The time has come...

It's interesting to read FAAs take on that. By requiring car/plane seats, parents would be required to purchase an extra ticket. That price might be enough to cause parents to choose to drive instead of fly, and the risk of accident and injury is way higher when driving than when traveling on a airline.
 
Last edited:
The time has come(long past, really) to get the govt out of family issues and let parents decide the risk associated with their kids. If a parent wants to risk an airplane flight without restraints on the child, then so be it. If they want to buy an extra ticket, child safety seat, and buckle them in they can do that. If the parent wants to alternatively go by ground, or sea, or walk they can do that.

Go away with your laws, rules, regulations for children outside of the workplace. Just go away.
 
I fail to understand why this has not been required by the FAA.
 
docmirror said:
The time has come(long past, really) to get the govt out of family issues and let parents decide the risk associated with their kids. If a parent wants to risk an airplane flight without restraints on the child, then so be it. If they want to buy an extra ticket, child safety seat, and buckle them in they can do that. If the parent wants to alternatively go by ground, or sea, or walk they can do that.

Go away with your laws, rules, regulations for children outside of the workplace. Just go away.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that, except we also then need to remove the threat of legal action against the airline/automobile/cruise line if the child is injured due to the parents' decision.
 
Matthew said:
It's interesting to read FAAs take on that. By requiring car/plane seats, parents would be required to purchase an extra ticket. That price might be enough to cause parents to choose to drive instead of fly, and the risk of accident and injury is way higher when driving than when traveling on a airline.
Click to expand...

Good god, anyone who has ever tried to fly with a 1 year old on their lap is already buying another seat or driving. If they can sit up, it is VERY uncomfortable.

As if coach seats aren't uncomfortable enough, without a car seat, you get to get kicked in the sensitive parts every few minutes.
 
asgcpa said:
I fail to understand why this has not been required by the FAA.
Click to expand...

Think about the uproar that came about over the FAAs proposed sleep apnea rules....and that was just from a bunch of pilots. Now think about the political fallout (all of the families buying airline tickets vote) if the FAA pushed for this.

The people seem to think they are entitled to low cost airfare.
 
jtheune said:
Is there some rule that I'm not aware of that prohibits people from using car seats on aircraft?
Click to expand...

No, the issue is it is not required. And IF they required it, anyone traveling with an 'infant in arms' would be required to buy a separate ticket for the car seat.
 
How about something as simple as seat belts on buses. We just had a tragic bus vs truck accident yesterday near Sacramento where 8 kids died. It seems weird to me they want to put child seats on planes that very very rarely have accidents and they still don't require seat belts on buses.
 
jtheune said:
Is there some rule that I'm not aware of that prohibits people from using car seats on aircraft?
Click to expand...

Some will not work well on aircraft. For example, I believe many of the Britax seats are too wide for a coach airline seat. That will likely cause some issues, though airlines could have a small stock of cheap seats available like the rental car companies have, and charge $15/flight to use them.

In answer to: Why should it be required? To be grim/blunt about it, other passengers have the right to be protected from flying objects. If they are worried about a 5 lb laptop, they should be at least as concerned about a 25 lb toddler.
 
MAKG1 said:
Good god, anyone who has ever tried to fly with a 1 year old on their lap is already buying another seat or driving.
Click to expand...

Not really. You still see plenty of folks who don't want to spend the money and suck up the discomfort/inconvenience in order to save a buck.
 
Why would you want to require seats to protect babies when you support abortion? Seriously, I'm curious. How does that work? :dunno:

Hasn't the time come to protect the unborn? :dunno:
 
John221us said:
How about something as simple as seat belts on buses. We just had a tragic bus vs truck accident yesterday near Sacramento where 8 kids died. It seems weird to me they want to put child seats on planes that very very rarely have accidents and they still don't require seat belts on buses.
Click to expand...

I've never understood this, nor am I comfortable riding on tour buses without seat belts. Riding along with at 65 mph with a quite-possibly-fatigued driver at the helm never gives me a warm-fuzzy.
 
John221us said:
How about something as simple as seat belts on buses. We just had a tragic bus vs truck accident yesterday near Sacramento where 8 kids died. It seems weird to me they want to put child seats on planes that very very rarely have accidents and they still don't require seat belts on buses.
Click to expand...

Jeff Oslick said:
I've never understood this, nor am I comfortable riding on tour buses without seat belts. Riding along with at 65 mph with a quite-possibly-fatigued driver at the helm never gives me a warm-fuzzy.
Click to expand...

110%. :yes:
 
Geico266 said:
Why would you want to require seats to protect babies when you support abortion? Seriously, I'm curious. How does that work? :dunno:

Hasn't the time come to protect the unborn? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Well, you haven't been satisfied with the answer the last 500 times it's been brought up, so let's give it a go for #501.
 
Fearless Tower said:
No, the issue is it is not required. And IF they required it, anyone traveling with an 'infant in arms' would be required to buy a separate ticket for the car seat.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is.

See 14 CFR 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B).

The upshot is that most -- but not all -- true car seats are legal. I have yet to see a legal booster.
 
I did the kid on my lap once and that was enough to cure me forever. I always put my kids in car seats when flying the family in GA. Just made sense to me, no one told me I had too. Actually they liked it better because they were high enough to see out of the windows.
 
MAKG1 said:
Good god, anyone who has ever tried to fly with a 1 year old on their lap is already buying another seat or driving. If they can sit up, it is VERY uncomfortable.

As if coach seats aren't uncomfortable enough, without a car seat, you get to get kicked in the sensitive parts every few minutes.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's the compromise that FAA is hoping for - if parents are going to buy an extra ticket anyway, then require a car seat.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not really. You still see plenty of folks who don't want to spend the money and suck up the discomfort/inconvenience in order to save a buck.
Click to expand...

Most of us just think flying coach is like getting kicked in the cojones.

We're not talking about a little discomfort.

I think you see plenty of folks who haven't tried it before.
 
MAKG1 said:
Actually, there is.

See 14 CFR 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B).

The upshot is that most -- but not all -- true car seats are legal. I have yet to see a legal booster.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the booster is align the shoulder belt - no shoulder belt, no need for the booster.
 
flightwriter said:
I'm fine with that, except we also then need to remove the threat of legal action against the airline/automobile/cruise line if the child is injured due to the parents' decision.
Click to expand...

I was on board with that long ago. Libertarian that I am.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
The purpose of the booster is align the shoulder belt - no shoulder belt, no need for the booster.
Click to expand...

Nope. That's one purpose. The other is getting the legs bent so the lap belt can be tight enough.

Ever put a 4 year old on an adult seat? Either the legs are straight and the feet don't fit because of the seat in front, or they are bent and there is six inches of space behind their butt. A lap belt loose enough to support that isn't going to work as designed.
 
I would like to review an engineering analysis that a car seat for an infant, or toddler on an aircraft involved in an accident made a difference in survivability in an accident. Is the increased rate .01 or .1 or 1 or 10 or 50 percent more likely? I ask, because from an empirical perspective, I would say the increased rate of survivability is between .01 and 1 percent. I'm prepared to be found wrong.
 
I have flown with my daughter a few times. The first time to Europe she was six months old and in her car seat. We took her again in February at almost-2, and I had gotten her a harness to use on the seat (CARES toddler harness- Child Aviation Restraint System), but it was unnecessary. She is now large enough to use a regular seat belt.

I agree, babies and toddlers should be restrained on airplanes and buses. When my child was an infant, the car seat was very comfortable for her to sleep in. I don't think that sitting on my lap for eight hours would have made her comfortable. She also never cried in her car seat.
 

Attachments

  • DSC01144.JPG
    DSC01144.JPG
    3.5 MB · Views: 19
  • IMG_0039.jpg
    IMG_0039.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 18
When I was a kid, my mom had a 50s Nash with a bench seat in front. I can recall as a kid of 3 or so standing on the front seat and leaning against the seat back. When my mom would go around a right turn, I would make a game of standing still, and then tumbling over into her shoulder, then she would push me back upright like a robot. Once I did it on a left turn, and almost went out the window. Ah - the 50s.
 
MAKG1 said:
and the feet don't fit because of the seat in front
Click to expand...

I don't get/see this... a 4 year old doesn't have long legs.

I've flown several times with my kids - yes, 4 years old, and it wasn't an issue. Used a CARES harness until they sized-out of it.
 
It's interesting that it's been 1.5 hours since AP threw another drive by bombshell and left without defending her position. I supposed I should not be surprised by this. She demands that the government mandate a expensive solution to a non-existent problem and then does not defend her demands.

PS, when I fly my granddaughters in my plane we use their cars seats every time.
 
jtheune said:
It's interesting that it's been 1.5 hours since AP threw another drive by bombshell and left without defending her position. I supposed I should not be surprised by this. She demands that the government mandate a expensive solution to a non-existent problem and then does not defend her demands.
Click to expand...

Hey, whatever takes away liberty of the citizen, and gives more power to a third party - you can bet it's all for the good. Cuz, the govt never does anything bad, or useless, or stupid.

oh - wait...:D
 
Geico266 said:
I'm not comfortable with people carrying on more junk in commercial flights.
Click to expand...

This could be a solution:

Jeff Oslick said:
... airlines could have a small stock of cheap seats available like the rental car companies have, and charge $15/flight to use them.
Click to expand...

It would be one, or more, fewer things that parents would have to haul around with them. Getting everyone boarded and seated quickly will still be a challenge. And what if they run out?
 
I's be interested in knowing how many lap children actually are injured or killed on commercial airline flights every year (other than in disasters which would have been unsurvivable in any case). I personally have never heard of any. Absent such evidence, this sounds to me like a solution in search of a problem.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I's be interested in knowing how many lap children actually are injured or killed on commercial airline flights every year (other than in disasters which would have been unsurvivable in any case). I personally have never heard of any. Absent such evidence, this sounds to me like a solution in search of a problem.

-Rich
Click to expand...

I can't think of any airline accidents, but I have seen a few GA accident reports where a kid was seriously injured/killed because they were not secured in a seat.
 
Stupid solution to a non-existent problem. Right along the lines of this posters MO.
 
It isn't just an issue for crashes - an unsecured kid can be injured in bad turbulence as well.
 
As a parent of two small children, I agree that this regulatory suggestion is a solution looking for an essentially nonexistent problem. While we have traveled on the airlines and GA with child seats, we've always checked them as baggage. I can't imagine having to cart multiple kids + diaper bag(s) + stroller(s) + car seats through the airport and onto the airplane, and do the reverse at the other end. The shear logistical challenge would have made it too onerous for us even if we didn't have to buy additional tickets.

Arbitrary age and/or weight regulations for use of car seats are often poorly written, too inflexible, or downright silly, even in automobiles. Both of our kids have been either very tall for their ages, or way under "average" weight, even though they're otherwise old enough or tall enough for the safe use of certain car seats or boosters. They've progressed through child seats to boosters based on their ability to be positioned and restrained appropriately.

According to the link provided by the OP, the aircraft accidents cited in support of such a regulation are more than 20 years old. The reality is that traveling on the airlines has become substantially safer in the past 20 years, and the corresponding risk of infant or child fatalities has been reduced as well. The cost of the futile effort to remove all of the risk for a given activity is always too high.

The idea that parents aren't able to perform their own risk assessment, make decisions about the safe travel of their children, and be responsible for those decisions, should be truly repulsive to every parent.


JKG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top