Infant seatbelts - and general safety pre-take-off

[Gibon2]

I would be very interested in views from the professionals - both cabin and flight crew - on the following incident which occurred on a Swiss flight a few months ago.

I was travelling with my wife and baby daughter, then aged about 10 months. After boarding, nobody brought us an infant seat belt. I asked a passing member of the cabin crew, then asked again... and again... the fourth (yes, fourth!) time I asked, we were already taxiing along at a fair clip towards the end of the runway, and I fear I may have spoken rather sharply. The belt was finally brought, and I got my girl strapped in with literally seconds to spare.

My questions are:

1. Was I right to be concerned? I am reasonably confident of holding my daughter securely in turbulence, but a rejected take-off would be another matter. Or are infant seat belts just for the peace of mind of parents, and have no real benefit (hence the lackdaisacal attitude of the crew)?

2. If it happens again, when should I make a fuss? I presume everyone should be strapped in before we start to taxi. If the crew don't respond to the call button, should I stand up and shout?

3. More generally, if we should be lined up on the runway and the engines start spooling up, and I realise something is wrong (no seatbelt for baby, seatbelt not working, wing on fire, whatever), what is the best way to quickly alert the CC and stop the take-off?

Thanks.

[13 please]

Had the cabin crew already shown the safety video and walked thru the aircraft chacking all the pax.?

If it happens again, maybe an idea would be to stay standing until you have the seatbelt. I bet they wouldn't have forgotten you then.

Not very good unfortunately.. I and other crew, I have noticed, tend to have a couple handy in the cabin for whilst pax are boarding, so they can have them straightaway. We need to make sure the pax knows how to use them. It can be tricky to go to the stowage whilst pax are boarding, if the stowage is at the other end of the cabin, and you have to keep door cover. Makes it alot easier if we have them to hand..

[Getoutofmygalley]

Hello

Yes you have a right to be concerned. The crew should have brought you a baby belt on the first request. Myself as a purser the way I play things with babies during boarding is by having the appropriate number of baby belts hanging from a bulk head by me. When a pax boards with a baby, I then hand them one of the belts that I have ready - this also enables me to keep track of when all the babies have been boarded.

If the baby was not secured with a baby belt before take off (in my airline) the cabin would not be secure. One of our fifteen points of cabin secure that the cabin crew have to follow is "Infants on passenger laps wearing infant/extension seat belts".

If it happens again, I would sugest that when the purser or whoever carries out the headcount that you ask at that point, failing that keep pressing that call bell until you get one.

With regards to your final point, in my airline at least if the aircraft is lined up on the runway and the engines are spooling up, the cabin crew are not permitted to make contact with the flight crew. There are 2 critical phases of flight, which are take off and landing. The take off phase of flight is the "Period between engine power being applied and the retraction of the undercarriage" - so basically if something happened at this point, the cabin crew would not be permitted to contact the flight crew and the flight crew would more than likely not take an interphone call from the cabin if the cabin crew were to attempt one. The pilots in all airlines are well trained in dealing with emergencies, therefore the safest course of action at times would be to continue the take off and come back round for an emergency/precautionary landing rather than to reject the take off and risk a runway excursion.

[VS-LHRCSA]

Whether or not your baby was at risk is actually a matter of debate.

In countries such as the UK, infant seatbelts are a safety requirement. In the US and Canada, infant seatbelts are banned as they are a safety hazard.

If the airline you travelled on is governed by EU JAR-OPS then legally you should have been issued an infant seatbelt and been instructed on its use.

[Gibon2]

Thanks for the responses. Just to clarify, I asked the for the second time during the headcount, and for the third time during the final seatbelt check. The fourth time was as the CC concerned was heading back to his seat for take-off.


In countries such as the UK, infant seatbelts are a safety requirement. In the US and Canada, infant seatbelts are banned as they are a safety hazard.


Wow. What the hell are we supposed to make of that??? What is the (supposed) hazard, by the way? The infant belt hinders escape?

in my airline at least if the aircraft is lined up on the runway and the engines are spooling up, the cabin crew are not permitted to make contact with the flight crew

This is interesting. Are you saying that if CC become aware of a potential emergency during the take-off roll (smoke in cabin, passenger trying to ignite shoe, etc), they cannot communicate this to the flight deck? If the plane has not yet reached V1, it can stop safely - is there not a procedure for alerting the flight deck to a reason to reject the take-off?

Thanks again.

[obgraham]

Wow. What the hell are we supposed to make of that??? What is the (supposed) hazard, by the way? The infant belt hinders escape?I'm not ready to debate the pros or cons, but only to say that in several decades of flying, I've never seen an "infant seatbelt" in use on a North American flight. Children under 2 years travel either "in arms" or strapped into an "approved infant seat", i.e. a regular car seat attached by the standard seat belt. I know which of those methods seems safer to me!

[jimworcs]

I was told, when I lived in the US, that infants are likely to be crushed by the parent when they are in a sudden decelleration (sp?), and that the FAA now require approved car seats for all infants. The agent told me that the crash landing in Sioux City lead to the changes, as no infants survived this, although many adults did. Could be a load of nonsense to make me buy a seat for the child seat mind you.

[Getoutofmygalley]

This is interesting. Are you saying that if CC become aware of a potential emergency during the take-off roll (smoke in cabin, passenger trying to ignite shoe, etc), they cannot communicate this to the flight deck? If the plane has not yet reached V1, it can stop safely - is there not a procedure for alerting the flight deck to a reason to reject the take-off?

The airline I work for regard the cockpit to be sterile during the critical phases of flight. I for one am happy with this procedure, the last thing that I want is to contact the flight crew and distract them at an inappropriate moment. If I was to say to the pilots on the interphone "Oh my god, there is smoke in the cabin" and we were just passing V1, they might attempt to stop, go off the end of the runway and end up crashing into some obstruction that would cause a worse catastrophe than what would happen by continuing.

If there was smoke/fire in the cabin, ATC would give the pilots priority for returning to the airfield. All the appropriate emergency services would be lined up by the runway waiting for us when we return. The pilots would do a quick circuit and drop back in on the runway and then if necessary an evacuation would take place.

As I said before, sometimes it is safer to continue that to stop the aircraft.

[VS-LHRCSA]

My comments about the infant seatbelts come from experience. Years ago, I used to fly for Air 2000 which shared aircraft with its then partner Canada 3000. We would often use Canadian registered 757s on charter flights from the UK. A lot of the time, passengers would fly out to, say, PMI on a UK registered 757 and be given an infant seatbelt. On their return flight, they would be on the Canadian 757. When they would ask for the infant seatbelt, we would have to explain that on this particular aircraft it was illegal to issue them.

As for Souix City, I believe that the high mortality rate with the infants was because the standard procedure at the time was to place the infant on the floor under the seat in front. I remember the Purser saying this in an interview and it never sat well with me. It goes against all parental instincts.

From what I've come to learn over the years is that I, personally, do not think infants should travel at all, especially if the aviation authorities of the world cannot agree amongst themselves how to manage their safety.

With regard to alerting the flight deck of imminent danger. I flew with a guy who stopped a flight at take off. A passenger kept pressing the call bell, repeatedly. The crewmember was strapped in but the passenger persisted. Turns out her husband was choking and the crewmember stopped take off and basically saved this guys life. He got a BRAVO for it.

[deltayankee]

I was told, when I lived in the US, that infants are likely to be crushed by the parent when they are in a sudden decelleration (sp?), and that the FAA now require approved car seats for all infants. The agent told me that the crash landing in Sioux City lead to the changes, as no infants survived this, although many adults did. Could be a load of nonsense to make me buy a seat for the child seat mind you.



As for Souix City, I believe that the high mortality rate with the infants was because the standard procedure at the time was to place the infant on the floor under the seat in front. I remember the Purser saying this in an interview and it never sat well with me. It goes against all parental instincts.

The story about car seats is nonsense. This must be UA232 and out of the four lapbelt babies three survived, the fourth being killed by smoke inhalation. But the NTSB added to the report a recommendation that everyone be given a real seat -- never implemented as far as I know. I think the part about babies being put on the floor comes from the TV show Seconds from Disaster. One of the CC from UA232 later campaigned for seats to be assigned to all infants.

You can find the TV show on YouTube.

[jimworcs]

I wasn't sure it was true, even when they were telling me this stuff!! However, I am puzzled about the 3 out of the 4 lapbelt babies surviving. Earlier, VSLHRCSA said
In the US and Canada, infant seatbelts are banned as they are a safety hazard and

I used to fly for Air 2000 which shared aircraft with its then partner Canada 3000. We would often use Canadian registered 757s on charter flights from the UK. A lot of the time, passengers would fly out to, say, PMI on a UK registered 757 and be given an infant seatbelt. On their return flight, they would be on the Canadian 757. When they would ask for the infant seatbelt, we would have to explain that on this particular aircraft it was illegal to issue them

If this is the case, how could it be that the infants with lapbelts survived, as it would seem that the use of lapbelts is banned? For what it is worth, when my son was an infant (1990!), we flew from Charlotte, NC to LGW on Piedmont. We were given a "cot" (essentially a cardboard box) to put him in, and allocated a bulkhead seat. We were then instructed to place him on the floor in front of us, pressed against the bulkhead. We were shocked and asked if there was no means of securing him, but were told this was the correct procedure!

After this experience, we pretty much always booked a seat and strapped in the car seat, which seems a reasonable solution to me overall.

[deltayankee]

The fact that most infants survived is not so well known because the popular TV version suggests otherwise. But you can read the NTSB report at http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR90-06.pdf. Section 1.15.2 tells what happened to the four infants.

Perhaps some CC from UA can shed more light on this, but I think that there are several issues involved. One is the fear that babies in lap belts might be injured; another is that they could injure other passengers -- I guess that these considerations are supported by statistics somewhere. But there is a third issue: it is a hard sell for CC to tell parents to put their babies on the floor and after UA232 a parent of the baby that died confronted an FA and seemed to suggest it was her instructions that was responsible. Assigned seats would take this terrible burden off the CC.

[obgraham]

I'm with those that think babies should not be allowed to fly unrestrained. But the facts are that, at least in N.America, we're too cheap to pay for a seat for the baby, thus we have all those "infants in arms". There's no way to effectively restrain them, whether in the arms or on the floor. They should be strapped into something safe.
But it won't happen till a planeload of babies comes to grief.

[jimworcs]

I have read the report, thanks for the link. In fact, the infants were unrestrained, and did not use lapbelts. The children were placed on the floor and held there by their mothers, who were in the brace position. Two of the mothers were unable to hold onto their children.

There were four in-lap occupants onboard flight 232.6 Three of them were under 24 months, and one was 26 months old. During the preparations for the emergency landing, parents were instructed to place their "infants" on the floor and to hold them there when the parent assumed the protective brace position. The four in-lap occupants were held on the floor by adults who occupied seats llF, 12B, 14J and 22E. The woman in 145 stated that her son "flew up in the air" upon impact but that she was able to grab him and hold onto him. Details of what happened to the 26-month-old child at 12B during the impact sequence are not known, but he sustained minor injuries. The mother of the 11-month-old girl at 11F said that she had problems placing and keeping her daughter on the floor because she was screaming and trying to stand up. The mother of the 23-month-old at 22E was worried about her son's position. She kept asking the flight attendants for more specific instructions about the brace position and her "special situation with a child on the floor." The mothers of the infants in seats 11F and 22E were unable to hold onto their infants and were unable to find them after the airplane impacted the ground. The infant originally located at 11F was rescued from the fuselage by a passenger who heard her cries and reentered the fuselage. The infant held on the floor in front of seat 22E died of asphyxia secondary to smoke inhalation. The Safety Board addressed the infant restraint issue in Safety Recommendations A-90-78 and A-90-79 issued May 30, 1990.

I cannot imagine that any system which involves unrestrained infants is the safest method. Parents have to pay for their infants from the age of 2 anyway, surely it is not too high a burden to simply say that all children but be booked on the flight and have a seat allocated. All children under either a set weight, or age, must be in a car seat. The parents would in the vast majority of cases have to have a car seat for children anyway, or alternatively the FAA could mandate that airlines carry them for each child booked, in the same way that airlines must accommodate those who require special mobility assistance. Asking parents to "hold on" during an aircraft crash landing seems to be potentially deadly to the infant and to others.

[deltayankee]

I agree that the survival of three out of four infants in UA232 was more luck than anything else, though perhaps had there been more fatalities we would have safer conditions today. All parents plus other sane people would all agree that proper seats are the safest solution, but very few can afford to pay full fare for a toddler so the airlines would lose out if there were many babies on a flight.

[jimworcs]

As I said earlier, they have to pay a child's fare after the age of 2 anyway. Do people suddenly become rich enough to pay for their child's seat after two years?

It is customer expectation, and the FAA or CAA should simply mandate that airlines cannot allow children to sit on the lap of the parent and this would put all airlines in an equal competitive position.

Apart from the horror of having unrestrained infants flying about the cabin, the report also suggests two mothers became totally detached from their infants. This raises the possibility that they will impede evacuation in a panicked effort to locate their child, other passengers re-entering the plane in an effort to rescue the child (as happened at Sioux City), etc. It is a nightmare and simply cannot be safe for the infant or for the other passengers and places the CC in an impossible situation.

[jetset lady]

I fail to understand how an infant seat belt can be a hazard when it is used correctly. For those who have never used one, the infant belt has a loop on the back which is used to link it to the parent/guardians belt. This means that in the case of a sudden stop or impact, the baby is restrained without the risk of being crushed by the parent. The only time it becomes dangerous is when it is used for an older child to sit on the parents lap. As they are larger than an infant, they could potentially suffer injury from hitting the seat in front.

JSL

[jimworcs]

In a sudden decelleration, if you are thrown forward and the baby is tied to your lap, I would imagine it would be potentially serious. Anyway, a seat for each passenger regardless of age is the best solution by far.

[lexxity]

A seat for every pax is a lovely idea, but not practical at all I'm afraid. Airlines can't strap in a rear facing carseat which small infants use until around the 9months of age mark. Best thing would probably be a Parent wore a sling with said infant in.

Of course you also get the parent who comes all tooled up with their five point harness, CE marked, forward facing carseat, seat bought and then told they can't use said seat onboard. Very frustrating.

[jimworcs]

the airlines could be mandated to provide seats for infants. The costs would easily be recouped by charging child prices for the seats, when currently the infants go for free. In that way, only FAA/CAA seats would be provided and the problem is solved.

[jetset lady]

jimworcs,

I too agree that a seat for every pax is the safest way but unfortunately, I can't see it happening anytime soon. In the meantime, how is a baby "tied" to your lap potentially serious? Surely, it's got to be better than a completely unrestrained infant? I'm not trying to be argumentative as you may well be thinking of something that hasn't even crossed my mind, hence the question.

As for airlines carrying child seats, great idea but the problem with that is where to store them when they aren't in use. They would have to be rigid to conform to the safety standards and there's just no room on most aircraft.

[jimworcs]

If you consider the safest position in an emergency situation is the brace position, ask yourself if you would be able to adopt that position with an infant on your lap. This poses a hazard to both the child and the parent.

Then imagine, if a sudden decelleration did take place, the forces on the infant as the parent is violently thrown forward, not to mention the risk of crushing between adult and the seat in front.

The issue of the seats is problematic, but if the infant is booked in advance, then the airline will have to make an accommodation. The seats may have to be stored at the airports, and put on the flight when the seat is booked.

[CD]

I too agree that a seat for every pax is the safest way but unfortunately, I can't see it happening anytime soon. In the meantime, how is a baby "tied" to your lap potentially serious? Surely, it's got to be better than a completely unrestrained infant? I'm not trying to be argumentative as you may well be thinking of something that hasn't even crossed my mind, hence the question.
While a number of aviation authorities still require the use of the loop belt, others have chosen to no longer permit it's use due to testing and research related to the hazard it poses in an accident scenario. One example of such a report is from Germany:
For the transportation of infants on an adult's lap, the adult is restrained with a pelvic belt, and the infant is fixed on the adult's lap with an additional loop belt.
*
In a suddenly occurring deceleration in the longitudinal aircraft axis, the adult and the infant show a pronounced jack-knife effect. The upper torso and the lower extremities of the infant as well as of the adult sitting behind the infant fold up in a forward direction, with the loop belt restraining the infant. Finally, the loop belt drives into the infant's abdomen and only stops at his or her vertebral spine. From the technical point of view, the infant acts like an energy absorption element for the adult; the crash loads acting on the adult are thus reduced, and the infant fixed with the loop belt thus suffers most serious up to fatal injuries.

Examination on the Enhancement of Cabin Safety for Infants (http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2001Conference/files/CrashCabinSafetyComponentTesting/MSperberPAPER.pdf)
For children ages 1-4, there is the AmSafe CARES (http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=7381) device that is now available for use. Quite a few authorities have indicated that they will accept its use on board, including the UK CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200723.pdf).

[lexxity]

Where can I get one of those? My son has just grown out of his five point harness seat and I couldn't guarantee that he would be totally restrained by just a lapbelt. We aren't flying again for a while until I know he'll sit still.

[west lakes]

Lexxi

two PM's for you

For others check the amsafe aviation website and keep looking to find international distributors