Lufthansa don't offer infant seat belts. Why?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lufthansa don't offer infant seat belts. Why?
We travelled long haul with Lufthansa recently and I'm pretty amazed that the airline does not provide infant safety belt extensions.
I can only surmise that the powers that be in Lufthansa examined research and came to the conclusion that their infant passengers survivability would be improved if they are not restrained (other than a parents strong grip). A mother or father cannot be expected to keep a grip of their child at all times when heavy turbulence can sometimes occur unexpectedly.
We do fly as a family quite a bit but this is the first airline I've come across a passenger safety interpretation which differs substantially from the vast majority of other airlines we have flown with. Is Lufthansa unique or are there others? Nothing was mentioned when we booked the flight and to be truthful had I known I would have chosen an alternative airline.
Can anyone explain why Lufthansa's safety interpretation differs from other airlines and is an infant safer with or without a restraint?
I can only surmise that the powers that be in Lufthansa examined research and came to the conclusion that their infant passengers survivability would be improved if they are not restrained (other than a parents strong grip). A mother or father cannot be expected to keep a grip of their child at all times when heavy turbulence can sometimes occur unexpectedly.
We do fly as a family quite a bit but this is the first airline I've come across a passenger safety interpretation which differs substantially from the vast majority of other airlines we have flown with. Is Lufthansa unique or are there others? Nothing was mentioned when we booked the flight and to be truthful had I known I would have chosen an alternative airline.
Can anyone explain why Lufthansa's safety interpretation differs from other airlines and is an infant safer with or without a restraint?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The principle reason for infant "loop" restraint belts is to stop the infant becoming a loose object and injuring someone else. In the event of a crash having the infant in your lap can significantly increase their chances of injury as you crush them as well as the impact.
They are best in a specialst seat such as the "carechair" by aviation furnishings used by Virgin in the 90's I dunno what they use nowadays.
Also acceptable in the UK are car seats of which a number are approved. However the conditions of carrige are strenuous and I doubt you could sort it in most LCCs turn arounds.
Its a bit of an issue which the regulators obviously care little about.
If your that interested I have a presentation done by virgin to the NTSB PM me if you want it,
They are best in a specialst seat such as the "carechair" by aviation furnishings used by Virgin in the 90's I dunno what they use nowadays.
Also acceptable in the UK are car seats of which a number are approved. However the conditions of carrige are strenuous and I doubt you could sort it in most LCCs turn arounds.
Its a bit of an issue which the regulators obviously care little about.
If your that interested I have a presentation done by virgin to the NTSB PM me if you want it,
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a subject that I feel very strongly about. The first time we flew with SD Jr he didnt have his own seat, he was 6 months old and we had to hold him anyway. Only later when contemplating his security when taking him in a light aeroplane did I think about what might happen to him in an airliner also. Ever since he has had his own seat when we travel, and anyway when they are over a year old they are bl**dy heavy to hold onto all the time anyway!!
Airlines generally let you sit an infant in a car seat if it can be safely secured and you pay for the extra seat it is used in, but reactions differ sometimes I have discovered...... as I have actually bought a seat especially for SD Jr when he was younger with the sole purpose of putting him in his approved car/aeroplane seat (having explained when buying tickets and at checkin I wish to do this & being told no probs) - Only to turn up at the steps of the aircraft to be told by ignorant cabin crew that I cant sit him in his seat in the seat I paid for..... This was purely her position only, as previous flights on the same carrier were not a problem. Initially was told I hadnt paid for his seat...proved that one wrong with tickets....was then told it was against company policy.... pointed out previous flights not a problem.... then told seat not designed for aeroplane use.... showed diagram of the thing in an airline seat in its manual.... and pointed out I fly puddlejumpers for fun and especially bought it for use in aeroplanes!!! I think the only thing that made her back down was the growing fustration of other pax waiting to board as we argued and then the Captain appearing to ask what the problem was....
This was with Air France and I believe a one-off, as its the only time we have been queried other than to show we had a valid ticket for SD Jrs seat on the aircraft. Never flown with Jr on the Lo-Cos so far.
Regards, SD..
Airlines generally let you sit an infant in a car seat if it can be safely secured and you pay for the extra seat it is used in, but reactions differ sometimes I have discovered...... as I have actually bought a seat especially for SD Jr when he was younger with the sole purpose of putting him in his approved car/aeroplane seat (having explained when buying tickets and at checkin I wish to do this & being told no probs) - Only to turn up at the steps of the aircraft to be told by ignorant cabin crew that I cant sit him in his seat in the seat I paid for..... This was purely her position only, as previous flights on the same carrier were not a problem. Initially was told I hadnt paid for his seat...proved that one wrong with tickets....was then told it was against company policy.... pointed out previous flights not a problem.... then told seat not designed for aeroplane use.... showed diagram of the thing in an airline seat in its manual.... and pointed out I fly puddlejumpers for fun and especially bought it for use in aeroplanes!!! I think the only thing that made her back down was the growing fustration of other pax waiting to board as we argued and then the Captain appearing to ask what the problem was....
This was with Air France and I believe a one-off, as its the only time we have been queried other than to show we had a valid ticket for SD Jrs seat on the aircraft. Never flown with Jr on the Lo-Cos so far.
Regards, SD..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely all children should be properly restrained. Searching the internet I have found many incidents where passengers and cabin crew have been killed or injured by episodes of turbulence.
From what I have read, those killed or injured were not buckled up correctly and I just don't buy into the idea of keeping a firm grip on the child or putting it on the floor is effective.
One of the recommendations from the Kegworth accident highlighted the advantages of infants being placed in child seats rather than in a loop type belt so this would appear to back up 'Daysleepers' comments.
Lufthansa and from 'middle seat's' comments some US carriers must have researched this field and have concluded that there are no compelling reasons to restrain infants. But why such a split between the vast majority of airlines who provide belts and believe in the wisdom of such a provision versus others who don't. Its not down to cost or time constraints so this puzzles me.
I really appreciate all the feedback given on this forum and thank you all.
I have written to Lufthansa and await their reply which when received I would like publish here with permission of the moderators if that's of any help.
From what I have read, those killed or injured were not buckled up correctly and I just don't buy into the idea of keeping a firm grip on the child or putting it on the floor is effective.
One of the recommendations from the Kegworth accident highlighted the advantages of infants being placed in child seats rather than in a loop type belt so this would appear to back up 'Daysleepers' comments.
Lufthansa and from 'middle seat's' comments some US carriers must have researched this field and have concluded that there are no compelling reasons to restrain infants. But why such a split between the vast majority of airlines who provide belts and believe in the wisdom of such a provision versus others who don't. Its not down to cost or time constraints so this puzzles me.
I really appreciate all the feedback given on this forum and thank you all.
I have written to Lufthansa and await their reply which when received I would like publish here with permission of the moderators if that's of any help.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An FAA analysis of survivable accidents from 1978 through 1994 found that 9 deaths, 4 major injuries, and 8 minor injuries to children occurred. The analysis also found that the use of child safety seats would have prevented 5 deaths, all the major injuries, and 4 to 6 of the minor injuries. Child safety advocates have pointed to several survivable accidents in which children died--a 1994 Charlotte, North Carolina, crash; a 1990 Cove Neck, New York, accident; and a 1987 Denver, Colorado, accident
The US Case: A 1992 FAA rule required airlines to allow child restraint systems, but FAA has opposed mandatory child safety seats on the basis of studies showing that requiring adults to pay for children's seats would induce more car travel, which the study said was more dangerous for children than airplane travel. One study published in 1995 by DOT estimated that if families were charged full fares for children's seats, 20 percent would choose other modes of transportation, resulting in a net increase of 82 deaths among children and adults over 10 years.
Turbulence can be a more frequent danger to unrestrained children than accidents, one expert told us that a compromise solution might include allowing some type of alternative in-flight restraint.
In a 1996 study by R.G.W Cherry & Associates, enhancing occupant restraint was ranked as the second most important of
33 potential ways to improve air crash survivability. Turbulence reportedly injures at least 15 U.S. cabin occupants a year,
and possibly over 100. Most of these injuries are to flight attendants who are unrestrained.
In Europe, the regulations vary from country to country.
(Advancements Being Pursued to Improve Airliner Cabin Occupant Safety and Health' which was released on October 17, 2003. gao.gov)
The US Case: A 1992 FAA rule required airlines to allow child restraint systems, but FAA has opposed mandatory child safety seats on the basis of studies showing that requiring adults to pay for children's seats would induce more car travel, which the study said was more dangerous for children than airplane travel. One study published in 1995 by DOT estimated that if families were charged full fares for children's seats, 20 percent would choose other modes of transportation, resulting in a net increase of 82 deaths among children and adults over 10 years.
Turbulence can be a more frequent danger to unrestrained children than accidents, one expert told us that a compromise solution might include allowing some type of alternative in-flight restraint.
In a 1996 study by R.G.W Cherry & Associates, enhancing occupant restraint was ranked as the second most important of
33 potential ways to improve air crash survivability. Turbulence reportedly injures at least 15 U.S. cabin occupants a year,
and possibly over 100. Most of these injuries are to flight attendants who are unrestrained.
In Europe, the regulations vary from country to country.
(Advancements Being Pursued to Improve Airliner Cabin Occupant Safety and Health' which was released on October 17, 2003. gao.gov)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll think jump in on this one... Has there been testing conducted of child restraint systems on board aircraft? The answer is yes:
Click here for the full report...
See the following link for some excellent video relating to dyanimc child restraint testing:
FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute - Biodynamics Research Team
As for the belly-belt or loop-belt, the German authority also conducted testing on this device and published the following information:
Examination on the Enhancement of Cabin Safety for Infants
You have touched on a topic that is important to all of us involved in passenger safety. I don't think there is an airline or regulatory authority anywhere that does not recommend, encourage, and cajole parents to pay for that extra seat and protect their infant by using an approved child restraint system.
Personally, I'm fairly passionate about recommending the use of approved child restraint systems (CRS) on board aircraft and tell parents that whenever the opportunity presents itself.
There is alot of information on the 'net regarding the pro's and con's of mandating the use of CRS on board aircraft. Probably the biggest hurdle faced by regulators on this issue is the possibility of 'divergence'. This is the term that has been applied to parents who would opt not to pay for an additional seat for their child on board the aircraft if CRS are mandated and would rather 'divert' their mode of travel to their car where, statistically some groups feel there is a greater threat to injury or death. Here is an example of the view of some US pediatricians:
Here are some links with more information:
FAA: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) - Child Restraint Systems
The link above contains the proposed rulemaking effort by the FAA. The docket on that contains 280 submissions, both in favour and opposed to the rulemaking.
FAA Announces Decision on Child Safety Seats
CEI: Comments to the Federal Aviation Administration on the draft of the Child Restraint Study Report
Testimony of Barry Sweedler, Director Office of Safety Recommendations NTSB
Tips for Parents Using Child Restraints on Aircraft
Child Restraint Regulatory Developments in the United States
Association of Flight Attendants: Child Restraint Systems
National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation: Child Safety Seat Press Release
AAP CALLS FOR AN END TO LAP TRAVEL FOR CHILDREN ON PLANES
FAA - Child Safety Seats
Transport Canada Tips: Travelling With Children
Transport Canada FAQ: Infant Car Seats
Transport Canada Advisory Circular: Child Restraint Systems
There is also now a Minimum Performance Standard identified for the design and manufacture of CRS intended for use in transport aircraft. This MPS has been adopted by the FAA and included in TSO C100b.
This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) defines minimum performance standards and related qualification criteria for add-on child restraint systems (CRS) which provide protection for small children in passenger seats of transport category airplanes. The AS is not intended to provide design criteria that could be met only by an aircraft-specific CRS. The goal of this standard is to achieve child-occupant protection by specifying a dynamic test method and evaluation criteria for the performance of CRS under emergency landing conditions."
Performance Standard for Child Restraint Systems in Transport Category Airplanes
TSO-C100b ~ Child Restraint Systems (CRS)
The Performance of Child Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane Passenger Seats
ABSTRACT: The performance of child restraint devices (CRDs) in commercial transport airplane passenger seats was evaluated by a dynamic impact test program. Background information on the policies and regulations related to child restraints is summarized. Tests were conducted at the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. Six types (CRDs) certified for use in airplanes were tested. Booster seats, forward facing carriers, aft facing carriers, a harness device, a belly belt, and passenger seat lap belts were evaluated. Impact tests were conducted with CRDs installed on airplane passenger seats. The test severity was 16 Gpk with an impact velocity of 44 ft/sec. Effects of multiple row seats, aft row occupant impact loads, and seat back breakover were part of the project protocol. Four child size anthropomorphic test dummies were utilized. The 6-month and 36-month size ATDs defined in 49 CFR Part 572, the 6-month size CRABI ATD, and a 24-month size experimental ATD identified as CAMIX were used in these tests. An experimental device to measure abdominal pressure was evaluated in the CRABI and CAMIX ATDs. Analyses of the data acquired from the tests and observations related to the performance of the CRDs in airplane seats are presented.
ABSTRACT: The performance of child restraint devices (CRDs) in commercial transport airplane passenger seats was evaluated by a dynamic impact test program. Background information on the policies and regulations related to child restraints is summarized. Tests were conducted at the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. Six types (CRDs) certified for use in airplanes were tested. Booster seats, forward facing carriers, aft facing carriers, a harness device, a belly belt, and passenger seat lap belts were evaluated. Impact tests were conducted with CRDs installed on airplane passenger seats. The test severity was 16 Gpk with an impact velocity of 44 ft/sec. Effects of multiple row seats, aft row occupant impact loads, and seat back breakover were part of the project protocol. Four child size anthropomorphic test dummies were utilized. The 6-month and 36-month size ATDs defined in 49 CFR Part 572, the 6-month size CRABI ATD, and a 24-month size experimental ATD identified as CAMIX were used in these tests. An experimental device to measure abdominal pressure was evaluated in the CRABI and CAMIX ATDs. Analyses of the data acquired from the tests and observations related to the performance of the CRDs in airplane seats are presented.
See the following link for some excellent video relating to dyanimc child restraint testing:
FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute - Biodynamics Research Team
As for the belly-belt or loop-belt, the German authority also conducted testing on this device and published the following information:
JAR-OPS 1.320 and 1.730 outline, among other things, the transportation of infants and children. The provisions allow multiple occupancy of aircraft passenger seats. Accordingly, infants (< 2 years) are properly transported on an adult's lap. JAR OPS 1.730 further regulates that an operator is only allowed to operate an aircraft if he or she provides an additional loop belt or other restraint device for each infant.
*
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.
*
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.
You have touched on a topic that is important to all of us involved in passenger safety. I don't think there is an airline or regulatory authority anywhere that does not recommend, encourage, and cajole parents to pay for that extra seat and protect their infant by using an approved child restraint system.
Personally, I'm fairly passionate about recommending the use of approved child restraint systems (CRS) on board aircraft and tell parents that whenever the opportunity presents itself.
There is alot of information on the 'net regarding the pro's and con's of mandating the use of CRS on board aircraft. Probably the biggest hurdle faced by regulators on this issue is the possibility of 'divergence'. This is the term that has been applied to parents who would opt not to pay for an additional seat for their child on board the aircraft if CRS are mandated and would rather 'divert' their mode of travel to their car where, statistically some groups feel there is a greater threat to injury or death. Here is an example of the view of some US pediatricians:
$1.3 Billion per Death Prevented
Effects & Costs of Requiring Child-Restraint Systems for Young Children on Commercial Airplanes, from Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, October, 2003 (extracts):
Child-restraint seat use could prevent about 0.4 child air crash deaths per year in the United States. Increased deaths as a result of car travel could exceed deaths prevented by restraint use if the proportion of families switching from air to car travel exceeded about 5 percent to 10 percent.
Assuming no increase in car travel, for each dollar increase in the cost of implementing the regulation per round trip per family, the cost per death prevented would increase by about $6.4 million.
For example, if the additional cost per round trip were $200 per young child, the cost per death prevented, ignoring car crash deaths, would be about $1.3 billion.
There are many factors we did not consider in this analysis ... the reduction in nonfatal injuries from CRS [child restraint system] use is likely to be small ... we did not consider decreased anxiety of parents and airline personnel and reduction of injuries to young children during turbulence and to surrounding passengers from unrestrained young children during crashes.
Conclusions: Unless space for young children in restraint seats can be provided at low cost to families, with little or no diversion to automobile travel, a policy requiring restraint seat use could cause a net increase in deaths. Even excluding this possibility, the cost of the proposed policy per death prevented is high.
(ASW note: The full article may be viewed at Effects and Costs of Requiring Child-Restraint Systems for Young Children Traveling
Effects & Costs of Requiring Child-Restraint Systems for Young Children on Commercial Airplanes, from Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, October, 2003 (extracts):
Child-restraint seat use could prevent about 0.4 child air crash deaths per year in the United States. Increased deaths as a result of car travel could exceed deaths prevented by restraint use if the proportion of families switching from air to car travel exceeded about 5 percent to 10 percent.
Assuming no increase in car travel, for each dollar increase in the cost of implementing the regulation per round trip per family, the cost per death prevented would increase by about $6.4 million.
For example, if the additional cost per round trip were $200 per young child, the cost per death prevented, ignoring car crash deaths, would be about $1.3 billion.
There are many factors we did not consider in this analysis ... the reduction in nonfatal injuries from CRS [child restraint system] use is likely to be small ... we did not consider decreased anxiety of parents and airline personnel and reduction of injuries to young children during turbulence and to surrounding passengers from unrestrained young children during crashes.
Conclusions: Unless space for young children in restraint seats can be provided at low cost to families, with little or no diversion to automobile travel, a policy requiring restraint seat use could cause a net increase in deaths. Even excluding this possibility, the cost of the proposed policy per death prevented is high.
(ASW note: The full article may be viewed at Effects and Costs of Requiring Child-Restraint Systems for Young Children Traveling
FAA: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) - Child Restraint Systems
The link above contains the proposed rulemaking effort by the FAA. The docket on that contains 280 submissions, both in favour and opposed to the rulemaking.
FAA Announces Decision on Child Safety Seats
CEI: Comments to the Federal Aviation Administration on the draft of the Child Restraint Study Report
Testimony of Barry Sweedler, Director Office of Safety Recommendations NTSB
Tips for Parents Using Child Restraints on Aircraft
Child Restraint Regulatory Developments in the United States
Association of Flight Attendants: Child Restraint Systems
National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation: Child Safety Seat Press Release
AAP CALLS FOR AN END TO LAP TRAVEL FOR CHILDREN ON PLANES
FAA - Child Safety Seats
Transport Canada Tips: Travelling With Children
Transport Canada FAQ: Infant Car Seats
Transport Canada Advisory Circular: Child Restraint Systems
There is also now a Minimum Performance Standard identified for the design and manufacture of CRS intended for use in transport aircraft. This MPS has been adopted by the FAA and included in TSO C100b.
This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) defines minimum performance standards and related qualification criteria for add-on child restraint systems (CRS) which provide protection for small children in passenger seats of transport category airplanes. The AS is not intended to provide design criteria that could be met only by an aircraft-specific CRS. The goal of this standard is to achieve child-occupant protection by specifying a dynamic test method and evaluation criteria for the performance of CRS under emergency landing conditions."
Performance Standard for Child Restraint Systems in Transport Category Airplanes
TSO-C100b ~ Child Restraint Systems (CRS)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your arms are just not capable of holding your child
Thanks for the work you put into all those links CD. A good read.
Best to pay for a seat for under twos and use your own approved child restraint system if the airline permits.
Failing that its lap held for take off and landing and use a loop belt during flight for unexpected turbulence. The general consensus is your arms are just not capable of holding your child securely, especially when turbulence is unexpected and that urestrained children are more at risk of injury than any other passenger restrained in his/her seat.
If you get a chance look up:
http://www.gwu.edu/~aviation/cabinsa...lencepaper.PDF
Cheers!
Best to pay for a seat for under twos and use your own approved child restraint system if the airline permits.
Failing that its lap held for take off and landing and use a loop belt during flight for unexpected turbulence. The general consensus is your arms are just not capable of holding your child securely, especially when turbulence is unexpected and that urestrained children are more at risk of injury than any other passenger restrained in his/her seat.
If you get a chance look up:
http://www.gwu.edu/~aviation/cabinsa...lencepaper.PDF
Cheers!
mostly harmless
I complained to Lufthansa about the lack of child (under 2) restraint. They wrote back to me that German law banned child seat belt extensions (presumably as a result of the German study referred to by CD). They also stated that they were working on a solution to improve child safety to adult levels.
In my view, Lufthansa probably could have some influence on German law.
In my view, Lufthansa probably could have some influence on German law.
