or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Family Safety › A book to read regarding airplane safety
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A book to read regarding airplane safety - Page 2

post #21 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcstar View Post
On one flight, a passenger ignored the light and stood up (not takeoff or landing), and a flight attendant told him that they were not liable for injuries sustained due to removing his seatbelt when the light was on.
This would make me angry, because the damage might not only be to him/herself -- it could be to ME, a nearby passenger! I don't want his body flying into mine, breaking my neck. I would also not sit anywhere near an unrestrained child for the same reason, though I guess I might not have a choice. I would certainly try to move to a different area of the plane. It's not just about the parent and the baby, it's about other people into whom the projectile body could go flying. This is why I won't start my car until everyone is buckled in, and won't let anyone lean over my son's car seat to play with him...
post #22 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcstar View Post
The article I've read says that the fasten seat belt light was on. Now, whether it got turned on WHILE she was in the bathroom, or she got up to go ignoring the light, I do not know.

She ignored the sign and got up anyway. My argument still stands, this woman broke her neck, a lap child could sustain serious injuries, as well as injure others. When my son was under 2 we got half price fares each time, though I had to ask by phone, you can't do in online. I also take issue with the whole drive instead of fly thing also, it's not like you can drive to all destinations, and when the kid turns 2 they have to buy them a seat anyway.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=7391144&page=1
post #23 of 132
Yes, they don't do half priced fares. We fly frequently and I have asked. It's something airlines stopped doing a while back, unfortunately. Since 2005 (when I had my first) I have never been able to get a discounted fare for my under 2 child. And this has been on Alaska, JetBlue, Continental, United, US Airways, American...

I think the reason they put the cutoff at 2 is because by that point most kids are getting too big to hold. Maybe the FAA figures it based on body weight or something like that. I personally wouldn't have a problem with them moving the age to 1.

And honestly, yes, now that we'll have to buy 4 seats we probably will fly less due to cost. It's more convenient to fly, and we like to travel, but we do have to take that expense into account. Just one of those things.

As for current guidelines for lap infants, in the event of a crash landing they want you to hold them in a cradle position. On one of our last flights, the FA was very thorough in going over guidelines with all parents with lap babies. And letting us know how to hold the child, that there were 4 air masks, etc. She was paranoid overall, reminding the whole cabin while we prepared to land that in case of a water landing there were life vests and rafts. Comforting, eh?
post #24 of 132
Oh, and in the article it also mentions that there were a few injuries during descent as well.
post #25 of 132
The thing that gets me is that the only accident where an infant in arms died that i have heard of was this one in 1986 i think, using a practice that is not longer in use (the infant in the floor thing), If there were any statistics supporting that infants are more at risk in a lap than in a carseat then go ahead by a seat but one death in 25 years isn't significant at all.

And I don't think they should do half price for infants they occupy a whole seat not half a seat.
post #26 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Louise* View Post
The thing that gets me is that the only accident where an infant in arms died that i have heard of was this one in 1986 i think, using a practice that is not longer in use (the infant in the floor thing), If there were any statistics supporting that infants are more at risk in a lap than in a carseat then go ahead by a seat but one death in 25 years isn't significant at all.

And I don't think they should do half price for infants they occupy a whole seat not half a seat.
However, they weigh far far less than an average size adult. They charge fees for overweight checked luggage supposedly because of the increase in fuel costs for hauling more weight. Infants, even in car seats, take up much less weight.
post #27 of 132
If it's impossible to hold onto a child in your arms during a car crash, I assume the same holds true for an airplane crash or crash landing.
post #28 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodheartedmama View Post
If it's impossible to hold onto a child in your arms during a car crash, I assume the same holds true for an airplane crash or crash landing.
That's correct, the laws of physics still hold. An airplane takes off and lands somewhere above 100 mph. I believe the applicable equation is mass * velocity squared. Can you lift / hold 10000 lbs?
post #29 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcstar View Post
That's correct, the laws of physics still hold. An airplane takes off and lands somewhere above 100 mph. I believe the applicable equation is mass * velocity squared. Can you lift / hold 10000 lbs?
Of course, do it everyday!
post #30 of 132
The point is that there are no real statistics on how many lap children are injured during turbulence, rough landings or take-offs, or emergency landings. These occur much more often than crashes. We can talk number of children or people who die during these things, but the real issue is injury, not death. Obviously death is terrible, but really we are trying to avoid injury, including to other people. As for offering half price fares, of course they should, for the safety of the children. The FAA themselves tell passengers that children under 2 should be in CRS's, they just don't require it. The flight attendants have been lobbying for it for years as well. The NTSB would like to see it be a requirement. Why not take all of these people's advice, seems they would know a lot more than we do.
post #31 of 132
So, if an airplane crashes much faster than a car (100mph or more), would an older child in a harness FFing actually be LESS safe (as far as head excursion/neck strain with their shoulders being held back) then being in the lap belt with their head in their lap as in crash position?

Just wondering.
post #32 of 132
No way! Head excursion in a harnessed seat would be MUCH less. A kid in a lap belt is going to fold in half and smash their noggin on the seat in front of them. Plastic to the face at 100 mph is not going to be good...much less all the internal/abdominal injuries.
post #33 of 132
Actually, no, crash position is head IN your lap. Adult or child. So they wouldn't be moving forward and folding over. And I'd assume if that's crash position for an adult, most adults don't hit their heads, so why would a chld in the same position?
post #34 of 132
Have you seen that Mythbusters where they assume the crash position and drop 10 feet?
post #35 of 132
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodheartedmama View Post
If it's impossible to hold onto a child in your arms during a car crash, I assume the same holds true for an airplane crash or crash landing.
This woman was dead and managed to keeping holding onto her baby

What does a completely unrestrained adult suffering injuries in the bathroom of an airplane have to do with the safety of infants held in arms on airplanes?

Now that book I posted says that there have been other deaths that could've been prevented by having children in safety seats on planes. But funnily enough the only example they give is of a baby who was set on the floor.

I've been looking, but I just cannot seem to find cases where babies who were held in arms died when most people survived. I did find one article that talked about a flight where the child in the safety seat was one of the few survivors--but I also found an article talking about a child found relatively unscathed up in a tree near the crash.


But none of that matters. Because anecdotes aren't data. It's just irritating to have the same irrelevant anecdotes shared as though they're supposed to be convincing.
post #36 of 132
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcstar View Post
That's correct, the laws of physics still hold. An airplane takes off and lands somewhere above 100 mph. I believe the applicable equation is mass * velocity squared. Can you lift / hold 10000 lbs?
Mass*velocity over time.

Really, F=ma, where A is acceleration or the change in velocity over time.

And it gets interesting for this particular problem because while the *plane* might experience a force of the mass of the plane coming to a stop nearly instantaneously:
Force=Tons*100mph/couple seconds=near infinite force

The plane is also absorbing most of the energy of that impact and thus it isn't all getting relayed to the passengers. (It's the same reason new cars are designed with crumple zones. It isn't to sell more cars when people have fender benders, it's so the passengers don't feel as much impact.)

That also assumes a head-on crash where it wasn't possible to slow the plane at all before crashing not turbulence.

As for the car thing, I sincerely wish someone *would* do some crash tests with slings. Using newborn-based crash dummies designed to show the pressures inside the head But it isn't going to happen because all the problems of inconsistency in installing carseats would be multiplied a thousand fold.
post #37 of 132
If a 150 pound woman (that's about average, right?) cannot keep herself on her feet, she's not going to be able to hold a baby. There have been lots of studies that show it's impossible to hold a baby on your lap if you are in a 35mph crash. In a car, a baby being held is completely unrestrained. It would be the same in an airplane.
post #38 of 132
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by an_aurora View Post
Have you seen that Mythbusters where they assume the crash position and drop 10 feet?
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/m...ace_posit.html

For anyone else who was curious.
post #39 of 132
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by an_aurora View Post
If a 150 pound woman (that's about average, right?) cannot keep herself on her feet, she's not going to be able to hold a baby. There have been lots of studies that show it's impossible to hold a baby on your lap if you are in a 35mph crash. In a car, a baby being held is completely unrestrained. It would be the same in an airplane.
I've been thrown off my feet while standing on a bus when it stopped suddenly. I've also held Lina on a bus when it stopped suddenly. Seen plenty of other people hold their babies on buses. Seen people hold their babies with no problems when standing passengers were thrown off their feet.

But that doesn't really matter.

What matters is how many injuries and deaths could have been prevented if all children were in safety seats in airplanes. I've tried looking, I can't find it. I'd love to know it, but I can't find it.

Really, all the woman dying in turbulence proves is that the guy who let his 14 month old stand in the aisle during landing was grossly negligent and we shouldn't let our kids walk to the bathroom.
post #40 of 132
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwebbal View Post
Why not take all of these people's advice, seems they would know a lot more than we do.
Like everyone does with vaccines and the AAP's statement that we can start solids at 4 months?

Sorry.

Look, they have the numbers. They have to fill out crash and injury reports. Where's that data?

I know it's available. I'm certain that the recommendation to use safety seats is coming from somewhere, but I'm not finding it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Family Safety
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Family Safety › A book to read regarding airplane safety