Interesting Article on Air Safety for Kids

[mommycat]

Child Safety in Aviation Still Up In the Air (http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature48143/)

[MomToEliEm]

The link wasn't working for me so I just edited the link which allowed me to see the article:
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature48143/

[mommycat]

I edited it as well when I checked the link after posting, but I guess I was slow. ;) Thanks.

Here's one of the seats they mention, the SkyKids:
http://www.erieaviation.com/childrestraint.htm
This is the Cares:
http://www.kidsflysafe.com/
SkyCot:
http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/us/passengerinformation/travellingwithchildren/index.jsp
That link also shows the Infant/Child seat which can be installed RF as well. It says:Our new Infant/Child Seat is available on all Virgin Atlantic aircraft and is suitable for newborn babies, infants and children up to a maximum weight of 44lbs (20kg) or a maximum height of 40in (100cm). The Infant/Child Seat is available for use in all cabins.

[codex57]

Very good article. Especially the concerns about economics. You'd like to think safety is always first, but you can't completely ignore economics.

Still, it's bizarre that they won't develop safety standards and regs that make it easier for parents who want to bring a car seat aboard to do so. How hard is it to send out a notice that reminds airline personnel that many car seats are allowed on board?

[mommycat]

This is an interesting point on UK and Canadian airlines chartering eachother's planes:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/commerce/circulars/AC0223.htm

I think it says that 1) even if it is a Candian plane, so long as it is chartered by a UK airline and does not fly within Canada, it is allowed to use loop belts and 2) a UK plane chartered by a Canadian airline and not flying within UK they will prohibit the loop belt.

[mommycat]

More food for thought:
http://www.cic.cranfield.ac.uk/occupant_p3.htm

[TechnoGranola]

More food for thought:
http://www.cic.cranfield.ac.uk/occupant_p3.htmI am trying to figure out what they mean by this line Further tests evaluated use of automotive child restraints in passenger aircraft. These showed that forward facing restraints could provide similar levels of protection to those provided in cars. Rearward facing restraints were unable to demonstrate this capability when restrained solely by an aircraft lap belt - also reported in CAA paper 92020.Does this mean that RF restraints were tested and do NOT provide the same protection as they do in vehicles? or does it mean they were "unable" to conduct this test on RF restraints? I think it's the former? and does that mean that it's safer to have your child FF if they meet the FF requirements for your child restraint?

[snowbird25ca]

I am trying to figure out what they mean by this line Does this mean that RF restraints were tested and do NOT provide the same protection as they do in vehicles? or does it mean they were "unable" to conduct this test on RF restraints? I think it's the former? and does that mean that it's safer to have your child FF if they meet the FF requirements for your child restraint?

Interesting question that I don't have the answer to. (And I've admittedly not read the article yet because I don't have time at the moment.)

I know that with all the researching I did for the trip one of the things I came across was comments about passengers being seated rf'ing because it provided more protection to them, but speculation over if that protection would actually be decreased due to flying luggage etc. Of course it also mentioned that fewer seats would fit on planes and adults likely wouldn't want to sit that way... but it did make me wonder about a rf'ing seat on the plane.

The comment about the lap belt though doesn't make sense because car seats are tested with lap only belts. :confused:

[TechnoGranola]

The comment about the lap belt though doesn't make sense because car seats are tested with lap only belts. :confused:I wondered that myself but then I realized this article was from the UK (I believe) and perhaps seats are designed for lap/shoulder belts there and only tested with lap/shoulder belts?

I'm going to have to go dig up that Mythbusters episode where they tested plane seating. I seem to recall they came up with rear facing being safest.

[Pixels]

I wondered that myself but then I realized this article was from the UK (I believe) and perhaps seats are designed for lap/shoulder belts there and only tested with lap/shoulder belts?

I'm going to have to go dig up that Mythbusters episode where they tested plane seating. I seem to recall they came up with rear facing being safest.
They weren't looking at RFing vs FFing specifically. The episode was looking at brace position vs. no brace position. But they did do one test of FFing vs RFing. RFing produced higher G forces, but they said it was ok because the body can take more G forces RFing than FFing. Like (I'm making up numbers here) FFing the body can take 40 Gs, and they were seeing 30 Gs, but RFing they were seeing 60 Gs, but the body can take 80 Gs. (A G is a unit of force equal to the force of gravity, so 40 Gs would be 40 times the force of gravity, for those of you scratching your head.)

[mommycat]

Some more links so I can fin them later to review.

http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/papers/Infant_Restraint.pdf

page 5 shows a pic of a possible issue with some restraints, at least in Australia (page 4 has the description).

Does anyone have resources to find this paper, which was the one mentioned in the Cranfield website?
Hardy RN. The Restraint of Infants and Young Children in Aircraft. CAA Paper 92020,
Civil Aviation Authority. 1992

[Pixels]

Some more links so I can fin them later to review.

http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/papers/Infant_Restraint.pdf

page 5 shows a pic of a possible issue with some restraints, at least in Australia (page 4 has the description).

It looks like they're allowed to use what we think of as the RFing belt path, they're allowed to use it FFing with a top tether. But without the top tether, the seat rotates forward.

[sparkyd]

The "skycot" (Virgin link above) doesn't look like much of a solution to anything except a place to put them down if they are sleeping. The baby isn't really restrained in there and it sounds like you have to take them out for take off, landing, and turbulence. What good is that?

[TechnoGranola]

The "skycot" (Virgin link above) doesn't look like much of a solution to anything except a place to put them down if they are sleeping. The baby isn't really restrained in there and it sounds like you have to take them out for take off, landing, and turbulence. What good is that?It seems it's only benefit may be a way for the airline to make money off of lap babies....

Hann says that given most airlines recoup a small charge from passengers using child seats, there is a fairly fast return on investment. Virgin, for instance, charges £30 for the use of a skycot. "Virgin has 100% take-up of the seat in their aircraft," Hann says.

[Mommyto2]

If the skycots are simliar to the ones European airlines use most babies only fit in them until 6-7 months old. They are not restrained but it is handy for changing diapers. :rolleyes: I used one when dd was about 4 months old. It was before I knew better. The skycot itself was free on the airline we used but we had to pay closer to $300 in taxes and fees for our lap baby. Her ticket would have been about $700 at the time. If I would have known then what I know now she would have been in her carseat.

I only read the first article, I will read the others in a bit when I am not so tired and can think better.

[mommycat]

Nother interesting link, don't know if it's 100% up to date but seems to have some good info:
http://otoh.org/opal/carseat.html