A book to read regarding airplane safety - Page 7

[kcstar]

Originally Posted by TheGirls

I would LOVE to know what other options there are. My family lives in Upstate NY. My DP's family lives in Seattle, WA. We recently moved from Chicago to Central NY so that we didn't have to fly to see BOTH families, but now we are about 3000 miles from DP's family. If you can figure out how to get us within single-day driving distance of both families I would do it in a heartbeat. Oh and because of DP's job we are somewhat restricted in what towns we can move to.

Obviously it won't work for everyone. Driving a few hours is not safer than flying a few hours, but I think it's safer than driving a few days (especially with the driving-fatigue risks).

DH and my families are in the same state. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick my in-laws hands-down.

My job also limits the places we can live, but we managed to get one closer to them all.

ETA: Other options? A private Facebook profile / web page where you and family members can post pictures / video / notes. Skype / telephone / video calls. Cards in the snail mail.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by TheGirls

I would LOVE to know what other options there are. My family lives in Upstate NY. My DP's family lives in Seattle, WA. We recently moved from Chicago to Central NY so that we didn't have to fly to see BOTH families, but now we are about 3000 miles from DP's family. If you can figure out how to get us within single-day driving distance of both families I would do it in a heartbeat. Oh and because of DP's job we are somewhat restricted in what towns we can move to.

DP flies out, you take 3 days and go by train? Assuming the limiting time factor is your dp's vacation time.

Babies + trains = : At least at the ages where the lapbaby debate is relevant.

[TheGirls]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

DP flies out, you take 3 days and go by train? Assuming the limiting time factor is your dp's vacation time.

Babies + trains = : At least at the ages where the lapbaby debate is relevant.

I've looked into this, and it's ridiculously expensive, involves several transfers, and is scheduled for 4 days because of the 8 hour layovers.

I think last time I priced it at nearly $2000 round trip (not including food) to get a roomette. And that assumes the trains are actually on time. Last time I took the train from Buffalo, NY to Chicago, IL (an 8hr ride) it was nearly 8 hours late because of freight train traffic. I went coach that time because the roomette's are crazy expensive, but I can't do that with the babe (I need a bed if I'm going to get any sleep with her, and I am not going 4-6 days with no sleep).

Anyhow, I do wish we had some sort of decent train system in this country, but unfortunately it's not really a viable option. Especially if we need to get somewhere at something vaguely resembling ontime. I'd be worried that DP would be heading home before we arrived with that plan!

[DahliaRW]

I agree. We actually wanted to take the train for fun when ds1 was little, and it was rediculously expensive, even in coach. Almost double flying. And took 5 days! We don't have that kind of time.

[Devaskyla]

There's the big impact, and then the need to get out very, very fast.

Which, imo, makes using a car seat in a plane as dangerous or even more dangerous than holding your baby. Car seats take more time to unbuckle than seatbelts in a situation in which every single second counts.

[Hazelnut]

True. THough I suppose with turbulence it is more important, and turbulence is probably more likely. I would certainly use one with an infant, though I don't think I knew of that importance when my babies were young (nor did I fly with them.) I personally wouldn't use a carseat for a toddler out of an infant seat, but I do think buying their own seat is important. That being said, I don't fly much anymore, and I don't have to to see family.

I remember my mom rejoicing that my toddler was still young enough to sit in my lap and I thought no way, he was so big already. But he was so miserable in his own seat I wound up buckling him in my lap, with my seatbelt, at landing. No one said anything- probably b/c he went from thrashing in his belt to sound asleep under mine.

[sapphire_chan]

So this whole topic just got a lot more personal. I'm going to have two chances in 16 weeks to see dh.
My choices, since I can't take the train, according to Amtrak, which I suspect is full of it, are to fly or drive 10 hours (and then 10 back, and "10 hours" doesn't include stopping) with Lina alone.

Or fly.

We can afford $210/trip, but not $420/trip. And the trips would be spread out enough that we'd be getting a new paycheck in between. In a year, we'd have the money for getting Lina her own seat.

So, people who think the only possible option if I want to fly is buying my baby her own seat, will she be safer in her carseat for 20+ hours of driving? Or should I suck it up and not see dh for 4 months including our anniversary?

ETA:
: Roundtrip on the train to a city 2 hours away is only $124. And only takes 14 hours which is waay less time than it'd be driving with Lina.

Hah! I knew Amtrak was full of it.

[Keria]

She will be 100 times safer flying unrestrained than restrained in a car. Go visit hubby

[Eclipsepearl]

But he was so miserable in his own seat I wound up buckling him in my lap, with my seatbelt, at landing. No one said anything- probably b/c he went from thrashing in his belt to sound asleep under mine.

Just so all of you know, not only is this against FAA regulations but this poster was putting her child in danger by buckling him into her seatbelt. In forward impact, she would have crushed her own child against the belt. If you opt to fly with a lap child, be sure the baby is loose in your lap and not attached to you in any form (including a baby carrier).

Those double seat belts you see on foreign companies are banned in the U.S. since they're dangerous. Already Germany has banned them and expect other countries to do the same. This has been debated in the European Parliament.

During my 13 years as a Flight Attendant, I was amazed how many times parents didn't put their children in car seats for landing because they "didn't like it". I was shocked that they lugged this thing all the way and installed it...then didn't use it?!? I used to say to them "It's okay. We're landing. Everyone's awake..." because as far as I was concerned, better a crying baby safe in his seat than an unrestrained child, even quiet, in the cabin.

Which, imo, makes using a car seat in a plane as dangerous or even more dangerous than holding your baby. Car seats take more time to unbuckle than seatbelts in a situation in which every single second counts.

The argument that the car seat would take longer to unstrap after an accident isn't logical. The whole point is surviving the impact. Getting out of the seat is just a detail and wouldn't take any longer. The fact is that the adult lap belt probably wouldn't hold the child.

That used to be why many people in cars wouldn't wear seatbelts. "In a fire, I would waste time unbuckling the seat belt!"

[an_aurora]

Originally Posted by Eclipsepearl

The argument that the car seat would take longer to unstrap after an accident isn't logical. The whole point is surviving the impact. Getting out of the seat is just a detail and wouldn't take any longer. The fact is that the adult lap belt probably wouldn't hold the child.

That used to be why many people in cars wouldn't wear seatbelts. "In a fire, I would waste time unbuckling the seat belt!"

Amen. If we had to get out quickly in an emergency, at least I would know where they were instead of trying to find them after they got flung out of their seat/my arms.

[Hazelnut]

Well then the flight attendants didn't do their jobs, because most parents are not all well versed in FAA regulations, nor should they need to be before boarding. I was attempting to buckle a thrashing child into his seat (not carseat, just seat) that I did buy for him, and it was proving to be physically impossible, so I did the best I could. I wasn't suggesting "buckle your child in your belt" as a solution. I had a seat, and wound up doing it in mild desperation. I'd probably do it again and then transfer him.

I'm not sure how keeping them loose is safer though. It's obvious from the video posted in the older thread the parent dummy was not able to hold the child on impact any more than the child was able to remain safe within the belt (albeit whatever special child belt that is).

Originally Posted by Eclipsepearl

But he was so miserable in his own seat I wound up buckling him in my lap, with my seatbelt, at landing. No one said anything- probably b/c he went from thrashing in his belt to sound asleep under mine.

Just so all of you know, not only is this against FAA regulations but this poster was putting her child in danger by buckling him into her seatbelt. In forward impact, she would have crushed her own child against the belt. If you opt to fly with a lap child, be sure the baby is loose in your lap and not attached to you in any form (including a baby carrier).

Those double seat belts you see on foreign companies are banned in the U.S. since they're dangerous. Already Germany has banned them and expect other countries to do the same. This has been debated in the European Parliament.

During my 13 years as a Flight Attendant, I was amazed how many times parents didn't put their children in car seats for landing because they "didn't like it". I was shocked that they lugged this thing all the way and installed it...then didn't use it?!? I used to say to them "It's okay. We're landing. Everyone's awake..." because as far as I was concerned, better a crying baby safe in his seat than an unrestrained child, even quiet, in the cabin.

Which, imo, makes using a car seat in a plane as dangerous or even more dangerous than holding your baby. Car seats take more time to unbuckle than seatbelts in a situation in which every single second counts.

The argument that the car seat would take longer to unstrap after an accident isn't logical. The whole point is surviving the impact. Getting out of the seat is just a detail and wouldn't take any longer. The fact is that the adult lap belt probably wouldn't hold the child.

That used to be why many people in cars wouldn't wear seatbelts. "In a fire, I would waste time unbuckling the seat belt!"

I think it's b/c people don't clearly understand the risks. I read one chapter in a book and was then shocked that so many people in that thread said, "well in an accident, you're dead anyway, it doesn't matter." But I had thought that too. I had never experienced turbulence either. It's possible the parents taking their kids out simply have no idea that they couldn't hold on in a rough landing, or that the seatbelt would be dangerous in really bad turbulence, and that many "crashes" are survivable if you survive the impact and can get out on time. And it's the airline's job to explain why.

[marrymeflyfree]

Originally Posted by Hazelnut

I'm not sure how keeping them loose is safer though. It's obvious from the video posted in the older thread the parent dummy was not able to hold the child on impact any more than the child was able to remain safe within the belt (albeit whatever special child belt that is).

Lap children should *never* be inside the belt with the parent. In a hard impact, or even in a normal but hard landing, all of your weight (magnified by the force of the forward momentum) will squish your babe between you and the seat belt. It's very dangerous. An unrestrained lap child in a crash scenario may not fare any better, but at least then you should be able to hold onto him safely in a normal landing.

We all do the best we can...and sometimes it's tough getting them back in their seat for landing - believe me, I know from experience! But not using it when you have it available is akin to keeping your babe on your lap in the car when they're protesting the car seat.

One day perhaps the FAA will get off its bum and put into regulation that which they have been recommending for years. The FAA, historically, does not implement new safety measures proactively. They wait until there are 'enough' deaths or serious injuries to warrant the change, and of course we can all assume that the airlines lobby heavily to keep things as is. After the Sioux City crash that was mentioned in the OP, they changed the guidelines about putting babies on the floor in a planned emergency landing. Why they didn't go the full monty then is beyond me.