Infants below 3 and flying?

[djanello]

I've been told in training that flying is inadvisable for infants below the age of three, because their bone structure on top of their heads hasn't fully closed yet.

Can anyone confirm this piece of information or provide reference information regarding this issue? I have family who would like to fly in the near future with a one year old cousin.

Any help would be appreciated! :ok:

[763 jock]

Utter 8ollocks.

[j-mac]

Agree with jock my twins came home via plane 40mins flight 3 year ago ( come to think of it there mental !!!!! )

[kenparry]

It's rubbish. Lots of babies and toddlers fly without any problem - and under 2 years old they travel free if they are on an adult lap.

[Loose rivets]

And that's where the madness starts:*:*:*

[sierratangomike]

don't worry - all of my 3 have done long haul (UK to Oz/NZ) below the age of 2 (one was 4 months old the first time he did it) with no ill effects whatsoever.

[gingernut]

I've also heard they've taken the word "gullible" out of the English Dictionary.

Seriously though, I think you're referring to the fontanelles which close at about the age of two. From a physiological point of view, I'm struggling to see how the closure of the fontanelles make a difference.

And remember, never ever press your finger hard into your little brothers fontanelles, even if it does make him go cross eyed and make you laugh.:}

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Our son was about 3 months old when he first flew... no ill effects even when a friendly BA stewardess plonked her tray of duty frees on his head as he was laying in the end seat beside us. Come to think of it..... he is left-handed and both Goon Show and heavy metal freak, but e'll probably grow out of it though - he's only 41 after all!

[Agaricus bisporus]

The ill effects of under 3s in aircraft are usually suffered by the surrounding victims - oops! pax.

I suspect one reason they shriek is ear pain which they can neither understand, vocalise or cure. Immature, delicate ears and kids often being coldy or congested are a poor combination in aircraft, as are shrieking children and fare paying passengers.

A little consideration for both the child and your fellow pax makes the decision to fly, or not, a simple one.

[Loose rivets]

I can only imagine the pain inflicted upon the very young while suffering one of the hundreds of colds they have to go through. I for one have been totally disabled with sinus pain, and I did everything I could to fiddle the cabin ALT, and change cruise levels. It was horrific. Totally gone by <10,000'

But this is not what I feel most strongly about.

So few people it seems, have any idea about inertia. On a mother's lap FFS! In a perfectly survivable crash there could be forces that would mean the average person couldn't even contain the accelerative forces on their arms, let alone the most precious thing they'll ever carry. Putting them under the belt, would of course be potentially disastrous.

It's not allowed in cars, how the heck did it ever become legal in aircraft.

[oceancrosser]

I flew my grandson and his parents to their home 4 weeks after his birth on a trans-Atlantic flight. Non event. Secure in his carrier seat, which was strapped to the cabin seat. Never cried out or anything. He has flown a couple of times since (now almost age 2). Again visiting Grandpa :ok:
One thing to keep in mind during climb and descent when traveling with infants, let them use pacifiers. Chewing on the pacifier will apparently dissipate the pressure differential.
But I really understand other passengers frustration when young children cry out in the cabin.

[larssnowpharter]

My first longhaul flight was with BOAC in an Argonaut from UK to Singapore in 1951.

May would agree that this might have impaired my development into a full adult.

[Thames virtual]

I agree, absolute nonsense! (I'm a paediatrician, by the way).

Agaricus bisporus gives a good summary of the real issues around flying with kids.

TV

[djanello]

hmm, strange.

This advice was given by a medical specialist who provides first aid training to several reputable airlines and their crews (both cabin and cockpit).

It was said that the effects would not show immediately but only at a later age. (not sure what it was, but some issues have started to get linked to this problem. And yes, it has to do with the closing of the fonatnella at around the age of two.)

[teresa green]

Forget the sprogs head, travelling with tin lids under eight is good reason for both parents to be certified nuts. Travelling from OZ with 4 under 10 some years ago (to take them to Disney Land) (LAX) was probably the dumbest thing I have ever done, three thru up, one went missing, (locked her self in the head) and I vowed the only place to be in future was on the flight deck (alone) until they got older... good luck.:{

[gingernut]

This advice was given by a medical specialist who provides first aid training to several reputable airlines and their crews (both cabin and cockpit).

would be interesting to see his evidence, as obviously this has major implications, if it were backed up by robust trial dat. (I doubt it is).

Without wishing to elicit any angry responses from our more passionate contributors, it's interesting to note, that in the big scheme of evidence based medicine, specialist advice alone rates pretty low.

[Thames virtual]

I too would be interested in this specialist's evidence, and what he thinks is going to happen to the child's brain. Kids' brains are pretty resilient - I would have thought that the pressure changes involved in going up to a cabin altitude of 7000ft or so are far less than the battering and distortion that takes place as the baby squeezes out of the birth canal.

TV

[Bad medicine]

And indeed with an open fontanelle, and incompletely fused sutures, the baby's brain has more room for expansion. Although, why the brain would expand with pressure change (unless it was filled with air), I also cannot understand!

[homonculus]

There is a degree of cerebral oedema in flight BUT

1 the unfused fontanelles are protective so there is LESS risk to the child than the adult

2 although this is a rumour network, it shouldnt descend into complete rubbish. There is NO risk specific to the child and the only risk is that this thread grows until someone believes it. The doctor involved is plain wrong.

I wont make any further contribution!