One infant dead in Nunavut plane crash
 

caution
 

Second approaches are always higher risk. The hair used to stand up on the back of my neck flying up north and trying a second approach, be it a metro or a 99. Unless you know that the approach was messed up and that's why you missed, doing another one adds alot of additional risk. We will be tempted to push it farther on the second one.

Update:

Nunavut plane crash that killed baby the result of hard landing: report - The Globe and Mail

Again, a young child becomes a projectile in a perfectley survivable crash and is killed,the solution to the child restraint problem was demonstrated years ago by the RAF, INSTALL THE BLOODY SEATS FACING THE REAR! very few flying machines crash going backwards, secure them with at least twenty G fastners and kids will no longer become projectiles in the event of a sudden stop. I have a relative who was in an RAF aircraft {a Valletta I think} which hit a hill at about 150 knots, only one out of a full load dead,{ this due to a large rock which came through the cabin.} Its with good reason that the ocupants of capsules re enter earth orbit facing backwards. Oh yes, I can hear it now from the airlines sales departments, "we will go broke, they will fly with others, yada yada"} These are the same folks who predicted a ban on smoking would put them out of buisines,in fact the reverse took place.

Child protection
 

Airlines could always buy an infant child seat approved for takeoff and landing, thereby removing the risk to the child by being carried on the parent's lap. Virgin Atlantic and Cathay Pacific both offer the seat made by Gama Engineering in the UK and it meets FAA TSO C100 and has been sled-tested to 16g.

Wigglylamp, yes, thats one way to do it, but rear facing seats improve survival chances for all the pax, , not just the kids,on top of this reversing the seats is a very simple task and on many aircraft requires no airframe modifications whatsoever , in fact its been done as a demo on a 727/200 in two hours.

Reversing seats
 

Unfortunately there's more involved than just reversing the seats. The pax load in a forward-facing seat is taken by the seat belt at hip height. If the seat is reversed to rear-facing, then the pax load on impact is taken through the seat backrest and not through the belt, with a consequent higher c of g for the load so more rotational load trying go pull the seat out of the rails. Therefore, the seats and floor have to be beefed-up if rear facing and this will add additional weight.

Wiggly, this depends on the seat design/builder, at least two models I know of are legal to be installed facing forward or aft, used in combies and for club seating, having said that its no big mod to place a nesting strip to beef up the recline mechanism and bottom pivot point, most of the seat rails already meet the G requirments, Im sure we will hear all sorts of reasons why it cant be done from the industry, the facts are however it has been done by the RAF and others in the past and has saved lives, the originator of the RAF seat system was a Polish fellow serving in the RAF but his name escapes me right now, I will try to dig up his writings on the subject.

Nunavut
 

Absolutely,
2nd approaches, I remember flying right seat for a cowboy
in a twin turbine, when he went to do a second approach,
I was forced to pull the pin and demand to "circle" till
it gets better. Every flight was like playing Russian Roulette.
Yes, he always got in or arrived when no one else could or would
but at what risks.

Some never learn.

Nah..
 

Clunkdriver, consumers don't like sitting backwards nor do they like to be forced to buy another seat for their infant child.

You stated that the death was preventable but so was the accident.

STC, "consumers dont like sitting backwards", well a short Google search shows that there has been almost no negative consumer reaction when aircraft seats have been so installed. I am reminded of our VP marketing who predicted that a smoking ban would drive our customers away, what really took place when the oufit I flew for became one of the first to ban this stupid habit was our load factors took the largest jump up in the airlines history. {by the way, this ban was spearheded by a flight attendent and a pilot medical examiner, both of who were harrased by the tobaco industry and regretfully a few pilots who were rabid smokers, however most of these pilots have gone on to smokers heaven, but their deaths were in most cases not very pretty, two years on oxygen is not the nicest way to depart this world}When seat belts were introduced to our highways the same outcry about "freedom of rights" and other objections abounded, however I doubt there are many still claiming that seat belts are a bad thing, I could go on about how our presurization problems/ avionics glitches/cleaning costs/and overall maint cost declined, the only down side we found was that it was harder to find a presure leak as the tell -tale streaks of brown crap no longer took one to the source of the leak! Its time for TC and ICAO to justify the huge amounts of money they suck from the industry and enforce rearward facing seats for all pasenger comercial aircraft, but that would of course require them to make some meaningfull decisions, Im not holding my breath!