or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Family Safety › Flying, carseats, lap children -- What's the big deal?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Flying, carseats, lap children -- What's the big deal? - Page 3

post #41 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socks for Supper View Post
I was fairly dubious about the advice regarding putting my child on the floor, and it was relayed to me about a year ago, so some airlines either still recommend it, or the flight attendant I was subject to was seriously uninformed.

FTR - I dont think anything would compel me to place my child on the floor in any event. Not that there would be time for that sort of action when you do hit severe turbulence. Instinctually, my first thought would NOT be "OH! Quick! Lets stuff you under the seat!"

Its ridiculous. But unfortunately, obviously still being recommended on some flights/by some attendants.
Here's the thing. I've never heard of anyone actually told TO put a baby on the floor. In the crash in the Hudson, they were specifically NOT told to do that, and the parents didn't put the baby on the floor, with the lap infant on board. I think it's something a few airlines had on their cards once upon a time, but it makes for a harrowing "reason" why people should use seats so it gets repeated even though it's untrue. I've NEVER seen it on the security cards for 5 different airlines I've flown on in the last 5 years, and I've looked. What are they going to do exactly if you refuse to put your child on the floor in a crash situation? Not crash? Wrestle the child from your arms?
post #42 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristyMarie View Post
You cannot use that during take off, taxing or landing.
We were never told to take it off for Taxi, Takeoff, or landing.

I used it, and it worked well, and gave me a small sense of security, in that I could remove a hand from my baby, in the case of turbulence, he was still attached to me.

A snugli or ergo would serve a similar purpose, but I HAVE been told to remove my baby from the carrier for Taxi, Takeoff, Landing - not so the Baby B'air.
post #43 of 102
With ds I flew Canada to Australia (3 flights - 21 hours in the air not including time at airports) at 9mo & 19mo. Both times were lap (no seat for him). He was great. It was easy! I bf him most of the time. The main reason I did it this way was COST - an extra $1800 - $2400 just for his seat would have made going home to see my Mum & family impossible at the time.

Now with dd, when we travel to Australia soon we will be getting her a seat and putting her carseat in it...why? Not because I feel rich, lol, but because she's big, squirmy and not a *calm* baby like my ds was.
post #44 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironica View Post
Ultimately, if we were the one in a [number with lots of zeroes after] flight where it *would* make a difference, could I ever live with myself for having decided my child's life wasn't worth $XXX? Me, no, I'd never recover from that. There may be others who can make peace with that decision in the same situation, and I don't fault them for it, but it's a level of serenity and trust in the universe that I simply don't have.

We've always bought a separate seat for our children, even as babies, and we've never brought a carseat for either on the flight.
My children are carseat screamers. That's not right for them, us, or anyone else on the flight to strap them into a contraption which they hate, while I get to move around freely. If strapping our children into carseats for the duration of the flight were part of the decision making, I'm not sure we'd choose to fly. Becuase really, it's not about dollars for us, its about getting safely from point a to point b without major meltdowns, discomfort, and hassle. We've even flown when flying would take nearly as long as driving.

We do have the CARES harness for my 4 yo and the Baby B'air flight vest for when we've flown with DS as an infant/baby. We'll get another CARES for our next trip with DS.

As for carseats: we securely strap our carseats to a dolly, then wrap the whole contraption in thick plastic, and check it. Never had a problem with damage, and easy to get in/out of the airport & into the rental car.
post #45 of 102
From the sticky in this forum
Child restraint information for airplanes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA: http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/

AAP policy on airplane restraint use: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...ics;108/5/1218

NTSB position on child safety seat use on an airplane: http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1990/a90_78_79.pdf

Association of Flight Attendants: http://www.afanet.org/Legislative/default.asp?id=5

SafeRide News: http://www.saferidenews.com/html/Airplane_Eng.htm
post #46 of 102
We took a trip last September with 3 kids-oldest having just turned 3 in July. He got his own seat, paid for, with his car seat. The middle girl, was a lap seat, but ther ewere empty seats, so we brought her seat on the plane with us and she used it, a little bit. The baby, then 8 weeks old, sat on my lap, and nursed and slept basically the entire 2 hour flight. They never asked me to take him out of the ring sling, but I may have done it before they could, as I don't find it comfortable to sit in, and never mastered nursing in it. However, we forgot our sit and stand stroller at home (ugh) so My husband had to push the luggage AND 2 big ole Britax car seats on one cart all through the airport. My daughter was TERRIFIED of the transportation golf carts they use, so we couldn't use them, and had to walk it. He was not happy, the seats kept falling off and he wished we had checked them. But once we got on the plane, and he saw how BIG the seats/belts were compare to our tiny kiddos he was happy he had the seats for them. Even when we landed, and had to WALK ACROSS THE TARMACK to the terminal, as there was no adjoining ramp thing. Up and down the plane stairs for each kid, each carseat and each bag of luggage. And I had the baby in the sling, and the stairs are STEEP so I was no help. Poor guy. Then we had to put up with his mother for a week Anyway, I would prefer to have the seat.....physics are hard to argue with. And kids like to have their own space. At least mine do to a degree. But I was pleased when we got off the plane and had several people say "man, i was scared when I saw you come on with those 3 kids, but theye didn't make a peep! they are so well behaved!"
post #47 of 102

Former Flight Attendant

Please everyone, your babies must be LOOSE IN YOUR LAPS and not attached to you in any way, shape or form. Do NOT use a Baby B'Air or baby carrier for take-off and landing. In forward impact, you could crush your child. This is logic and it's for your babies' safety.

Double seat belts like what was shown in the Easy Jet link are banned in the U.S. Canada and Germany because they are dangerous. They offer NO protection for the child. I've been forced to use them and then simply detached them when the F/A's weren't looking.

I flew for two airlines. One instructed parents to just leave babies in laps in emergencies. The others instructed parents to hold them to the floor. There really isn't any good solution to an unrestrained child.

I've NEVER seen it on the security cards for 5 different airlines I've flown on in the last 5 years, and I've looked.

For the record, these instructions are only for prepared emergency landings. They were in our handbooks but NOT on the safety cards.

What are they going to do exactly if you refuse to put your child on the floor in a crash situation? Not crash? Wrestle the child from your arms?

First of all, why would you refuse if this is the safest option for your child? Leaving him or her in your lap wont work. There's no way you can hold on to the baby on impact (althoug still difficult when holding him to the floor). You opted to save money by flying with a lap baby and then refuse safety advice?!? C'mon!

Second, this is technically "non cooperation with the crew" which is a federal offense. If you survive, you're in big trouble!

I dont think anything would compel me to place my child on the floor in any event. Not that there would be time for that sort of action when you do hit severe turbulence. Instinctually, my first thought would NOT be "OH! Quick! Lets stuff you under the seat!"

Again, placing lap babies on the floor was only in an emergency landing situation, not for turbulence. No F/A will tell you to do this in rough air.

Many people will claim their car seat was "fine" after checking it as luggage. The truth is that the damage can be unseen, as if in an accident. They could have been roughly handled and/or crushed under heavy things. It's too big a risk. If you opt to fly with a lap baby, gate-check your car seat and send it down with the strollers and wheelchairs. It's too important a safety item to be treated as ordinary luggage.

All three babies were breastfed (two never had bottles and none had paci's) and stayed in their seats for take-off and landing. No ear problems. Sure, sometimes they cried but it was more important that they were safe.

Hope that clarifies some issues!
F/A, 13 years, 2 companies
3 children ages 5, 7 & 9 flying since each was 4 months old transatlantically and elsewhere.
http://flyingwithchildren.blogspot.com
post #48 of 102
Didn't see the link you referred to but was your comment about "dangerous" referring to a regular lap belt that's used in many countries around the world? Anyway you look at it, having a bay on board a plane is safer than anything you will ever do. Doesn't matter how your baby is sitting in the plane, it's still ultra safe. All the data and stats I've looked at show zero kids die each year due to turbulence. And the children saved purely because of being in a car seat in a plane crash are just incredibly few.
post #49 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adventuredad View Post
Didn't see the link you referred to but was your comment about "dangerous" referring to a regular lap belt that's used in many countries around the world? Anyway you look at it, having a bay on board a plane is safer than anything you will ever do. Doesn't matter how your baby is sitting in the plane, it's still ultra safe. All the data and stats I've looked at show zero kids die each year due to turbulence. And the children saved purely because of being in a car seat in a plane crash are just incredibly few.
Her point was, the belly belts put the child at greater danger than being in-arms alone. They're merely a convenience for parents with lap-children, because the parent can then let go now and then without the child slipping off their lap... but in the event of an accident, they can cause severe injuries to the child that they would be spared if they were in-arms alone. That's why they're illegal in the US (and apparently in some other countries, too).
post #50 of 102

Thoughts on Laps and Seats

We fly with carseats mainly for comfort. The kids are more comfortable in them, and because they stay in their seats in the car the precedent has been set and so they stay in their seats on the plane. Because most of our flights are fairly long, and we usually have at least one connection, we even get a seat for the baby. I love my baby, but he sleeps better in his seat than in my lap for 9 hours, especially when I need to be helping out with two other small children.

We have done a couple very short haul flights with young lap babies. I understand not wanting to buy a seat for a 2.5 month old on a 1 hour flight when odds are high that you're going to have no choice but to be holding and nursing the baby the whole time anyway. I really feel horrible for everybody involved though when somebody takes a 23 month old lap child on a long haul flight, and it doesn't go well. I realize that some kids this age will sit quietly on their mother's lap for 10 hours with a stranger trying to sleep or read on either side, but I think that this is more than exception than the rule.

That said, after having watched every episode of Air Crash Investigation I feel better with our kids in their carseats. Plane crashes are a total crap shoot. People often ask about the right place to sit, and there is no right place. Sometimes the back is the best, sometimes it's the worst. A million factors play into what ultimately happens in any air disaster. This is what I know though :
  • the pilots are wearing 5 point harnesses.
  • I would not trust a child to be able to brace for impact.
  • I would be better able to brace for impact if I was not holding a child in my lap.
  • I could not safely hold a child during really bad turbulence, or if the pilots temporarily lost control of the aircraft and the plane went into something like a dive or spin.
I find it very difficult to fly with carseats and baby carriers at times. We get a different story every time we fly. Same airline, different flight crew... we can still get a different story! We've gotten different stories from the counter staff, the gate staff, and the cabin crew. But, planes do not take off until you comply with the cabin crew. We were on a British Airways flight three years ago and the plane was not taking off until I put on the double seatbelt.

I realize the odds of air disasters are very low, but as near as I can tell, the carseats will either help or do nothing. I can name several dozen episodes of Air Crash Investigation where carseats would definitely have helped, lots where they would have done nothing, and none where they would have hurt the situation.

The Hudson River landing was a landing, not a crash. I'm certain that lap children would be fine, but that whole flight was incredibly lucky. The Turkish Airways incident was a crash. The plane broke into three pieces. Based on reports from friends of a friend who were on that flight, carseats would have probably helped to reduce injury and I'm sure that they wouldn't have hurt anything. I suspect that the injury count in the media for that Turkish Airlines flight is too low. The people I know on the flight were initially classified as having minor injuries only to be diagnosed with more serious injuries (requiring surgery) later.

Unfortunately, safety guidelines don't change until after the fact. Typically, something horrible happens, the NTSB investigates (along with the local authorities, the aircraft manufacturer, etc), and then new requirements are generated based on what would have made a difference in that air disaster. Most flights don't have many babies or small kids though, and they're not looking at how one or two extra people could have survived or been less severely injured, they're looking at how the survival rate could have been improved significantly on this and future flights (or how the disaster could have been avoided entirely)... and even then, the airline industry will often resist the introduction of new safety requirements due to the cost. Because air disasters are rare, airlines are keenly aware that it can be cheaper to pay off injured passengers and the families of the dead on the off chance that something unlikely, but horrible, goes wrong.

With this setup, it's very unlikely that the industry will research and implement what truly is safest for babies and small children. And again, as near as I can tell :
  • our carseats may help during an air incident.
  • are unlikely to hurt anything.
  • the carseats are safer in the cabin with children sitting in them (as opposed to on the tarmac getting sprayed with de-icing fluid, holy crap!).
  • and the kids are more comfortable anyway.

So all around, the seats seem like a good idea.
post #51 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclipsepearl View Post
I flew for two airlines. One instructed parents to just leave babies in laps in emergencies. The others instructed parents to hold them to the floor. There really isn't any good solution to an unrestrained child.
Okay, good to know. My point is that it has always sounded to me like an apocryphal tale or a "friend of a friend of a friend" story. I wrote training videos for FA for one airline a decade ago, and I know they said in the lap and some brace positions, not on the floor. This is the first I've ever heard from a FA that an airline actually DOES tell FA to tell parents to put babies on the floor. Usually it comes from someone who hasn't flown in years and has heard through the grapevine that FAs tell parents to put babies on the floor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclipsepearl View Post
First of all, why would you refuse if this is the safest option for your child? Leaving him or her in your lap wont work. There's no way you can hold on to the baby on impact (althoug still difficult when holding him to the floor). You opted to save money by flying with a lap baby and then refuse safety advice?!? C'mon!
As a matter of fact, what you said above makes it pretty clear that it ISN'T determinedly, decidedly safer to put the baby on the floor. One company says to do it, maybe for the baby's safety, but probably really for the safety of the other passengers in large part, and one says keep them in the lap. I doubt in an actual crash situation, there is any known safest place for a lap infant. It's all guessing.
post #52 of 102
The horrible customer service of most airlines is probably one of the major reasons parents aren't happy to fork over extra cash so we can argue with a FA or gate agent or check in person about all kinds of silly things.

I will pay more for airlines that do well with children, babies, car seats, and families. Jet Blue comes to mind. (But keep in mind that some routes are better than others, and who the FAs are is luck of the draw.)
post #53 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by roxyrox View Post
I agree with you, you're right. The only reason for taking a carseat on a plane is if it makes the child more comfortable. Carseats don't make it any "safer". Even in turbulence...it's not hard to keep a hold of a baby.
I agree with this and feel the same way. If your kid is more comfortable with their carseat then by all means take it with you. For us, the flights we take are usually 8 or more hours and dd does not like the carseat that much. It would have been just one more thing to lug around the airport.
post #54 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by roxyrox View Post
I agree with you, you're right. The only reason for taking a carseat on a plane is if it makes the child more comfortable. Carseats don't make it any "safer". Even in turbulence...it's not hard to keep a hold of a baby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissE View Post
I was on a flight with DS when he was 11 month old (28lbs) with NO seat for himself. I booked him a bassinett 'seat' (it was an international flight) and that worked well, aside from him wanting to walk and talk and entertain. I will be flying with two kids soon. DS (then 2) will get his own seat with a carseat and DD will be in a bassinett/lap seat.
Just wanted to add that we did the basinet thing too on the way to Europe and it worked out well. DD was 9 months so once she fell asleep I put her in that and I was free to move around.
post #55 of 102

Not True

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellabaz View Post
IEven in turbulence...it's not hard to keep a hold of a baby.
Fortunately, most people have never experienced really bad turbulence. But while bad turbulence is rare, it does happen. A plane can drop 1500 feet in 1 second, or be pushed up 1500 feet in one second. They put the drink cart away when they're expecting turbulence... and they do it because turbulence can be so bad the drink cart hits the ceiling. It's rare, but it happens.
post #56 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironica View Post
Her point was, the belly belts put the child at greater danger than being in-arms alone. They're merely a convenience for parents with lap-children, because the parent can then let go now and then without the child slipping off their lap... but in the event of an accident, they can cause severe injuries to the child that they would be spared if they were in-arms alone. That's why they're illegal in the US (and apparently in some other countries, too).
Got it. Just because they are illegal in US doesn't make them dangerous. It's also more or less a recommendation to ff at 12 months a nd it doesn't make it a good idea.

Lots of countries use lap belts. All over Europe lap belts are used. We are talking about risks are so small they can't even be calculated. No statistics I know of say lap belts are dangerous. In case they were they wouldn't be used.

Babies CAN be hurt by many many different things. REgardless if a baby goes in a car seat, lap belt, or no belt at all, the risk of something happening is as close to zero as humanly possible. All data shows this is the case.

Crash landings are very rare to start with. To compare lap belt and no belt in such extremely rare cases just isn't meaningful. US says lap belts are more dangerous, many other countries say the opposite. There is no data data I know of which shows either is better since it's so rare to have a baby injured on a plane. A baby is fine either way.
post #57 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adventuredad View Post
Got it. Just because they are illegal in US doesn't make them dangerous.
No, it doesn't. But they're illegal in the US because the FAA has done crash-tests with them, and found that they can cause injuries that don't happen without them. That's what makes them more dangerous.

Quote:
It's also more or less a recommendation to ff at 12 months a nd it doesn't make it a good idea.
It is not "more or less" a recommendation. It's a minimum requirement to stay rear-facing until at least 12 months (and 20 pounds). There is NO organization, public or private, that actually recommends FFing at 12 months.

Quote:
Lots of countries use lap belts. All over Europe lap belts are used. We are talking about risks are so small they can't even be calculated. No statistics I know of say lap belts are dangerous. In case they were they wouldn't be used.
Ok... red dye #40 isn't dangerous, because they use it in the US? But it's banned in Europe (since studies show it has undesirable affects on many children's behavior). OTOH, studies show that red dye #2 causes cancer in rats, so it's banned in the US, but it's used in Europe. Are *either* of them "safe"?

You look at the data, you make a decision. I don't know what data the companies in Europe that use the belly-belts are using to make that decision; I can only find the FAA's info on the subject. So I'm using that data.

Quote:
Babies CAN be hurt by many many different things. REgardless if a baby goes in a car seat, lap belt, or no belt at all, the risk of something happening is as close to zero as humanly possible. All data shows this is the case.
That's true of everyone on the plane. Are seat belts on planes a bad idea, then? They don't increase comfort, and there's almost zero chance you'll need it. There's more data about how people fare in actual emergencies... but that's just because there's more adults on planes than children; children are not inherently *safer* on planes than adults are. So why would we accept a lower standard of safety on planes for them? If I can't ride on my husband's lap for "safety reasons," then why can my baby ride on my lap?
post #58 of 102
You're missing the point. If dead children on planes were a big problem then we can certainly discuss what's more dangerous. But it isn't. As far as I know, not one single baby has been killed by turbulence in the past 40 years. I'm sure it's possible to dig up a case though. In a typical 15 year period, there are a few hundred adults injured and a couple of deaths despite many billions of people flying.

And finding a baby which is saved purely by sitting in a car seat is beyond extremely rare.

Since lap belts are so "dangerous" there must be lots of dead children. Where are they? If no lap belt is so much safer there must be many kids dyring in Europe fore example and not in US. This should be easy to see in the stats. Only problem is babies aren't dying on planes.

Quote:
It is not "more or less" a recommendation. It's a minimum requirement to stay rear-facing until at least 12 months (and 20 pounds). There is NO organization, public or private, that actually recommends FFing at 12 months.
Many doctors, peds, child accessory stores, etc. say it's perfectly fine to ff at 12 month despite it being 500% less safe. That's what I mean by "more or less" I know organizations say it's "better to rf longer" but it's a very soft sell. If any serious effort was done there wouldn't be an extremely high percentage riding ff at 12 months. It's that simple. Most parents don't know about rf past 12 months because it's discussed very little (in real life, not among car seat fanatics like us).

You can't just assume that all recommendations coming from the US are right and others are wrong. No bashing FAA, from what I've seen I thin they are doing a good job with limited resources.

Quote:
That's true of everyone on the plane. Are seat belts on planes a bad idea, then? They don't increase comfort, and there's almost zero chance you'll need it. There's more data about how people fare in actual emergencies... but that's just because there's more adults on planes than children; children are not inherently *safer* on planes than adults are. So why would we accept a lower standard of safety on planes for them? If I can't ride on my husband's lap for "safety reasons," then why can my baby ride on my lap?
Both adults and kids are of course safe on planes. Although there are far more adults flying there are still lots of children on the planes. Since it's so dangerous, especially with lap belts, there must be hundreds of dead children each year and it would be easy to see a clear trend in stats.

Please show me some serious study which has been peer reviewed which shows your point. Since kids are held to poor safety standards there must be something showing this. Lots of injuries and deaths for example.

I have not said kids are safer than adults on planes. Both are extremely safe regardless how you look at it. There is no safety issue with seat belts, almost all adults who are injured are not wearing their seat belt when supposed to.

Quote:
From 1981 to November, 1996, there were 252 reports of turbulence affecting major air carriers. As a result, two passengers died, 63 suffered serious injuries, and 863 received minor injuries. Both of the fatalities in these incidents involved passengers who were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated. Of the 63 passengers who were seriously injured, 59 were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated.
I don't think there is anything we do in our lives which is that safe.

Quote:
If I can't ride on my husband's lap for "safety reasons," then why can my baby ride on my lap?
I'm guessing you're a little better at making decisions than a 12 month old And coordination for a 12 month old isn't exactly perfect so it's not a good idea for them to sit in a seat. Bottom line is your baby is safe on the plane regardless if using a car seat, lap belt, or no belt at all.

If there is evidence that fatalities in children are high on planes then we should take action. But I doubt that will change after 40 years.
post #59 of 102
Here's a good video for the double seatbelt debate. It's all in German from Switzerland (if I understood correctly). Just watch the video by clicking on the picture. Great if you understand but not necessary for what it shows. No, promise, nothing really scary. They tested the double seatbelts with dummies.

http://www.sf.tv/sendungen/kassenstu...0080520-gurten

Also, there have been children saved by using car seats on planes. This little girl survived but it was a small private plane, which we all know are less safe than commercial aircraft;

http://blog.lorla.com/love-and-life/...n-plane-crash/

http://www.goodnewsblog.com/2007/10/...in-plane-crash

The actually told us in training that they simply don't have enough data on car seats in airplanes to push for a change. Like Adventuredad (who obviously doesn't like beating around the bush) said, there aren't "lots" of dead children. They told us, and this was awhile ago, there might have been 30 children saved in the last 30 odd years if they had been in a car seat, while 10 million a year arrive at their destinations safely per year.

You can argue this point ad nauseum. One of the children who died in the Sioux City Crash (United 232, 1989) was being held down to the floor per United's instructions. On impact, his mother couldn't hold on. He died of smoke inhalation in the back of the plane. He would have been saved if he had been in a car seat, not strictly because the seat would have saved him, but the fact that he ended up in a part of the aircraft where there was a lot of smoke and a lot of people died. Where his mom was, there was less smoke and she survived (and had to be kept from trying to go get him-very sad!)

One lap held baby was saved when she landed in the overhead bin.

I think what's important is that parents know that lap held children are not protected. Playing the statistical game is another matter. Making an informed decision is what matters.

Taking a car seat on board is your right on U.S. aircraft (if the child has a purchased seat and the car seat is FAA approved). Foreign airlines are different. The CAA, the British version of the FAA, has decided that infants under 6 months shouldn't be in car seats. Also, all car seats have to be forward facing (too bad about your infant bucket!) Where is the logic in that?!? Ryan Air bans car seats in their cabin completely. I've also had Iberia, Air France and (mistakenly) Lufthansa remove our seats because they were American. Grrrrr!

Here's your document if you're flying a U.S. company;
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...7?OpenDocument
(or search with "FAA Advisory Circular 120-87A")

Now having your car seat broken and/or lost in the hold-much greater chance of that! Go in any airport anywhere and you'll find car seats in lost luggage. Not having a car seat on the road is a lot more of a risk. I wish someone had the stats on children leaving airports in cars without car seats because that does happen all the time...
post #60 of 102
Good points, tahnks. Sorry about being a little blunt about child fatalities..... I know some kids have been saved but it's beyond extremely rare. Usually, articles referring to this mention a crash that took place in 1989 which should say a lot.

this can as you say be argued forever. A large poroblem is taht parents don't understand risk. They make poor decisions due to so many emtional things being attached to protecting children. Most parents don't think twice about turning their child forward at 12 months. This is 500% less safe than rear facing. At the same time they refuse to fly without a car sat since it's "too dangerous" despite everything showing the opposite. PArents freak out about lead painted toys standing onthe shelf and drive in record speed down to the toy store to return them. THat their child is not in a child seat is een as no issue but the lead filled toys are very dangerous.

Parents simply are poorly informed about what's dangerous for kids. It's also not often easy to know without making an effort. Protecting kids means playing statistical games. We can't protect our kids against everything so we focus on what's more dangerous. That's not flying.

Quote:
Now having your car seat broken and/or lost in the hold-much greater chance of that! Go in any airport anywhere and you'll find car seats in lost luggage. Not having a car seat on the road is a lot more of a risk. I wish someone had the stats on children leaving airports in cars without car seats because that does happen all the time...
Excellent point. Isn't it funny that many parents are very afraid to fly without a car seat but got no problem riding around town without any car seat at all?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Family Safety
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Family Safety › Flying, carseats, lap children -- What's the big deal?