Safety Board Says Kids Younger Than 2 Should Have Own Seats on Airplanes
Filed under: In The News, Health
Safety board requires seats for children. Credit: Seth Wenig, AP
When a small plane crashed in Butte, Mont. in March 2009, all 14 people on board died -- including seven children, ages 1 to 9.
The bodies of four children -- ages 3 to 9 -- were found the farthest from the crash site.
That tells federal investigators a lot. Even though they concluded no one could have survived the crash, they did some math. The flight plan listed two pilot seats and eight passenger seats, which means some of the kids were sitting on people's laps.
"These children were likely thrown from the airplane because they were unrestrained or improperly restrained," states a National Transportation Safety Board report quoted by the Washington Post. Had the crash been less severe, the children might have survived.
That's why, the Post reports, your lap may no longer substitute for an airline seat.
NTSB officials sent a recommendation to the Federal Aviation Administration this week, urging that children younger than 2 no longer be allowed to fly in the laps of adults.
The group also urges the FAA to require all passengers -- regardless of age -- to have a seat on all flights, including commercial, private and charter aircrafts.
FAA officials have heard these pleas before -- and rejected them. The Post reports their feeling is that parents who can't afford seats for children will decide to drive instead. That means more cars on the road where, statistically, the chance of fatal accidents is higher.
In fact, according to the Post, NTSB Vice Chairman Christopher A. Hart filed a dissent to his group's recommendation.
"We have made that recommendation before, without success, and we have no reason to believe that this approach will achieve a better result this time," he writes.
Instead, Hart recommends an alternative.
"I think we should recommend that the FAA revisit, in light of current infant car seat technology, whether there is a scientific basis for excepting children under age 2 from the restraint requirements," he writes. "And if there is no scientific basis for the exception, then the exception is arbitrary, by definition, and should be rescinded."
Related: Airplane Jitters When Traveling With Kids? Just Relax












ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)
8-13-2010 @ 7:26PM
Sara said...I can't help but wonder if a kid strapped in a carseat would make an evacuation more difficult in the case of a minor crash where quick evacuation is critical.
Regardless, planes don't crash often and when they do people don't survive them. Like in this case. It didn't matter that the kids were in carseats because everyone died.
Reply
8-13-2010 @ 8:37PM
Kelley said...Yeah, this article just sounds ridiculous to me. "Had the crash been less severe, the children might have survived." Wow, what a scientific finding. I'm sure it took a lot of research to come up with that one...
Reply
8-14-2010 @ 1:26AM
bremarie03 said...Children should be restrained on airplanes for the same reason that they tell adults to keep their seat belts fastened, even when the seat belt light is off: unexpected turbulence. An unrestrained child could easily be thrown around and injured by even moderate turbulence.
While its true that plane crashes are rare occurrences compared to automotive accidents, turbulence is relatively common.
Reply
8-14-2010 @ 2:40PM
Gayle said...This is a hard one.
Reply
8-14-2010 @ 10:08PM
Dianne said...Unrestrained passengers pose a threat to others as well. Even in turbulance they could potentially harm others if thrown out of their parent's arms......
Reply
8-14-2010 @ 10:39PM
Garg said...You realize this change actually causes more kids to die right? when they do this kind of thing it forces alot of parents to take kids on road trips instead of airplanes.... this causes an increase in baby deaths because of how much more dangerous automotive travel is... this policy change will get more kids killed.
Reply