Car Seats- I guess I missed something?! - Page 6

[Tapioca]

Ah. That explains why they said no carseats on our flight to Europe. Not that I'm a believer in carseats on planes, but I thought it was interesting.

[xbabymamax]

oops.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by pixiekisses

Sorry, don't know where you live, my impression is that most in here are in the US, so I assumed.



We all know it's safer to fly, to can you fly to where you are going everyday?
It's still a really silly thing to compare.
(You can minimize the car driving, like we do. We hardly ever drive.)

And there is a thing called "good places to get info" vs. "not so good places to get info".
Youtube is not a good one.




However, children should absolutely not be in carseats in a plane.
On the contrary.
And in most planes here, you wont be allowed. There's no way to fasten a carseat properly in the plane. And it would absolutely be on your own risk, bc the stuardess will tell you they take no responsibility if you put the kid in the carseat instead. They have too.




Not very interesting, bc the victims are lying.

And yeah, numbers for US wouldn't count here.
Here, it's not likely for a seat belt to fail, I've actually never heard of it. (And that would be on the news, so if it was very common, I'd heard.)

How can dead people lie? In all seriousness, why would you assume they were lying?

The rest is research based on crash tests. I'm doubting that the CBS reporters were lying nor the company paid to do the research and testing.

In terms of the youtube link, it's valid. The Kyle David Miller foundation in the States provides higher harness weight limit seats for children whose parents cannot afford them. If you watch the video to the end, you'll find a link to his foundation. It's legit. Here's the direct link
http://www.kyledavidmiller.org/

Every CPST I have ever met has reccomended the use of proper infant/child restraint seats for air travel. It's highly reccomended but not required by all the major airlines in Canada which is where I am. Belt positioning boosters are not reccomended as they require a lap and shoulder belt and are unsafe for use with just a lap belt.

In terms of air travel being safer, yes, that's a given, but that wasn't my point at all. I was speaking to the assertion that if a sort of accident is extremely rare, we shouldn't worry about it because it's "silly". My contention is that plane accidents are very, extremely rare, but there are still seat belts and saftey equipment onboard aircrafts.

[pixiekisses]

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

How can dead people lie? In all seriousness, why would you assume they were lying?

And why would you assume they're not?
It said there, no proof, and those that looked at the car/belt said they didn't think they where wearing it. So, there's no way to tell.

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

In terms of the youtube link, it's valid.

I don't think you got my point.
Youtube is not a source you trust, it's not a place to find objective info.
Youtube links in a discussion is silly.

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

Every CPST I have ever met has reccomended the use of proper infant/child restraint seats for air travel. It's highly reccomended but not required by all the major airlines in Canada which is where I am.

I'm just going to assume that CPST is some plane personel of some kind from the context, and here, everyone is saying that you should not, and usually aren't allowed to use a carseat in planes.

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

My contention is that plane accidents are very, extremely rare, but there are still seat belts and saftey equipment onboard aircrafts.

Of course it is. And that's also why you use a carseat for the kids in the car, and helmet on a bike, and lifejacket in a boat, isn't it?
Still, you cannot compare seat belt failure with air plane safety. And seatbelt failure is still so extremely rare, it's silly to worry about it. You can't do anything to prevent it anyway. (Well, maybe not driving a very old car.)

[BeckC]

A CPST is a Child Passenger Safety Technician. We are trained by NHTSA (National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration) to keep children safe in cars/busses/planes/etc.

And according *this* CPST based on the information I have and my training, a car seat should always be used on an airplane. The FAA approves (in fact encourages) it. The car seat manufacturers approve it, and the aircraft are manufactured to safely install car seats.

I should say that this post pertains to the United States. I am not well versed in the safety standards of other countries, but I do know what I am talking about in the US.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by pixiekisses

And why would you assume they're not?
It said there, no proof, and those that looked at the car/belt said they didn't think they where wearing it. So, there's no way to tell.

PK, with respect, did you read the article in its entirety? It said that seat belts have failed in crash tests under very specific circumstances, the same circumstances that were described in the incidents where seat belt failure is suspected. That's pretty compelling.

I don't think you got my point.
Youtube is not a source you trust, it's not a place to find objective info.
Youtube links in a discussion is silly.

I completely disagree. Crash test footage is very vaild to these types of discussions. Where do we find this footage much of the time? Youtube. I posted that link because it was made by the parents of Kyle David Miller. Fine, I get it, you're not a youtube fan, so I posted the actual link for the Kyle David Miller Foundation where they provide actual links to data and statistics regarding seatbelt failures.

Still, you cannot compare seat belt failure with air plane safety. And seatbelt failure is still so extremely rare, it's silly to worry about it. You can't do anything to prevent it anyway. (Well, maybe not driving a very old car.)

Again I disagree. It's not silly to worry about the unpredictable or the unlikely when it can and does happen. Kyle David Miller died because his seat belt failed. A 3 year old boy is gone because a seat belt did not do its job. If you read the article you'll see that it is well documented that seat belts can and do fail esepcially in rollovers, multiple impact accidents and if there is too much space between the belt and the person. It's called "inertial separation"

Short excerpt from the linked article - It states that seat belts can fail if:

At least two inches of slack exists between the belt buckle and the occupant's body. (Five inches of slack and more is not uncommon.) ....
...buckles swinging from a pendulum against a human hip unlatched 40-50 times at impact speeds between 9 and 15 miles per hour. The engineers noted: "(A)ll subjects stated that the perceived impact force was very low and did not leave any bruises on the impact area."
Europe similarly recognizes the problem as real. Its safety standard states that a safety belt buckle "must withstand 5,000 opening and closing cycles….

The article also notes that the US does not employ the same standards as Europe. Link: http://www.safetyforum.com/inertial/

[savithny]

Originally Posted by pixiekisses

There's a reason it's not allowed on most flights.
At least here.
But I don't have a link, I just know ppl that work with it, stuardess, captain etc. And I've experienced it myself on several flights.
I don't recall all the reasons, there where several.
But just as an example, that I thought of now, the buckle is in the wrong place, it has to be on the seat, and not "gliding". You can't fasten most car-seats if the buckle is to long, it has to be totally on the base of the seat. It's hard to explain, but it says in the car-seat manuals.
And seatbelts in planes don't have the same mecanics as a car one, they aren't tested or made for holding carseats.
I have to ask my friend who works with this again to get the reasons from the crew/airplane company/plane makers or whoever decides theese things.

Perhaps you're thinking of boosters? I have heard boosters mostly don't work with plane seatbelts - because they are lap-only rather than lap-and-shoulder.

But I flew with my son when he was still in a true carseat, and I had no trouble using the carseat on the plane, and got big props from the flight attendants for bringing it and using it. We strapped him in on several different flights and different sizes of airplane, and never had a problem. This included an international flight.

But he was in forward-facing Fisher-Price Safe Embrace designed to be used with a lap/shoulder or lap belt. NOT a booster.

[pixiekisses]

Originally Posted by savithny

Perhaps you're thinking of boosters? I have heard boosters mostly don't work with plane seatbelts - because they are lap-only rather than lap-and-shoulder.

But I flew with my son when he was still in a true carseat, and I had no trouble using the carseat on the plane, and got big props from the flight attendants for bringing it and using it. We strapped him in on several different flights and different sizes of airplane, and never had a problem. This included an international flight.

But he was in forward-facing Fisher-Price Safe Embrace designed to be used with a lap/shoulder or lap belt. NOT a booster.

Of course I'm not talking about a booster, we where talking about infants. They go in rear-facing carseats.

And still, here (not America), you wont be allowed on most flights.

[pixiekisses]

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

PK, with respect, did you read the article in its entirety?

Yes I did.

Still we're not going anywhere, I'm not gonna agree with you. I still think it's silly to compare those things. And you can't prevent it from happening.
That's my final words to you, I'm not gonna repeat myself again, I'm done discussing this with you.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by pixiekisses

Yes I did.

Still we're not going anywhere, I'm not gonna agree with you. I still think it's silly to compare those things. And you can't prevent it from happening.
That's my final words to you, I'm not gonna repeat myself again, I'm done discussing this with you.

I'm not trying to get you to agree with me and I think we can have this discussion without rudeness/brusqueness. What I'm trying to convey is that this is a real concern, it happens and there is data to support this. Europe is aware of this concern and is/has taken steps to correct it. This is not so in the USA and so is still a valid concern here.

I'm also trying to say that dismissing these concerns as silly is, well, dismissive. We're all just trying to protect our babies here. The point of the youtube video/link to the Kyle David Miller Foundation was to illustrate that keeping a child in a tethered 5pt harness longer provides a second line of defense against a child being ejected from a car should the belt fail. A child in a BPB has no such defense. So no, belt failures cannot be prevented, but ejection can be. These parents lost their child. I would not dismiss their concerns as silly, personally.

Regardless, it's obvious that you're not interested in persuing this discussion, so that's fine. No harm, no foul, no hard feelings .

[Anastasiya]

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

The point of the youtube video/link to the Kyle David Miller Foundation was to illustrate that keeping a child in a tethered 5pt harness longer provides a second line of defense against a child being ejected from a car should the belt fail. A child in a BPB has no such defense. So no, belt failures cannot be prevented, but ejection can be. These parents lost their child. I would not dismiss their concerns as silly, personally.

I have a question regarding this....I've always wondered HOW a 5 point harness could have saved his life, if it was truly the seatbelt that failed. He was most likely beyond the LATCH weight limits, and if the belt failed, he would be strapped into his seat but still be a projectile, crashing into the car around him.

I'm not *getting* how the issue seems to be 5 points over booster in this case - the belt fails, the belt fails. Either seat would have been deadly at that point.

[Adventuredad]

HERE flight attendants strongly STRONGLY suggest keeping babies in carseats on airplanes.

I disagree. Most staff are annoyed when they see a car set IMHO. Most plane staff I've talked to know the REAL RISKS and know it matters very little. And I'm talking about US or anywhere else. I've lived in US half my life and flown in and out about 150 times plus been down to Mexico 40 times so I'm not really a virgin traveler. I've also traveled a lot with my kids.

Staff on planes know the real risk about being injured by turbulence and it's so small you can forget about it. It really doesn't matter how you or your baby is traveling, it's still safer than sitting at the dinner table at home. The statistics most often cited is 3 deaths and a couple of hundred injured by turbulence during a 20 year period. And as far as I know death included no babies. Keep in mind there are 25 000+ per day just in US.

There are quite a few airlines which don't allow car sets at all. It's a question of increased boarding time, confused parents, car seats which don't install well and of course also the fact that traveling by plane is the safest thing you'll ever do with your baby even without a seat.

In Europe, kids travel with lap belts. Last thing I heard there are not hundreds of kids dying and tens of thousands being injured each year. If a lap belt was dangerous it would obviously not be allowed. I know it's not allowed in US but it's not like the US should be so proud of safety records.

I can't believe people don't talk more about LIABILITY. Maybe people don't have much business experience but you can just imagine what would happen in case a baby died and it could be proven that traveling without a set belt or lap belt was dangerous. The airline would be sued for so much money it would go out of business.

If it was unsafe to transport your baby without a seat belt it would not be allowed. After each accident with a baby, an airline would be sued to 5$50 billion and be finished. Last time I checked, there aren't exactly thousands of cases by angry parents who are suing the airline because theyr precious baby was injured.

If you look at this logically and with common sense, you'll realize the risk of your baby being injured on a plane is basically zero. During that same 20 year period 800 000+ died in traffic just in US. Your baby can travel with or without seat and the risk of something happening is still basically zero. Anyone who doesn't understand this needs to take math classes.

But, using a seat on a plane is still safer. If there was one baby death by turbulence in 40 years, the seat would probably have saved that baby. IMHO, using a seat on the plane is safer but the difference is statistically too small and insignificant to worry about. 500 kids drown each year in US and 25 kids actually die after getting a television set on top of them.

Mounting some car sets on planes can be difficult but there are many US seats which install just fine. Many of the larger Swedish rear facing seats simply can't be installed on planes. No one is sad about that because they know flying with a baby without a sat is still safer than sitting on the couch at home.

I find the panic about using car seats on planes a little troublesome. A large percentage of kids who die in US are unrestrained. I think the number is something like 50% but please correct me if I'm wrong. Anyone who really cares about kids would focus a little more attention to this fact than car seats on planes IMHO.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by Adventuredad

There are quite a few airlines which don't allow car sets at all.

Just to clarify- FAA approved seats are allowed on ALL domestic flights in the US.

-Angela

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by Sancta

I have a question regarding this....I've always wondered HOW a 5 point harness could have saved his life, if it was truly the seatbelt that failed. He was most likely beyond the LATCH weight limits, and if the belt failed, he would be strapped into his seat but still be a projectile, crashing into the car around him.

I'm not *getting* how the issue seems to be 5 points over booster in this case - the belt fails, the belt fails. Either seat would have been deadly at that point.

I don't think he was beyond the LATCH weight limits. He was only 3, but was in a BPB because he was over 40lbs. If he'd been in a 5 pt harness, the seat would have been belted (or latched) and tethered. Even if the belt had failed, the theory is that the tether would have kept the seat from becoming a projectile and possibly prevent ejection. Wow, that was a lot of P words. I realize this is not the primary purpose of the top tether.

[GirlBoyGirlBoy]

Just have to ask---how is flying with a baby safer than sitting on a couch at home? I'm sitting right now and feel pretty okay.... Should I be worried?

[an_aurora]

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

I don't think he was beyond the LATCH weight limits. He was only 3, but was in a BPB because he was over 40lbs. If he'd been in a 5 pt harness, the seat would have been belted (or latched) and tethered. Even if the belt had failed, the theory is that the tether would have kept the seat from becoming a projectile and possibly prevent ejection. Wow, that was a lot of P words. I realize this is not the primary purpose of the top tether.

The big issue here is that, more than likely, he unbuckled the seatbelt (or a sibling did) rather than the seatbelt failing.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by an_aurora

The big issue here is that, more than likely, he unbuckled the seatbelt (or a sibling did) rather than the seatbelt failing.

You're right, anything is possible. However, the research I am able to find concerning the matter states that if there is more than 2 inches of slack between the child and the belt and if the vehicle is in a rollover, the belt can fail.

Little kids in boosters like the freedom. If the belt isn't locked, they can lean forward causing slack in the belt.

I think either situation is possible. I don't think it's more likely that the seatbelt wasn't latched.

I used to drive a vehicle whose belts started failing and I had to have it replaced. It would just randomly start coming unlatched while I was driving. It didn't take an accident for me to find this out, but it could have.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by GirlBoyGirlBoy

Just have to ask---how is flying with a baby safer than sitting on a couch at home? I'm sitting right now and feel pretty okay.... Should I be worried?

Watching out for flying monkeys . Also, beware marbles, falling light fixtures and militant dust.

[an_aurora]

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

You're right, anything is possible. However, the research I am able to find concerning the matter states that if there is more than 2 inches of slack between the child and the belt and if the vehicle is in a rollover, the belt can fail.

But that's not the belt failing, that's the child being ejected with no fault of the belt.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by an_aurora

But that's not the belt failing, that's the child being ejected with no fault of the belt.

I'm confused. I'm saying that belts can fail by coming unlatched in the event of a rollover and/or if there is 2 or more inches of slack between the person and the belt. Not ejection because of the slack, the belt unlatching (failing) in these situations.