RFing on an airplane

I know that traveling by plane is already significantly safer than traveling by car. But I'm running into conflicting info on if rear facing is important on a plane for children over 1 yr & 20 lbs.

I've heard many say that no, it doesn't, just being in a car seat (ffing) is good enough. But then I see this information:

http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/airplaneRF.aspx

Opinions?

Also, when we fly Isabel will be 23 months old. I plan to have her rfing on the plane for a few reasons. I also think it will be more considerate for her to be rfing so she's not kicking someone else's seat. She'd only be kicking her seat. But, on another site, people are getting all up in arms because if she's rear facing the person infront of her can't recline their seat. I'm like "you pick, a toddler kicking your reclined seat; or not being able to recline your seat and riding in peace."

I draw the line at 2 on a plane, personally.

ketchupqueen said:

I draw the line at 2 on a plane, personally.

Click to expand...

That's the number I was thinking in my head too, as far as rfing on the plane. Isabel will only be 23 months, so I think it's still acceptable for me to want her rfing.

I guess I just don't understand the other people's hostility against having a rear facing child and the whole not being able to recline their seat issue. Is it more considerate for them to be able to recline their seat and risk my child kicking their seat for the duration of our 3 hour flight; or is it more considerate for me to have my child kicking her own seat even if it meanst he passenger infront of us can't recline their seat.

And I really don't know why they call that a recline anyway, it's just a few inches!

It's more considerate of them to realize that people with kids have a right to travel, too. But many of them are probably hostile to the whole idea. That, or if they ARE parents, they think that being on vacation means their kids don't need car seats, so they are resentful that you believe otherwise. People are weird.

If they sit in certain seats, they couldn't recline anyway (like, the row in front of the emergency exits.) So, it's not like it's an entitlement.

A ticket on a plane entitles you to a seat on the plane. It does not guarantee that that seat will recline, that you will not be seated next to a screaming baby, or that you are entitled to choose the exact seat you want, no matter what. And, flying is a priviledge, not a right. If people realized that they might have less hostility toward their fellow travelers.

I think they're more hostile to the entire idea of using a car seat on the airplane because they don't think it's necessary. So in addition to that, taking away anything from them makes the situation even worse. Someone has mentioned that the passenger should be compensated by the other passenger (me) for not being able to use their seat appropriately.

In addition, isn't it crazy how some think that a vacation means their child couldn't possibly be involved in an accident?!

ketchupqueen said:

A ticket on a plane entitles you to a seat on the plane. It does not guarantee that that seat will recline...

Click to expand...

Actually, I know that some airlines, I'm thinking of New Zealand Air, actually have it in their policy that a carseat can't be used rear facing if it prevents the seat in front of it from reclining!

I have had people get really angry at me and the flight attendants when they couldn't recline their seat, but I think really they are just angry that they have to sit near a baby since they automatically assume that will make their flight miserable.

OP, you should be sure to bring the FAA documents with you if you want to rear face because there is a lot of misunderstanding of the FAA policy even among flight attendants on whether it is allowed and for whom.

On many European airlines you are not allowed to use rear facing car seats on planes (although I assume the OP is flying domestic). The CAA (in Britain) says that testing showed that rear facing car seats did not provide a safety benefit over the lap belt they use for lap babies, whereas forward facing car seats did. I've never been able to track down the actual data they base this on, but they seem pretty convinced.

Lately I've been wondering if the rear facing seats they tested in the study were ones that required a 3-point belt for install in a car (almost all rear facing infant seats in the EU do). That would certainly change how safe it was if the seat was never designed to install with a 2-point belt!

I have other theories about the study too, but without seeing the data it's really impossible to know. I know that the FAA allows rear facing child seats. Have they studied rear facing vs. forward facing on airplanes at all?

We RF on the plane (I honestly don't care about the person in front of me being able to recline their seat) because it gives us a better recline, she can see us, she's easier to feed, and she sleeps better. It's really a win win and I wish more people understood that. I mean, I could FF her and let her scream the entire flight if they really wanted me to.

Bringing a car seat on board is a good idea to make sure seat gets to destination safely and in good condition. RF is always safer but it's basically irrelevant on a plane since it's already thousands of times safer than being in traffic.

Kids injured on aircrafts is not a probem and it's an extremely rare occurance despite 25 000+ flights each day in US alone.

Using a car seat on a pane purely for safety makes no sense since flying is the safest thing you could ever do with our child. Kids injured by turbulence is virtually zero each year despite almost no kids using car seats on planes. Kids saved purely by car seats is almost unheard of This is very clear by taking a quick look at statistics from FAA fro the last 30 years of so.

I don't RF a kid over 2 on a plane for the reasons AD listed. Under 2, it's a comfort issue-- I feel they sleep better RF, especially if unused to FF because they've NEVER done it.

I've been on 2 flights where we had sudden, unannounced turbulence severe enough that stuff went flying. In one case I saw a lap baby end up hitting the seat in front of him pretty hard. I was very glad to have my daughter in a seat at that point. However-- on the second flight, my daughter was FF. She slept right through it, her car seat held her down securely. So really I don't think she would have done any better if RF. Little babies obviously need to be RF because they can't even hold their heads up. And like I said, I think toddlers under 2 are much comfier RF. But over 2 there's not really much of a need to RF on a plane.

Adventuredad said:

Using a car seat on a pane purely for safety makes no sense since flying is the safest thing you could ever do with our child.

Click to expand...

Since you brought it up I thought I'd point you to these statistics, AD, which point out that really air travel is only the safest way to travel when we calculate it by distance covered.

So nobody else is curious why the CAA won't allow rear facing car seats? I really wish I could see that study!