:

 

I guess that's why they don't make you buy a seat for baby. I'm sure they would if thought you should.

Edited June 27, 2011 by kamom

[eternalknot]

Yes, the carseat is only safer if you actually use it. If the fasten seatbelt light is on, then I use it. If my baby cries, so be it. The light is on and my baby is in his seatbelt. I don't care if other passengers don't like it.

 

No, my babies do not stay in the seat the entire time (though my toddlers do, unless they need to use the restroom). But when that light comes on they go in the seat. No question.

 

:iagree:. I've seen parents let their "lap" children stand up on the floor during taxi and take-off, and I always tell them to hold their child on their lap. They insist that the toddler or baby doesn't want to and will cry. I tell them "so what?" other parents will most likely understand, and those who aren't parents have already judged you anyhow (trust me) - your child's safety is worth more than whatever opinion these strangers have about you. And it's true. When passengers complain to me about a baby crying incessently, I tell them the same thing (if the baby is crying because of being held, restrained, or in a carseat) -- the baby's safety is most important, however inconvenient, loud, or annoying.

 

From the earliest ages I trained my kids to obey the seatbelt sign: when it's on, butt in seat with seatbelt fastened. There may be a phase of crying or whining as they learn the rule, but ... it's a necessary evil IMO. And I say this as someone who generally shirks safety rules and find most parents to be overbearing and irrational about safety fears.

 

People need to do what they are most comfortable with and not made to feel bad about their decisions.

 

I have always wondered though...in times of needing oxygen, is there an extra mask for the lap children? I never figured that out. :confused:

 

ETA: Oh, and if it is such a huge safety issue then the best thing for airlines to do is charge half price for children. I understand they are taking up a whole seat but, sheesh, it gets pricey if you have a lot of kids.

 

:iagree: - we all have a different level of comfort, and at the end of the day you need to do whatever you feel okay about.

 

My airline of choice has one extra mask per side of a row (left side of the row, right side of the row, aisle in between) on every plane in the fleet. It's for any lap children, or anyone walking in the aisle during a decompression - including flight attendants walking through to make checks after a decompression. They restrict the number of allowable lap children per side of row for this very reason.

 

Airlines are a for-profit business. Their responsibility is to the shareholders to turn a profit, not to the traveling public (or even their employees) to ensure personal safety. They will cow to public pressure (in the name of profits) or to the FAA (to the tune of fines for not following FARs) so any chance of reduced fairs for kids' tickets should be organized that way. *But then when the airlines raise adult fares to cover the half-price child's fare, there will be outcry about expensive tickets and now families can't afford to fly because adult tickets are too high ... airlines can't win, passengers are always unhappy! They'll have to make up for the loss of revenue from a half-price child's ticket somehow, and these days ... flights are full. Packed full.

[angela in ohio]

Would the baby fly over the seat?

 

I think so. I remember reading that the FAA recommended that parents put (lap) infants on the floor under their feet in case of an emergency landing, severe turbulence, etc. I would assume that would be to keep them from flying through the air. I remember it because it set off my germ-freak radar. :001_huh:

[eternalknot]

I have always made sure my child has had his or her own seat, at any age and for any length of flight. One of my son's first flights was at a week old, 40 minutes gate to gate (21 in air). He had his own seat, with carseat. I didn't care how quick the flight was - it's just what I do. On longer flights, it's nice to have a seat to place a child in. My daughter was just two weeks old when I flew internationally (alone, except for my four year old and a five year old. It was a 13 hour flight, and I liked being able to put her down. I wore her much of the flight, but even getting up to stretch, use the bathroom, or retrieve articles from under the seat in front of me was possible because I placed her asleep in her carseat for some of the flight.

 

I usually nurse during boarding, and occasionally during taxi. I've been (blessed? LOL) with saggy National Geographic type breasts and when necessary I've leaned over and nursed a baby in the carseat for take-off. Not very comfortable or attractive, but it's what I'd do in a car as well - if I needed to. I always have my kids in their carseats for take-off, turbulence, and landing.

 

Most people I see on airplanes, though, don't typically buy seats for such young babies - particularly nurslings.

[eternalknot]

I think so. I remember reading that the FAA recommended that parents put (lap) infants on the floor under their feet in case of an emergency landing, severe turbulence, etc. I would assume that would be to keep them from flying through the air. I remember it because it set off my germ-freak radar. :001_huh:

 

There was a flight that had two lap babies on it. When it hit severe turbulence, one baby flew through the air; the other survived because it was crammed under the seat in front of the parent - protected.

[ChandlerMom]

Havent read most of the replies, but the fact you HAVE to put an infant in their seat if they have one is why we didn't when we flew with a 6wo -- the best way to avoid ear pain during takeoffs and landings (and resulting crying) is to breastfeed during takeoff/landings.

 

If the baby will take a bottle, you can also bring bottles of breastmilk/formula with you -- TSA may have to test it, but it's viewed as "medical" and goes right through. Just don't give the baby the bottle until you start rolling down the runway. You can tuck a bottle under your shirt for a warm up.

 

I used my sling, which also provided privacy/modesty so they couldn't exactly say "no" to it either. :D In an emergency, I'd keep the baby in the sling. People who think they'll "fall out" just don't understand slings, IMO. When my baby was in a sling, you could've hung me by my toes and shaken and the baby wouldn't have come free. ;)

 

We bought seats for older toddlers, mainly when they are of a mobile age and the carseat is the only way to keep them in one place.

 

I don't think there is a "consensus" -- you just have to go with what you think is best. Last month a family with a 2mo lapbaby was across the aisle and the baby just cuddled, nursed, and napped the whole 3 hr flight (plus another hour for delayed takeoff).

 

Good luck!

 

ETA: could pp provide a link to lapbabies dying in turbulence? I cannot find any such stories via Google, only that the only lapbaby on the plane that landed in the Hudson was uninjured (held by a passenger). Carseats aren't designed for plane crashes or turbulence. I hope they are doing some tests now (was no data when my kids were little enough for it to matter) and FAA approval just means they fit in the space, not that they have been tested or shown to be effective.

Edited June 27, 2011 by ChandlerMom

[Carol in Cal.]

Well, I did BF exclusively, but during take off and landing my 2 week old was safely strapped into her car seat with my knuckle in her mouth to suck on. She swallowed repeatedly and kept her ears clear just fine. And I knew that she was as safe as I could possibly keep her.

[Trish]

Airline accidents are rare enough that they are newsworthy when they occur. Car accidents are so common that in many communities people getting killed or severely injured is a daily occurrence.

 

Many of the resulting head injuries could be avoided - and yet, people do not pay the $200-$300 it might cost to buy and wear a safety helmet. Now, if *everyone* were doing it I suppose we would. But, based on the number of trips people make each week with their children, vs the number of trips in a plane, the money would be better spent on the helmet than on the "extra seat."

 

And yet, we certainly don't want to be the only person on the block wearing a safety helmet in a car! Statistically speaking, though, you'd purchase more and better "safety" with the helmet than with the seat.

 

My point being, this is really more of an emotional issue than a logical one.

 

 

• Traffic accidents account for half (49%) of the 500,000 head injuries serious enough to require hospitalization each year. Altogether, traumatic brain injuries cause about a third (34%) of all injury deaths in the United States.
  

Car Accidents Can Cause Serious Head Injury

 

:driving:

 

Patti

[Joanne]

I used my sling, which also provided privacy/modesty so they couldn't exactly say "no" to it either. :D In an emergency, I'd keep the baby in the sling. People who think they'll "fall out" just don't understand slings, IMO. When my baby was in a sling, you could've hung me by my toes and shaken and the baby wouldn't have come free. ;)

 

.

 

Most airlines and most plane personnel won't allow you to use a sling during taxi, take off or landing.

[Daisy]

If you have the money, great, go for it.

 

If I had waited until I had enough money to buy a ticket for myself and my 3 month old daughter her grandparents wouldn't have been able to see her.

[Pretty in Pink]

I'll say it again. I don't see how one can argue this issue, from a safety standpoint, in the event of a turbulence event. You simply cannot. You can argue the odds of a turbulence event, but not the fact that all passengers (babies included) are safer when restrained during such events.

[Trish]

Indeed, people should be wearing at least bike helmets on the planes. You don't want to get hit on the head with flying items within the plane in case of turbulence! Bike helmets are even less expensive than the motorcycle kind.

 

Of course, it WILL mess up your hair.

[StaceyinLA]

I guess since nursing during takeoff is recommended for thr baby's ears, I wonder if having the baby in the seat at that point is even likely. Turbulence can happen at any time, though. I can see the benefits of the seat, but feel like dd will nurse the baby while the plane is taking off because of how young he will be, etc. She is not gonna be likely to want to give him a bottle of breast milk I don't think.

 

I think I'll talk with the airlines directly and see what her options are, but on a flight of that length (8 hours), it seems like a place to lay the baby during some of the flight would be nice.

[happypamama]

For that long of a flight, I'd want the seat for the baby. That's a long time to hold a baby in a small seat. I'd really not worry about it for a quick flight, but for 8 hours, I'd want to guarantee a seat.

[eternalknot]

I used my sling, which also provided privacy/modesty so they couldn't exactly say "no" to it either. :D In an emergency, I'd keep the baby in the sling. People who think they'll "fall out" just don't understand slings, IMO. When my baby was in a sling, you could've hung me by my toes and shaken and the baby wouldn't have come free. ;)

 

Concerns about babies in slings are only partly about the baby. As someone who is a dedicated babywearer, and was wearing siblings and little cousins on my back in 5 yards of cloth long before German companies were making a killing at selling them to neo-hippies ... trust me when I say wearing your baby in a sling during an emergency is a very bad idea. Or don't ::shrug:: but I encourage silent readers to think beyond what you assume or think you know of emergency situations on airplanes. They aren't all crashes, yet those that are still require a ride down a slide or an exit through shard-ridden fuselage. BTDT. Assuming you're still mobile and able to exit; or mobile enough to undo your sling and hand the baby off to an able-bodied person who can exit with your baby for you.

 

ETA: Decompressions should be a big concern to babywearers. Huge. If you haven't been in one, maybe you can't imagine the force at which you would crush your baby as well as both of your internal organs. It's extreme. I'm thinking even a lap child is in danger, but I can move with the force to get baby on the floor more easily than I can adjust my sling or unstrap my front pack before the force of my weight crushes the baby.

 

ETA: could pp provide a link to lapbabies dying in turbulence? I cannot find any such stories via Google, only that the only lapbaby on the plane that landed in the Hudson was uninjured (held by a passenger). Carseats aren't designed for plane crashes or turbulence. I hope they are doing some tests now (was no data when my kids were little enough for it to matter) and FAA approval just means they fit in the space, not that they have been tested or shown to be effective.

 

I don't have any links, sorry. I know what I know from work experience and being related to the head of the policies and procedures department at a major international airline. This department reviews all incidents and accidents at the airline (and consults regularly with other airlines to determine industry standards and to share data). Makes for interesting dinner conversation, to say the least. Contrary to what is posted elsewhere in the thread, a fraction of all incidents and accidents are made public. They happen every day across the system at my airline, and I'm assuming other carriers as well. Lots happens on the planes, ... and stays on the planes.

 

I also know when someone's mind is made up. I'm comfortable doing what I do, and it sounds like you (and others) are as well. No number of links in the world are likely to change your opinion, and I truly have no desire to get you to see the issue as I do. You and your being collective, and not specific to you, ChandlerMom. I'm sitting here, hanging out, sharing what I know and hoping it helps someone. I'm not into the whole debate/research/Google thing ... I don't debate with the Internet :D

 

I think I'll go back to the fluffy threads! This is just an area where I have experience, so I thought I'd share what I know. Anecdotally. Safe travels to you, and everyone else. Sincerely.

Edited June 28, 2011 by eternalknot

[JessReplanted]

No seat.

 

I flew with all of my children as babies, and my honest opinion is that you would end up holding them most of the time anyway. Having the extra space makes things more comfortable, but we never had extra hundreds of dollars to pay for comfort.

[Runningmom80]

We flew with two 9 month olds on a 3.5 hour flight withht no seats for them. I think under 12 months, on a relatively short flight, no seats. Dh and I agreed that if we made the same trip next year, we would buy them seats, even though they will still be under two. They will be too big to hold for that long.

[Mary in VA]

As I posted earlier, we made long flights from Europe to the west coast, numerous times, and always had our dc in car seats. I exclusively breastfed and they sucked on my finger or a pacifier during take off and landings. I would pull on the pacifier to keep them actively sucking.

 

I know parents have to make the decision for themselves. My dh and I thoroughly discussed it before committing to buying them tickets. It came down to us believing they were entitled to the same protection we were. Whether or not the law required it was irrelevant to us. The law of physics trumped the legal laws.

 

Mary

[kitten18]

I always bought seats for my boys when tiny: they slept well in their car seats between feeds. It was reassuring to know that they were properly strapped in in case there was turbulence.

 

Laura

:iagree:

[Aelwydd]

Concerns about babies in slings are only partly about the baby. As someone who is a dedicated babywearer, and was wearing siblings and little cousins on my back in 5 yards of cloth long before German companies were making a killing at selling them to neo-hippies ... trust me when I say wearing your baby in a sling during an emergency is a very bad idea. Or don't ::shrug:: but I encourage silent readers to think beyond what you assume or think you know of emergency situations on airplanes. They aren't all crashes, yet those that are still require a ride down a slide or an exit through shard-ridden fuselage. BTDT. Assuming you're still mobile and able to exit; or mobile enough to undo your sling and hand the baby off to an able-bodied person who can exit with your baby for you.

 

ETA: Decompressions should be a big concern to babywearers. Huge. If you haven't been in one, maybe you can't imagine the force at which you would crush your baby as well as both of your internal organs. It's extreme. I'm thinking even a lap child is in danger, but I can move with the force to get baby on the floor more easily than I can adjust my sling or unstrap my front pack before the force of my weight crushes the baby.

 

 

 

I don't have any links, sorry. I know what I know from work experience and being related to the head of the policies and procedures department at a major international airline. This department reviews all incidents and accidents at the airline (and consults regularly with other airlines to determine industry standards and to share data). Makes for interesting dinner conversation, to say the least. Contrary to what is posted elsewhere in the thread, a fraction of all incidents and accidents are made public. They happen every day across the system at my airline, and I'm assuming other carriers as well. Lots happens on the planes, ... and stays on the planes.

 

I also know when someone's mind is made up. I'm comfortable doing what I do, and it sounds like you (and others) are as well. No number of links in the world are likely to change your opinion, and I truly have no desire to get you to see the issue as I do. You and your being collective, and not specific to you, ChandlerMom. I'm sitting here, hanging out, sharing what I know and hoping it helps someone. I'm not into the whole debate/research/Google thing ... I don't debate with the Internet :D

 

I think I'll go back to the fluffy threads! This is just an area where I have experience, so I thought I'd share what I know. Anecdotally. Safe travels to you, and everyone else. Sincerely.

 

This jives with my experience working for an airline years ago. There are many "minor" incidents of strong turbulence and rough take-offs/landings that don't make it into the media.

 

Also, I want to bring up another point for consideration: climate change, and the implications it has for flying.

 

Whether one believes climate change is "man-made" or is the natural effect of Earth's own cyclical weather, the fact is, increases in ocean temperature, even by a half-degree, produce mammoth storms and huge fronts. This year, the Gulf of Mexico's temperature has been a few degrees above average (according to the Weather Channel). That is what is responsible for the tremendous outbreak of violent storms and weather that has wreaked havoc across the eastern and southern half of the country.

 

All that's to say, as oceanic temperatures continue to rise, these types of severe atmospheric disturbances are going to become much more common. That means, airplanes are going to encounter volatile warm and cold fronts all that much more frequently, and that spells more turbulence, and more "incidents."

 

For that reason, I'm not that sanguine about flying myself, let alone with a lap child. Also, I'm not cool about the thought that if I was on a plane that hit an air pocket, and caused a 1000 foot drop, that someone else's unsecured lap child could act as the instrument of serious injury to myself or to my child. Having a skull impact yours with such force and speed means it's not just the unsecured child at risk; anyone who gets hit with a flying body can be seriously injured or even killed.

[LibraryLover]

It seems some folks are suggesting that many babes-in-arms have died during turbulance, but that these deaths have not been reported to the public?

 

Some of you are saying that airlines are withholding turbulance deaths?

 

I've flown at leat 100 times, and most airlines will still pour wine before they ask the crew to sit down. A baby in a sling seems perfectly safe during normal turbulance. I've hardly been on a flight without turbulance.

 

But I would like to hear about how they hide this baby turbulance death data folks are so sure is hidden, since hiding dead babies is impossible to do.

 

Even by airlines. ;)

 

I am all about safetly and careseats, but I am not about bullshe-ite. Cough up the data.

Edited June 28, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Aelwydd]

It seems some folks are suggesting that babes-in-arms have died during turbulance, but that these deaths have not been reported to the public?

 

Some of you are saying that airlines are withholding turbulance deaths?

 

But I would like to hear about how they hide this turbulance death data folks are so sure is hidden, since hiding dead babies is impossible to do.

 

Even by airlines. ;)

 

I am all about safetly and careseats, but I am not about bullshe-ite. Cough up the data.

 

I don't believe I said anything about deaths. I said incidents, which often have minor, and sometimes more severe injuries, like broken bones.

 

Incidents such as this one and this one tend to get air-time, because it's news worthy that so many people sustained injury. But if someone knocks their head against the bulkhead and gets a hematoma and that's it, it's unlikely that the incident will make it into the public consciousness.

[AuntieM]

I have always bought the seat, and always been happy I did.

 

Severe turbulence is rare, but if you've ever been through it and know what it can do, you'll have more peace of mind with baby in a properly anchored car seat.

 

And you can also breathe easier knowing you won't end up in a center seat trying to juggle baby, bottle/ nursing, diaper bag, etc while seated between a couple of linebackers or businessmen.

[LibraryLover]

I don't believe I said anything about deaths. I said incidents, which often have minor, and sometimes more severe injuries, like broken bones.

 

Incidents such as this one and this one tend to get air-time, because it's news worthy that so many people sustained injury. But if someone knocks their head against the bulkhead and gets a hematoma and that's it, it's unlikely that the incident will make it into the public consciousness.

 

 

How does this happen with a baby in a sling or Ergo or other carrier?

 

Where is the baby data?

 

A baby has a greater chance, goddess help me, of having his/her pram hit by a car on a walk around the block.

 

And even a greater chance of getting bitten by the family dog.

Edited June 28, 2011 by LibraryLover

[AuntieM]

You know, now that I think about it, this topic comes up routinely, with the same various responses. I'm thinking it belongs in the same category as discussions about crock pots, shopping carts and shoeless homeschoolers. :D

[LibraryLover]

You know, now that I think about it, this topic comes up routinely, with the same various responses. I'm thinking it belongs in the same category as discussions about crock pots, shopping carts and shoeless homeschoolers. :D

 

 

I agree.

 

 

I also think babies need to nurse during take off and landing, which is easily done in a soft baby carrier. I'd also want to be holding my baby against my breast in said carrier if we were going to crash and die.

 

Of course, this would help if people actually provided reliable data. I would assume the greater risk a to baby would be turbulence projectiles. Conked on the head by a flying cell phone, or bits of baggage falling from above-- and a car seat is not going to protect from that sort of thing.

 

 

 

Which nobody does. Again, anecdote is not data. Even if one wants it to be.

 

'Climate change' is real, but not an issue for indivdual flights. There is such a thing as radar --and communication among pilots towers to stear them towards calmer skies. Pilots want to crash about as much as a flyer does.

Edited June 28, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Aelwydd]

How does this happen with a baby in a sling or Ergo or other carrier?

 

Where is the baby data?

 

A baby has a greater chance, goddess help me, of having his/her pram hit by a car on a walk around the block.

 

And even a greater chance of getting bitten by the family dog.

 

I don't have access to the data. The AAP states that studies show severe turbulence is much more survivable for those who are secured in car seats than those who are not. I'm not arguing that flying with a lap baby is super risky, in comparison with other types of travel.

 

What I'm stating is that when comparing secured passengers to non-secured, whatever the age, the first group fare much better, and suffer significantly fewer injuries. In other words, even though I know that flying without a seatbelt from Texas to FL would be much safer than traveling by car, I'm still going to wear a seat belt.

 

Why? Because turbulence is a frequent event, and severe turbulence is unpredictable. Since I don't know when or where the severe bumps may happen, I'm using my seat belt to reduce my risk of injury.

 

When it came to my 6 month old son, I simply applied the same logic. I figured if it was safer for me to be belted in, then it was safer for him.

 

P.S. A baby in a sling would still be in acute danger of becoming a human air bag, in the unfortunate event of the parent being thrown forward in his or her seat.

[LibraryLover]

All that's to say, as oceanic temperatures continue to rise, these types of severe atmospheric disturbances are going to become much more common. That means, airplanes are going to encounter volatile warm and cold fronts all that much more frequently, and that spells more turbulence, and more "incidents."

 

QUOTE]

 

 

You write as if pilots get into cockpits & fly blind. There is a thing called RADAR and tower communication.

 

I am all about safety, but you're making making flying sound like a crap shoot, which it isn't.

 

It's safer to fly (there are over six thousand flights per day, with 10s of thousands of people on those flights) than to walk your kid to the park.

Edited June 28, 2011 by LibraryLover

[MtnTeaching]

As an ex-flight attendant, you couldn't pay me enough to NOT have my child - no matter what age- on an airplane without a strapped in car seat. I've been through severe turbulance and have a crushed disk in my upper back from hitting the ceiling. There-is-no-way a person can hold onto a tiny lap child during severe turbulance or a very hard landing. It just isn't going to happen.

 

That said, it is not a law that you have to have a strapped in car seat for an infant on an airplane. Just as it is not illegal to drive around on a motorcycle without a helmet in my state. Would I do that? No. But there are some people who are willing to play that roulette game with their life. That is their choice. They are adults, they can decide if they want to take that chance.

 

On an airplane, though, just as in an automobile, adults are required to wear their seatbelts (when the fasten seat belt sign is on). There is no choice for that adult - they must follow that law. Why then, is it OK to not have a baby strapped in to prevent it from flying around a bouncing plane? It perplexes me that people even debate this.

[LibraryLover]

A baby in a sling would still be in acute danger of becoming a human air bag, in the unfortunate event of the parent being thrown forward in his or her seat.

 

In an airplane during turbulance? That seems absurd.

 

Where is this info coming from?! I would really like to know where these statistics can be found.

Edited June 28, 2011 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

As an ex-flight attendant, you couldn't pay me enough to NOT have my child - no matter what age- on an airplane without a strapped in car seat. I've been through severe turbulance and have a crushed disk in my upper back from hitting the ceiling. There-is-no-way a person can hold onto a tiny lap child during severe turbulance or a very hard landing. It just isn't going to happen.

 

 

.

 

As a careful and thoughtful person, I do dance the potential risk scenario, so I respect your experience.

 

However, I ask gently. How many babies in slings or carriers died or were injured during your time as a flight attendant? I am very interested in these statistics. How many flights did you log as an attendant?

 

I am VERY interested in your stats vs the reported stats. If the airlines are lying to us, your experience would better help us understand the risk.

Edited June 28, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Aelwydd]

I also think babies need to nurse during take off and landing, which is easily done in a soft baby carrier. I'd also want to be holding my baby against my breast in said carrier if we were going to crash and die.[/Quote]Mine didn't need to nurse. He slept pretty much the entire time in his car seat.

 

Also, it's not the catastrophic accident that would concern me. It's the survivable, "We were taking off, and suddenly the tire blew and the pilot threw the brakes on, and nearly everyone pancaked into the seat in front of them" kind of incident that is much more frequent, but still dangerous to a lap child. Or really, anyone who is unsecured in the cabin at that point.

 

Of course, this would help if people actually provided reliable data.

 

Which nobody does. Again, anecdote is not data. Even if one wants it to be.[/Quote]Well, both of those articles I linked to did cite data regarding the number of turbulence issues and injuries each year. These came from sources like the FAA, which I consider to be reliable.

 

'Climate change' is real, but not an issue for indivdual flights. There is radar, after all. Plus, a pilot wants to crash about as much as a flyer does.[/Quote]You are not familiar with "clear turbulence," then. I suggest you research it. It is a phenomenon that is not detectable by radar. (And no one here is debating the desire of pilots to crash??)

 

Also, I don't understand how you don't see how climate change can affect a flight. Increased temperatures from oceanic waters, such as the Gulf, are responsible for powering tremendous fronts, which contain water droplets. It's these fronts which set up the cold and warm air pockets that make for bumpy flights. The more dramatic the temperature difference (such as when significantly warmer air comes up from the Gulf through Texas and up the Midwest), the more severe the turbulence caused.

 

These fronts can eclipse air space over tremendous distances, so that planes flying from one region to another, have no option but to fly through these turbulent areas. Most of the time, they fare well and everybody just gets a bumpy ride. The problem is, that increasing temperatures from ocean waters means that these fronts are going to become more volatile, and there will most likely be an increase in incidences of severe turbulence.

 

That's why, until either people figure out how to cover the polar caps in aluminum foil (and stop the melt down and increasing temps), or the Earth gets through her PMS'ing or whatever it is that's causing the temperature increases, I'm inclined to make air travel an infrequent event.

[Aelwydd]

In an airplane during tublulance? That is absurd.

 

Where is this info coming from?!

 

It seems to me that you are so dead-set in your opinion, that you are misconstruing everything I say. I'm not interested in trying to change your mind. I'm only trying explain my rationale for why I insisted on ds being properly restrained.

 

As I attempted to explain earlier, the danger of a lap child becoming an "air bag" would be greatest during take-off and landing. It could happen in turbulence, in any situation where the person holding the child is thrown forward with extreme force. That's not as likely to happen though, as the child actually being thrown out of the parent's arms and into a bulkhead or other object in the cabin. Why is this the case? Because of the differing nature of motion in the air, versus during take-offs and landings.

 

ETA: As I said before, the FAA and the NSTB and the AAP have not made public, at least as far as I've searched, the studies that they base their analysis on. This article talks about how each of these agencies concludes that lappers who are restrained in car seats suffer fewer injuries and are therefore safer.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Aelwydd

[ChandlerMom]

Airline accidents are rare enough that they are newsworthy when they occur. Car accidents are so common that in many communities people getting killed or severely injured is a daily occurrence.

...

My point being, this is really more of an emotional issue than a logical one.

...

Patti

 

Wiki claims in the US alone we fly over 583 TRILLION passenger-miles each year.. and we see a report with 3 injuries to infants, one in a seat. That doesn't sound like you're buying much safety.

 

It isn't whether a carseat in an airplane seat is safer, but HOW MUCH safer and how great is the risk? It is ALWAYS a trade-off! If you feel better buying a seat, fine. If you don't think it's best for you, fine. But the suggestion that this is cut-and-dried and not mostly just emotion is IMO wrong. Last month we flew with our 2yo in a carseat and the seats are so close together I do not believe it could function as designed anyways. But it did keep him contained (if not his cheerios). :D

 

Look, you can reduce your child's risk of in-flight 100% -- don't fly. There's also paranoia about SIDS, yet moms will haul their infants in the car all the time and not give the RISK of doing so any thought at all. You want to reduce the risk or your child's death in a car accident? Don't take them in a car, at least on extraneous trips. We still don't take our kids grocery shopping, etc -- one parent does the errands while the other is home with the kids (also faster and easier), and YES the reduction of risk of car accident as well as risk of illness is part of that decision. On the other hand we just did a FUN 2,000 mi family road trip.

 

Basically, we measure our risk based on necessity or value. That doesn't make another family's decision to carschool WRONG, they just value the risk to benefit differently. And we value the risks often based on EMOTION, not fact.

 

Your risk of injury or death is lower PER MILE in a plane than a car. So if the OP took her child on 4,000 mi LESS in the car this year her child would be safer even with the flight. :p

[LibraryLover]

It seems to me that you are so dead-set in your opinion, that you are misconstruing everything I say. I'm not interested in trying to change your mind. I'm only trying explain my rationale for why I insisted on ds being properly restrained.

 

As I attempted to explain earlier, the danger of a lap child becoming an "air bag" would be greatest during take-off and landing. It could happen in turbulence, in any situation where the person holding the child is thrown forward with extreme force. That's not as likely to happen though, as the child actually being thrown out of the parent's arms and into a bulkhead or other object in the cabin. Why is this the case? Because of the differing nature of motion in the air, versus during take-offs and landings.

 

 

Sweetie...I am not dead- set against this! I want you to change my mind. I am trying to understand some of these dire statistics. The dire doesn't seem to exist because flying is currently safer than walking across the street.

 

I hate flying. HATE it. Makes me crazy. But it's not dangerous. More people will have slipped or drowned in their own bathtubs today than died or were injured on planes.

 

I do get that you're never going to get hired by United etc for for PR. :) lol

 

And that is ok. :)

 

If wanting some data is being hard-headed/dead set, ok, I am. I want to know how many babies have been injured or died on flights that have been able to land.

Edited June 28, 2011 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

i think agree with you and i think that's all good

everybody can know the best for all

 

 

Oh, I hate flying. More than most anything. Turbulance is scary. I've flown too many times to count and I HATE turb!!

 

The physics of turbulance w/ a babe in a body carrier/sling/Ergo/etc is not the same as a baby flying sickenly unstrapped in a car crash.

 

I do think that people who wish to put their babies in a carseat for a long flight should do so! I personally wouldn't let my baby sit in any carrier for hours, and I wouldn't choose to use a bottle for that, but if people feel it's better, that is exactly what they should do!

 

Do what you think is right!

Edited June 28, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Aelwydd]

Sweetie...I am not dead- set against this! I want you to change my mind. I am trying to understand some of these dire statistics. The dire doesn't seem to exist because flying is currently safer than walking across the street.

 

Oh, well maybe that's the cause for confusion? I said earlier in this thread that I don't think that flying without a seat belt is more dangerous than driving. I said quite clearly that I don't think it's "super risky." I'm only saying that, if I'm flying anyway, I will go ahead and buckle up, to avoid any nasty bumps or bruises from the small, but real risk of unpleasantness that may ensue. I approached the question of whether ds should be buckled up with the same reasoning. What's good for the goose, and all that.

 

I hate flying. HATE it. Makes me crazy. But it's not dangerous. More people will have slipped or drowned in their own bathtubs today than died or were injured on planes.[/Quote]I hate it, too!! Mostly because I'm squished, and I hate breathing in recycled air, and I can't see where I'm going. Oh, and the germs. Personally, I think the biggest risk to your health from flying is actually catching some exotic strain of the flu, that has been growing and mutating on your food tray for at least 6 months.

 

I do get that you're never going to get hired by United etc for for PR. :) lol

 

And that is ok. :)

 

If wanting some data is being hard-headed/dead set, ok, I am. I want to know how many babies have been injured or died on flights that have been able to land.[/Quote]I'm not objecting to your request for data. At all. I'm only saying it's not readily available (unless you have a subscription to a relevant database), or I would have provided it. Also, that I have provided links to sites that cite reliance on studies as their basis for recommendation. In other words, my viewpoint isn't based on just my own experience alone, but on what organizations such as the FAA and the NTSB have to say about it.

 

That said, I agree with you that it's preferable (safety wise) for a mom to fly with her baby in her lap than it is for her to drive or take a train. The FAA thinks that, too, which is why they haven't banned the 2 year lapper rule. They say, "Yeah, we know it's safer for these babies to be buckled in, absolutely. But, if the cost of having them buckled in means their parents will drive instead, then it's actually a step backwards, in terms of risk."

 

I get that, totally. Even so, whether a passenger is 2 or 52, it's safer for them to be buckled into their own seat, than if they were not. So, when I had the choice, I chose to take that small increase in margin of safety and had ds in a car seat in his own seat.

[LibraryLover]

I always wear my belt, even when there is no turbulance.

 

You should do what you think is right for your children during air travel/turbulance. I am purely asking about statistics.

 

I've always kept mine on my body in a sling/carrier, with the belt on my lap. (Airplanes do not have shoulder belts.)

 

This does not pose the same risk (going back to those stats) as wearing the baby on a German autobahn or an LA freeway, say.

 

If those stats change, I want to know!

 

If a baby in a carseat for a long flight works for you, you should do that!!

 

 

If you tell me that you see no need for your own safety belt in a plane, then your position would make more sense to me.

[LibraryLover]

I agree with everything else you wrote, but this argument by the FAA has been rebutted by the NTSB (I linked the rebuttal somewhere upthread).

 

{To be clear: the NTSB countered the claim that eliminating the exemption would cause greater harm/risk than keeping it.}

 

To LL: I don't see evidence that flying is horribly dangerous, my argument is that if you and I should be strapped then our little ones should be too, there is no reason they would fare better than we would in turbulence, a rough/emergency landing, or any other incident. ...and I have tried to support my position with the data I used to formulate it.

 

Oh, I hear you.

 

It would be ludacris for the FAA or NTSB to imply that it's fine to not restrain every soul, no matter how small or large, for the entire duration of a flight. (I am sure they would also rather adults not have to pee. :tongue_smilie:)

 

Until they disallow all movement, any bump or jostle can be fodder for a lawsuit. Even when people are minorly bumped during normal turbulance, it can be an ssue for airlines. Yet turbulance is normal and mostly not at all dangerous. (I can't figure out why people think it's not normal. ?? We hate it, yes but flight is what it is! You can't be thinking you can be moving through multiple air currents/changes without issue. lol )

 

Which is not to say people can't be harmed at times by it (Mostly by falling objects.) They can be. But: 6000 flights a day--- there is a lot of potential for some harm, bogus or not-- even if 99.99% of those 6k flights are without major issue.

 

I am limiting my own thinking here about actual risk to an infant in a body carrier on a flight with normal turbulance on a regular flight. (I don't think I've ever flown without some turbulance, and I've flown lots).

 

Waking up in the morning is risky. ;) Every single day we weigh our risk factors. Living in a home with a pool is more dangerous than living in a home without one, fi. Taking a shower/bathing is more risky/slippery than not showering/bathing. If one lives in a ranch home, one can't fall down the stairs. Driving a car is more dangerous than taking a bus or flying.

 

The whole of life is why actuaries make the big money. ;) The whole of risk is why insurance companies have the biggiest & shiniest buildings in the nicest cities. ;) The FAA wants you belted in your seat! I can't argue with that, no matter. :)

Edited June 28, 2011 by LibraryLover

[MtnTeaching]

QUOTE=LibraryLover;2876280]As a careful and thoughtful person, I do dance the potential risk scenario, so I respect your experience.

However, I ask gently. How many babies in slings or carriers died or were injured during your time as a flight attendant? I am very interested in these statistics. How many flights did you log as an attendant?

I am VERY interested in your stats vs. the reported stats. If the airlines are lying to us, your experience would better help us understand the risk.

And I will ever so gently respond to your request to further explain my decision to put my defenseless infant into an approved FAA child restraint device in an effort to prevent it from becoming a human softball.

There were no children killed on any of my flights (Sorry, but I just don't have those logged hours in front of me and I also just don't feel compelled enough to go and find them for you.) I did witness many adults who were injured out of either arrogance or stupidity when turbulence was encountered and they had elected not to wear their seatbelts. For instance, a teenage boy decided to take off his seatbelt so that he could curl up in his seat under a blanket. I had to press washcloths on his cracked open head until we could land and get him an ambulance. I watched a woman decide to go to the bathroom in turbulence. We could hear her hitting things inside the bathroom, but that was her decision - she was an adult after all. I also experienced turbulence so bad during a thunderstorm that the entire back section of the DC8 along with the 4 flight attendants were screaming the Lord’s Prayer.

On the other hand, the turbulence we hit when I was injured was completely clear air. No radar or other pilots foresaw this one. We had zero warning and I hit the ceiling. When I came down, the plane had shifted and I landed across seat arms and passengers. I crushed a disk in my upper back, tore cartridge in my chest, and bruised ribs. I cannot imagine where an infant in someone's relaxed arms would have gone.

I base my decision to use a restraint for my child on my experiences. I also base it on something called a "crash dummy". When I was in training as a flight attendant, we were shown videos of multiple tests done by the FAA regarding children and what would happen to the little dummy/a.k.a projectile when severe turbulence, landings, crashes happened. They showed people trying to hang onto the babies to no avail. I also clearly remember a woman with a front sling crushing her "baby" when she was thrown forward on a hard landing impact. A person just cannot control where they are going to end up in those circumstances.

Obviously, your mind is made up and even the potential for disaster for your child will not change that. I can respect that. The chances of you hitting vicious turbulence, having a tire blow on landing, or a sudden decompression are extremely low, if not negligible. You are completely free to make your own decisions regarding the safety of your child. As of yet, there is no law regarding restraints on an airplane (for defenseless infants and toddlers that is).

As for me, I choose to spend the extra money to afford my child at least the same amount of safety that is required to be given to adults on an airplane.

 

I am going to go with the NTSB's recommendation in their Safety Alert entitled “Child Passenger Safety on Aircraft†http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetyalerts/SA_015.pdf

where they state...

 

 

 

Preventable deaths and injuries have occurred in children under age 2 who were unrestrained.

 

All of this discussion may be a mote point soon anyway. There is an initiative out there that will make it a LAW that all children under 2 will need to be in an approved FAA restraint in their own seat.

http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/children.html

[nd293]

In light of all the discussions about flying with babies/toddlers, what is the general consensus on purchasing a seat for a 6 week old? There is no price break at all.

 

Does flight length make a difference? Can you put baby in a sling at any time? What are the rules?

 

 

From a straight safety point of view, a baby needs a car seat in a plane. However, balancing the likelyhood of an accident against the cost of the seat and the amount of time a baby will actually spend in the seat (only take-off and landing in the case of my son who hated his car seat) I would not opt for a separate seat for the baby. I also take into consideration the types of places we've travel to, which often haven't had seat belts in cars, which is a far greater risk than plane travel ever will be. On all airlines we have travelled on, we have used a lapbelt extention for the baby during take-off and landing, and I held the baby in a sling or on my lap the rest of the time. He would not sleep in the bassinet, although it would be wonderful if the baby would - it seems more likely with a 6 week old than an older baby.

 

When ds was about 1yr old it did not seem practical to have him on my lap during a long flight, and I bought him a seat. I did not take a car seat on the plane though, but used the CARES flight harness during take-off and landing, and a lap belt the rest of the time. I have checked a car seat several times, and always received it at the other end.

[Donna]

I flew when my boys were little...6 months and 2.5yo. I put both in car seats and purchased tickets for them. It was a flight from Philadelphia to New Orleans so not a long flight but I wouldn't risk it. I have seen too many videos of what happens to stuff in bad turbulence and I couldn't do it. Yes, it cost way more to fly and was really difficult with two parents lugging baggage plus two car seats but we were all safe. I hate to fly.

[Laura Corin]

 

Genuinely curious, for those of you that would not dream of not buying a seat for your infant/toddler, do they actually stay in the seat?

 

I trained them to do it. We used to fly a lot - between continents and more locally.

 

Laura

[Osmosis Mom]

I put my baby in a sling when I fly. When flying with Singapore Airline (the only airline that used to care -and they cared a LOT), they would provide a baby bed that got put up in front of me and the baby got zipped in (screaming or not). After 1 or 2 years of age, they would give me a special belt that went around the toddler, sitting on my lap. Since then I flew internationally with many other airlines and none cared. The baby had to sit unbelted on my lap, scary dangerous in case of turbulence. So I had dd in a carrier when I flew this past weekend and would do so until she turns 2 when she'd get her own seat.

 

For an infant, I'd do a baby carrier. It'd be safe imo anyways in case of a need to exit as she'd be on me...

[Rhonda in TX]

I flew with DS when he was 6 months old, from Houston to Bakersfield, CA. I held him on my lap. I played the odds and won, but I don't know if I would do that again.

[Trish]

Also head injuries. We can be injured by flying "stuff" in the compartment when turbulence is hit. A bike helmet costs what, thirty bucks? TV pitchman Billy Mays got hit in the head by an object on his flight before he died. They think that may have contributed to his death.

 

Bike helmets would certainly afford more protection from head injury. And I HAVE seen people get hit in the head with unsecured things on flights. Although I have been fortunate enough not to see any babies flying around the cabin.

[raceNzanesmom]

I don't fly, but if I did all passengers would have their own seat and be properly buckled. Turbulence is a real and serious danger.

Edited June 29, 2011 by raceNzanesmom