Safe or Not? (Legal or Not?)

T

Traket92X

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
161
Display Name
Display name:
Traket
My wife is a member of a Facebook group that has a large number of 'crunchy' mothers. This picture was recently posted. It started a lively discussion on whether flying with a child like this is safe. There were a few pilots who felt it was very unsafe. Mostly though, it was other mothers fixated on how wonderful it was that the mother was baby wearing and that she should be able to do what she wants.

In the comments and in other pictures, a bit more information is share.
-The plane is a 152.
-The other passengers were two boys (4 and 8) in the back, and the grandmother in the right seat. Grandma is not a pilot.
-In one of the other photos, the 4 year old is on the pilots lap while the plane is at ~1600' MSL and climbing. Google earth shows the plane is registered at an address which is ~600' MSL.

Any way in which this is safe? or even legal?
 

Attachments

  • 1014003_10151812845901786_184314891_n.jpg
    1014003_10151812845901786_184314891_n.jpg
    56.8 KB · Views: 249
Last edited:
Looks like mom's able to control the airplane. Looks like baby is happily sleeping at that age and in that position, will probably keep happily sleeping. If baby wakes up, it'll be to nurse - which (s)he's in a great location for. I'm guessing all of them were small to be able to have the weight in a 152.

I'm not seeing a problem.
 
Talk about young eagles,the pilots of the future.
 
I could see that being illegal, mostly for the safety of the child. I can't tell from the pic, but is the baby secure against any type of turbulence? You'd hate to see the baby's head hit the roof.
 
I'd say it's outside my comfort level, but not to the point I'd say something or pass judgement on someone for doing it...
 
Assuming:

1) Mom is able to get full control movement with baby in the way
2) Mom is able to control the plane
3) Baby is secured against movement/turbulence/landing bounce
4) Everyone (except baby in sling) is buckled
5) W&B is OK

What's wrong?

If any of those criteria isn't met, then it is a problem.
 
rbridges said:
I could see that being illegal, mostly for the safety of the child. I can't tell from the pic, but is the baby secure against any type of turbulence? You'd hate to see the baby's head hit the roof.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that one, but the wrap my wife uses would keep the kid off the ceiling but I couldn't promise there wouldn't be a hard impact with the pilots chin.
 
It's a 152 and she had Grandma, two boys and the baby in it??:yikes:
Hopefully it was a 172.:D
I'd be concerned about W&B, and controllability, other than that I don't think it's smart, but it might be legal. :D
I guess if it was a brief time, on a nice day, I'd feel better.:redface:
Traket92X said:
My wife is a member of a Facebook group that has a large number of 'crunchy' mothers. This picture was recently posted. It started a lively discussion on whether flying with a child like this. There were a few pilots who felt it was very unsafe. Mostly though, it was other mothers fixated on how wonderful it was that the mother was baby wearing and that she should be able to do what she wants.

In the comments and in other pictures, a bit more information is share.
-The plane is a 152.
-The other passengers were two boys (4 and 8) in the back, and the grandmother in the right seat. Grandma is not a pilot.
-In one of the other photos, the 4 year old is on the pilots lap while the plane is at ~1600' MSL and climbing. Google earth shows the plane is registered at an address which is ~600' MSL.

Any way in which this is safe? or even legal?
Click to expand...
 
Traket92X said:
'crunchy' mothers
Click to expand...
You need to define this for the childless. :confused: :dunno:

As long as she can get full travel on the yoke I don't see too much problem other than the fact that in an accident she will surely smash the baby between herself and the yoke.
 
upstateny said:
Future hearing problems for the baby?
Click to expand...

From a flight in a 152? Not likely. Babies are best put to sleep with vacuum cleaners and the like. Sure if it's done for long periods of time I'd be concerned about it, but not for the duration of the flight.

rbridges said:
I could see that being illegal, mostly for the safety of the child. I can't tell from the pic, but is the baby secure against any type of turbulence? You'd hate to see the baby's head hit the roof.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it for a baby in a wrap. They're pretty snug that way, and I wouldn't expect them to be flying on a bad flying day.
 
upstateny said:
FTFY..
Click to expand...
I came close to writing that to begin with...

But why am I, the childfree one, the only one to mention the possibility of the baby becoming the middle of a sandwich between the mom and yoke in an accident? I know it's small probability but...
 
Last edited:
Baby is not a problem. The two kids in the back without seats or seat belts I think would be a violation of FAR 91 section 107.
 
Everskyward said:
You need to define this for the childless. :confused: :dunno:
Click to expand...

"Crunchy" is a term deriving from granola. Sorta like hippie-esque. Typically they partake in "baby-wearing" (such as in the picture) with less use of strollers and the like, eating organic foods and making much of their own food, doing natural birth (as opposed to medicated/c-section), etc. etc.

Edit: "Chewy" is for moms who aren't quite hardcore crunchy.
 
Being a baby-wearing crunchy mama, and pilot and instructor, I see no issue here as long as she has full travel on the yoke.

Noise? Well, if this showed up in one of the crunchy mama pages I frequent, I would have told her how I loved Em's for Bubs infant headsets for my little. But in a 152 for a short duration it isn't going to cause hearing loss. I bet it put that baby right to sleep and had I had a plane and runway in the backyard I sure as hell would have been getting Bubba to sleep that way rather than vacuuming the house 5 times a day.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
"Crunchy" is a term deriving from granola. Sorta like hippie-esque. Typically they partake in "baby-wearing" (such as in the picture) with less use of strollers and the like, eating organic foods and making much of their own food, doing natural birth (as opposed to medicated/c-section), etc. etc.

Edit: "Chewy" is for moms who aren't quite hardcore crunchy.
Click to expand...
Wow, thanks Ted! Five years ago I could never have imagined you giving me that definition. :D
 
Based on my reading if 91.107 its legal but not something I'd do.

Kids in back of a 152 would not be legal though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
This is a 150 but I thought 152s could be fitted with a child seat too.

http://www.aircraftdealer.com/aircr...sna_150_152/1975_CESSNA_150_AEROBAT/32864.htm

big_89343297.jpg
 
Laurie said:
Being a baby-wearing crunchy mama, and pilot and instructor, I see no issue here as long as she has full travel on the yoke.

Noise? Well, if this showed up in one of the crunchy mama pages I frequent, I would have told her how I loved Em's for Bubs infant headsets for my little. But in a 152 for a short duration it isn't going to cause hearing loss. I bet it put that baby right to sleep and had I had a plane and runway in the backyard I sure as hell would have been getting Bubba to sleep that way rather than vacuuming the house 5 times a day.
Click to expand...

No no no, you need to use the 310. He must not be corrupted by singles! ;)

The infant headset worked great. Now it's fun having him use the adult headset is fun since he can hear himself in it, as well as hear us. :)

Everskyward said:
Wow, thanks Ted! Five years ago I could never have imagined you giving me that definition. :D
Click to expand...

Five years ago I had no idea WTF it meant, either. :D

Laurie said:
http://mamanatural.com/****-crunchy-mamas-say/
Click to expand...

The actual link has the bad word spelled out. It starts with an s, and ends with hit. :D
 
gaius46 said:
Kids in back of a 152 would not be legal though.
Click to expand...

The other photos have the N number on the panel which is what I pulled 152 from. Possible this was a different plane, but the yolk looks the same. edit: reread the post and it's possible it's talking about 3 separate flights. I that case, the boys were on someones lap the entire flight.

Some of the other comments were fun though:
- "For all we know, someone on the ground is controlling it".
- "I don't see any issue, they are really close to the ground and not high up".
- "Thanks to Auto-pilot, anyone can fly!"
- "I've seen pilots with bigger bellies than that baby gives her"
- "Also - turbulence isn't totally random and unexpected when it happens."
 
The one thing that's outside my comfort level is the lack of hearing protection. Other than that she can knock herself out. I started flying mine at 7 weeks old, mom and baby always in the backseat. We got those infant sized ear muffs, they work pretty good once he stopped trying to take them off his head. I've taken my headset off in my Arrow and yeah, no thanks, even 10 minutes that would be ridiculous.
 
N747JB said:
It's a 152 and she had Grandma, two boys and the baby in it??:yikes:
Hopefully it was a 172.:D
Click to expand...

John,
You've never seen a 150 with the child seat in the back? It will hold 4 people. They have to be very small people, but that back seat is a high demand item.
 
Traket92X said:
In the comments and in other pictures, a bit more information is share.
-The plane is a 152.
-The other passengers were two boys (4 and 8) in the back, and the grandmother in the right seat. Grandma is not a pilot.
-In one of the other photos, the 4 year old is on the pilots lap while the plane is at ~1600' MSL and climbing. Google earth shows the plane is registered at an address which is ~600' MSL.

Any way in which this is safe? or even legal?
Click to expand...
Definitely not safe -- if there's any kind of sudden stop, that baby's dead. Further, that chest carrier is not legal -- see 14 CFR 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B )(4) for details. As for the two in the back, they would not be legal other than in that special child seat seen in post #22, and I question whether it's possible to be legally loaded that way anyway, both for maximum weight in the child seat (I'm pretty sure there is a seat limit on that) and for overall W&B (especially aft cg) figuring the weights of the two kids (including an 8-y/o) along with the weight of the child seat back there.
 
Last edited:
No comment on the legal question, but as an aside when I went through indoc at my first airline, we learned various terms for weight and balance since standard weights were used. Above age 12 a person is counted an "adult", a child 2-12 is a "half-weight", 0-2 in an appropriately secured FAA approved car seat an "infant", and age 0-2 held on the lap of a passenger a "meat missile".

... it was a joke in poor taste as to what would happen in an accident with a sudden stop. Legal, sure, safe????
 
Ted DuPuis said:
"Crunchy" is a term deriving from granola. Sorta like hippie-esque. Typically they partake in "baby-wearing" (such as in the picture) with less use of strollers and the like, eating organic foods and making much of their own food, doing natural birth (as opposed to medicated/c-section), etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Ted, I'm impressed. That term goes WAYYY back to before you were born, if you're as young as your pictures make you look. ;)
 
azure said:
Ted, I'm impressed. That term goes WAYYY back to before you were born, if you're as young as your pictures make you look. ;)
Click to expand...
Haha yeah. Crunchy granola is more from when I was young.
 
Good thing those hippies don't know that plane was burning leaded gas.
 
Traket92X said:
My wife is a member of a Facebook group that has a large number of 'crunchy' mothers. This picture was recently posted. It started a lively discussion on whether flying with a child like this is safe. There were a few pilots who felt it was very unsafe. Mostly though, it was other mothers fixated on how wonderful it was that the mother was baby wearing and that she should be able to do what she wants.

In the comments and in other pictures, a bit more information is share.
-The plane is a 152.
-The other passengers were two boys (4 and 8) in the back, and the grandmother in the right seat. Grandma is not a pilot.
-In one of the other photos, the 4 year old is on the pilots lap while the plane is at ~1600' MSL and climbing. Google earth shows the plane is registered at an address which is ~600' MSL.

Any way in which this is safe? or even legal?
Click to expand...



91.107(a) (3) states that:

"...each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. "

The exception is if the child has not reached their 2nd birthday. So it appears to be legal BUT...

If being without a seat-belt is unsafe for an adult, then it is unsafe for an infant or child. If being without a seat-belt were safe, then we should all remove our seat-belts from our airplanes for weight reduction.

Maybe it is highly unlikely that this baby will be injured during normal flight operations, but approved seats, berths, child-seats, and seat-restraints are not mandated because all flights experience "normal" flight operations at all times. They are mandated for the rare events that DO happen...and unfortunately take place far too often.

So..it's legal, but I can not say I feel it's safe.

Gene
 
Last edited:
No way Jose with my kids. And it seems like one of those things that hippies do because they haven't really thought it through. And my wife (who wore both of our children) agrees.
 
Perhaps not illegal, but exceedingly unsafe, and unwise. In an abrupt stop, that infant runs a high risk of significant injury, and in an otherwise survivable crash, the baby will be dead, crushed between the mother and the yoke/panel. To make matters worse, the mother/pilot is not using a shoulder restraint that I can see, meaning she will, in an abrupt deceleration, have a not-so-pretty head and face afterwards, or will be dead from the head injury.
 
So they have 5 people in a 152? Of course it's legal...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top