FAA recommendations: safety, or just old?

K

KaiLing

New member

• Jul 9, 2011

• #1

I'm thinking through airplane safety. I got confirmation this week that even though we are allowed to use our seats to their stated maximums on the plane, the FAA still "recommends" RF for 1 year and 20 lbs, FF 20-40 lbs and seat belt only 40 lbs and up. The flight attendent on my flight was absolutely convinced that these recommendations are best practice. She believed that FF was safer in a crash for my 38 lbs 2 yo, and that it would take too long to get an over 40 lbs child out of a harnessed seat in an evacuation. (I did not remind her that she was about to go sit in a RF, 4 point harnessed seat, since her harness is certainly easier to get off).

Now, I am willing to concede that crashing in a plane is different than in a car. And that you want to get out of a disabled plane while you want to stay in a crashed car, usually. But do these differences mean that we should put our 40 lbs kids in the seat belt? Mine is not going to be mature enough to not take off his belt when he is over 40 lbs, so I'm willing to risk it, to some point, just because most plane injuries are about turbulence, not crashing.

Any insight here on the differences between plane and car crashes? Does 3 dimensions change things that much?

 

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician

• Jul 9, 2011

• #2

Rear-facing is always safer.

Even the FAA would probably concede that, but the RF until 20 lbs, FF harness 20-40, seatbelt after that recommendations are the same as what most law enforcement agencies, etc. go with, too. They're outdated guidelines from when seats only went to those limits.

The FAA certainly allows use beyond those "recommendations" (presuming it's within the allowance of the seat), and they wouldn't if it weren't safe.

As for the different crash/incident dynamics, it really depends. In a sudden stop/collision, rear-facing is better. In turbulence it doesn't matter as much.

I'm flying next month with my 2-year-old. Although I wouldn't dream of FFing her in the car, she'll be FF on the plane and I won't sweat it at all. (Not that she is required to be; it'll just be easier.)

 

K

KaiLing

New member

• Jul 9, 2011

• #3

Yeah I have no safety issue with my kid being FF on the plane, he just can't sleep that way yet even with the seat reclined. I was wondering about the getting out issue, though-- it will take longer to get out of a harness. But that doesn't change when they hit 40 lbs. The flight attendent was certainly taught that RF was unsafe, though, and believed it.

I also don't entirely trust that what the FAA allows is safe, since lap infants in turbulence doesn't seem like a safe policy.

 

rachelandtyke

Well-known member

• Jul 9, 2011

• #4

I would actually think it would be easier to get a child out of a rfing seat easier than a ffing seat just because as you are sitting next to them it is easier to reach over and do it since you are facing them.

 

Pixels

New member

• Jul 9, 2011

• #5

KaiLing said:

Yeah I have no safety issue with my kid being FF on the plane, he just can't sleep that way yet even with the seat reclined. I was wondering about the getting out issue, though-- it will take longer to get out of a harness. But that doesn't change when they hit 40 lbs. The flight attendent was certainly taught that RF was unsafe, though, and believed it.

I also don't entirely trust that what the FAA allows is safe, since lap infants in turbulence doesn't seem like a safe policy.

Click to expand...

If you understand the reasoning behind the policy, it makes more sense.

The FAA believes that if families were forced to purchase a ticket for their child under 2yo, many families would drive instead due to the cost. Because, even unrestrained, air travel is very, very safe, and road travel is not, the FAA believes that statistically speaking those babies (and their families) are safer when they fly unrestrained than when they drive.

Don't ask me what's magical about turning 2yo.

 

wendytthomas

Admin - CPST Instructor

Staff member

• Jul 9, 2011

• #6

Probably the average weight at which an unrestrained passenger would kill those around them.

It's not a plane crash that worries me (well, it does, but we're not going to walk away from that). It's mostly runway emergencies, which have crash dynamics very similar to cars. When I point that out to parents, that they wouldn't hold their child on their lap while wearing a lapbelt at 30 mph to go to the store, doing that at 150 mph on a runway doesn't make sense either. And even short flights have a take off and landing. For those parts I like rear facing longer. Turbulence, I don't care what direction they're facing.

Piper traveled with a Britax Wizard for years, and it was terrible to uninstall forward facing, so she rode rear facing on planes until she was 3.5 and we got a Radian. Then she went forward facing because it was easier.

Wendy

 

K

KaiLing

New member

• Jul 10, 2011

• #7

OK, so no one thinks that three dimensionally there's a reason to have a 35 lbs child forward facing? I couldn't think of one myself.

There's no way I'm letting my kid sit in just the seat belt on the plane if no one here thinks there's a safety advantage when he's 2 or even 3. Maybe before he's booster-able in the car. But I can't imagine sitting there on take off or landing fighting off a tantrum and keeping his seat belt on. Not worth my mental health.

 

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician

• Jul 10, 2011

• #8

There's probably less harm in moving kids to the "next step" on a plane earlier than you would in a car, but I certainly can't imagine there's any benefit.

 

D

DahliaRW

New member

• Jul 11, 2011

• #9

I believe 40lbs is the weight they like for the lap belts in planes because the risk of submarining goes down around that weight - just like it's the rec for boosters due to that. I have no issues with a 4/40 child in a lap belt on the plane as long as they'd leave it buckled (less issue with maturity since there is no shoulder belt). In an accident a child that age can be instructed to put their head in their lap and for the adult next to them to supervise.

 

E

Eclipsepearl

New member

• Jul 18, 2011

• #10

Where is this "recommendation"? On the FAA website? It's said that for ages because the Trip Advisory says to use the seat per the manufacturer's recommendation (sorry on vacation and don't have the link but it's in the article in my siggy).

 

wendytthomas

Admin - CPST Instructor

Staff member

• Jul 18, 2011

• #11

Recommendation to 40 pounds in a restraint on a plane? http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/

Wendy

 

K

KaiLing

New member

• Jul 18, 2011

• #12

Eclipsepearl said:

Where is this "recommendation"? On the FAA website? It's said that for ages because the Trip Advisory says to use the seat per the manufacturer's recommendation (sorry on vacation and don't have the link but it's in the article in my siggy).

Click to expand...

The flight attendant got out her manual and we read it. I don't know about websites, this was her hard copy on the plane.

 

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician

• Jul 18, 2011

• #13

I'm guessing that part of the manual hasn't been updated in 10 years.