Infant loop seat belts increase the risk of injury to a small child

[Sumatra]

I posted a few months back as I was amazed that airlines differed in their views on the effectiveness of infant 'loop belt' restraints.

I wrote to Lufthansa customer services and promised Pprune to post back their reply. I'm sorry but I cannot find the original thread to addd this reply.

Lufthansa Reply:

13.01.2006

Dear

Thank you for your comments on board LH631 on 06 November 2005 and your query concerning the provision of seatbelts for infants on board Lufthansa flights.

In contrast to other airlines, Lufthansa does not use these 'loop belts' for infants on board our flights because they offer meagre protection to the infant and infact increase the risk to a small child's life. This position is held by the Luftfahrtbundesamt (German aviation authority), U.S. Federal Aviation Authority and the statutory TUeV-Rheinland safety standards body.

In accordance with the JAA (EU Joint Aviation Authority) requirement for infant restraints on board flights, Lufthansa and Condor have been cooperating towards releasing a list of approved restraints for small children after extensive testing. A list will be released soon, although no specific publishing date has yet been named.

We hope this response explains our position satisfactorily. It is also with delight that we learned that you enjoyed all other aspects of your flights with us.

Thank you for choosing Lufthansa.

Yours sincerely,

Lufthansa German Airlines
Customer Relations Centre Europe


In my post to Pprune I was more troubled by the effectiveness of trying to hold an infant during sudden turbulence rather than an emergency landing although I didn't mention this in my note to Lufthansa.

Having to carry an approved car seat type restraint and paying for an extra seat (infants travel for 10% on adults lap) would really challenge a consumers perspective and they'd probably argue that loop belts have their place.

It was nice to receive such information from Lufthansa.

[BEagle]

"Ve just lock ze noisy little Schweinhunde into ein soundproof steel box und have it loaded into ze hold!"

If only......

[CD]

Thanks for the update, Sumatra.

[TightSlot]

Confused

Confused

Isn't Lufthansa bound by the JAR's - JAA regs?: From reading the previous thread, the JAR's specify the use of the loop restraint. German authorities may take a different view, but I'm surprised that the JAR's don't take precedence.

What LH appear to be saying is that they don't comply with the JAR's on this issue, but together with Condor, are working on being so? If this is so, then surely they are in breach of JAR's.

I've obviously missed something obvious here - can anyone clarify?

[CD]

Originally Posted by TightSlot

Isn't Lufthansa bound by the JAR's - JAA regs?: From reading the previous thread, the JAR's specify the use of the loop restraint. German authorities may take a different view, but I'm surprised that the JAR's don't take precedence.

What LH appear to be saying is that they don't comply with the JAR's on this issue, but together with Condor, are working on being so? If this is so, then surely they are in breach of JAR's.I've obviously missed something obvious here - can anyone clarify?

The JARs actually stand for Joint Airworthiness Requirements. They are not actual regulations unless they have been adopted by the various State's civil aviation authority. In the case of Germany, they suspended their adoption of JAR-OPS 1.320 and 1.730 as they determined through testing that the loop belt is an insufficient safety measure.

This is outlined in the report: Examination on the Enhancement of Cabin Safety for Infants.

Therefore, German operators do not use loop belts as the German civil aviation authority does not permit their use.

[TightSlot]

Thanks

Thanks CD - just to tax you again. Does this mean that EU carriers are free to pick and choose those JAR's that they are comfortable with and not adopt those that they disgree with. Surely you are either complaint with JAR or not (my company is) - you can't just pick the best bits from the menu?

[CD]

Originally Posted by TightSlot

Thanks CD - just to tax you again. Does this mean that EU carriers are free to pick and choose those JAR's that they are comfortable with and not adopt those that they disgree with. Surely you are either complaint with JAR or not (my company is) - you can't just pick the best bits from the menu?

Well, the simple answer to your question is No. Individual carriers do not have the option to pick and choose.

However, my understanding is that the individual national civil aviation authorities do still retain the ability to determine their own regulatory structure in some respects. The carriers of the individual nation must then comply with those regulations. In most cases, I believe that the majority of nations have adopted the JARs but there are some differences that have been filed, such as Germany with those two individual provisions.

The EU situation is going to get even more complex in the near future as the responsibility for Operations and Flight Crew Licensing is transferred to EASA. When EASA takes over, they will be publishing actual Regulations that all member states will have to comply with. But not all current members of the JAA are members of the EU so there will still be some differences floating around out there.

I don't know if this point of view has helped or not...

[TightSlot]

Doesn't sound an a typical state of affairs for Europe these days