United787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2344 posts, RR: 1 Posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4776 times:
My wife and I took our 10 week old baby on her first flight. The question is simple, why does the FAA prohibit the use of a baby carrier such as a Baby Bjorn during takeoff and landing? It made us very upset because we thought it would be safer. God forbid there be some kind of emergency, it would keep the baby strapped to us rather than becoming a projectile and if we did need to exit the aircraft, you can just unbuckle yourself and get up and go. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this?
BTW, we flew on UA from ORD to MCO on a 752 and were upgraded to First thanks to my wife's premier status. The service was outstanding, the food was good and the seats were very comfortable. The upgrade made our first flight with our first child so easy, thank you United! Thanks also for the warm cookies and cold milk!
nws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 781 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4657 times:
Simple answer...because it has not been tested and approved for use as a restraint device by the FAA.
The manufacturer probably doesn't want to incur the costs associated with such approval, and I doubt it would pass anyways. The only reason the FAA/DOT allows lap children at all is to prevent more parents from driving.
CharlieNoble From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4581 times:
Quoting nws2002 (Reply 1): Simple answer...because it has not been tested and approved for use as a restraint device by the FAA.
The manufacturer probably doesn't want to incur the costs associated with such approval, and I doubt it would pass anyways. The only reason the FAA/DOT allows lap children at all is to prevent more parents from driving.
Absolutely asinine logically, isn't it? You can hold onto a baby with your untested and uncertified arms, but if you want to use those same arms while also having the baby STRAPPED to you the strapping mechanism would have to be tested and certified.
It's obvious that the baby's actual survivability in a crash is not the issue here. As NWS2002 said, it's about how they are statistically less likely to suffer a catastrophic event on an airliner than on the road. And product liability concerns in the case of the Bjorn.
I imagine many parents couldn't hold onto a lap baby in a 9G deceleration.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4439 times:
One reason may be that the adult with the child strapped to his/her chest might not be able to fit through the over wing emergency exits.
SNLH From Belgium, joined Aug 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4374 times:
Wouldn't the baby also be squeezed when the impact of the crash pushed the parent towards their knees and thus squeezing the baby ?
I remember an air crash investigation episode on natgeo where the FA was very happy there was no crash because she told the mother to put the baby on the floor as that was their procedure.
signol From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 2948 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4320 times:
We've flown a lot with our son, now 19 months old. Some airlines require us to use a baby seatbelt, that attaches him to one of us, whereas other airlines prohibit this, saying that in the event of an incident it is better for the baby to be more "flexible" by being held in the parents' arms...
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2344 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2010, 30 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 2948 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
