Why you should never fly with a child in your lap
— -- Usually I consider it bad form to criticize another publication's advice, but when the issue at hand literally concerns life and death, then attention must be paid. For years now it's become apparent that many adults traveling with babies have no idea how dangerous it is to allow infants and toddlers to fly on commercial airline flights as "lap children." And two recent reports indicate some journalists don't get it either.
Example one concerns this column: Surviving a Flight with Your Baby or Toddler. This choice of the word "surviving" clearly was not meant to be ironic, yet the embedded advice was counter-intuitive: "While car seats aren't required for young children, the Federal Aviation Administration recommends buckling kids into child restraint systems or a car seat. Those parents who can afford to buy their children separate seats may find their babies or toddlers are more comfortable and likely to sleep in car seats than on their laps."
In the second instance, the editor of a new travel magazine recommended "strapping in first" before tending to your lap child when traveling with a baby.
Both articles should have unequivocally advised against carrying lap children. This issue is so important it needs to be stated very clearly. In fact, since this advice can save a life, it's worth stating in all caps: NEVER TAKE A BABY ONTO AN AIRPLANE WITHOUT A SAFETY SEAT.
Life-saving logic
Now you may find yourself asking: If the Federal Aviation Administration and the airlines don't require babies to travel in child safety seats, how harmful can it be to carry them as lap children? Well, actually the government agency tasked with ensuring our safety in the air has acknowledged the inherent danger of small children flying without safety seats. Here are the FAA's own words on the matter: "Did you know the safest place for your little one during turbulence or an emergency is an approved child restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap? ... FAA strongly urges parents and guardians to secure children in an appropriate restraint based on weight and size. Keeping a child in a CRS or device during the flight is the smart and right thing to do."
For many years, other experts have strongly concurred:
• As far back as the 1980s, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated: "An unrestrained passenger of any age faces a higher risk of death or injury in a survivable crash or severe turbulence than passengers who are strapped into safety seats or belts."
• The Association of Flight Attendants noted in 2004: "AFA does not believe that allowing a child under two to be held on the lap affords the child the same protections as the other passengers. For that reason AFA has advocated for the use of child restraints during takeoff, landing, and turbulence for 15 years. After all, per the Federal Aviation Regulations, everything onboard an airplane must be secured or properly stowed for takeoff, landing, and often during flight, except children under two years old."
• In 2001, the National Air Disaster Alliance called on the U.S. Department of Transportation, the FAA, and President Bush to approve an Emergency Order to "protect our children" on commercial flights. NADA pointed out: "Child restraint seats have been required since 1982 for children traveling in cars, traveling at 50-60 mph, a fraction of the 500-mph flight speed; and child restraint seats have long been required for all children on military flights."
Perhaps the most convincing arguments have come from the National Transportation Safety Board. As the result of several incidents and accidents in which lap babies were injured or killed, back in May 1999 the NTSB added mandatory child safety seats to its "Most Wanted" list of improvements being sought from the FAA. The two agencies debated the issue for years, and the NTSB eventually removed the request from its wish list in November 2006, even though that wish was never fulfilled.
So why hasn't the FAA required children under two to travel in restraint devices? The answer is it has to do with cost—the cost you would have to pay the airline for a seat to contain that device.
In August 2005, the FAA issued a public statement on why it would not mandate safety seats: "Analyses showed that, if forced to purchase an extra airline ticket, families might choose to drive, a statistically more dangerous way to travel. The risk for fatalities and injuries to families is significantly greater on the roads than in airplanes, according to the FAA. [In 2004] nearly 43,000 people died on America's highways as compared to 13 on commercial flights. 'Statistics show that families are safer traveling in the sky than on the road,' said FAA Administrator Marion Blakey."
You read that right. The thinking is that a condition known to be unsafe—allowing babies and small children to sit in the laps of adults on commercial aircraft—is acceptable because it is the lesser of two evils. According to the FAA, kids would be in more danger strapped into cars, where safety seats are required by law, because driving is more dangerous than flying (for the record, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agreed with the FAA's decision). What wasn't adequately addressed, however, is:
• Evidence that a statistically significant number of families would choose to drive rather than pay for an additional seat
• Evidence that a statistically significant number of families would alter their travel plans
• An analysis of routes in which flying is less expensive than driving
By this logic, if seat belts and air bags increase the cost of automobiles, then these safety devices should be removed from cars to prevent parents and babies from traveling the highways on bicycles.
In a lengthy analysis published in 2004, the NTSB disagreed with the FAA: "Basing the evaluation of relative worth of a requirement for appropriate child restraints solely on the number of historic injuries and deaths overlooks the fact that every lap-held child traveler lacks adequate protection."
Whether you agree or disagree with the FAA's decision, it is what it is, and the airline industry adheres to it by not requiring safety seats (a rundown on the major carriers' policies is at left). So if the government and the airlines won't mandate safety for small children, it's up to every parent and caregiver in the country to mandate it on their own.
Cruel laws of physics
I know what you may be thinking. You're the child's caregiver. You love that little one more than anything in the world. You'd stand in front of an onrushing locomotive or walk through fire for that child. So of course you would hold on for dear life in an airborne emergency.
Well, unless you're from the planet Krypton, the simple fact is you can't.
The NTSB stated as much in its 2004 analysis: "Both laboratory testing and real-world accidents have proven that under high load force events when restraint is most important, arm strength is not sufficient to protect even a small child." That's because commercial aircraft are designed to withstand tremendous g-forces, but humans are not. And therefore a 25-pound baby could easily weigh three or four times that amount when you're struggling to hold onto it during an emergency, let alone dealing with impact, smoke or fire. You wouldn't climb the side of a sheer mountain with your baby in one arm and a pick ax in the other, yet the G-forces in that situation are many times less than in a pressurized airplane moving at .82 mach, or four-fifths the speed of sound. In addition, a baby strapped inside your own seat belt can easily be crushed by your weight during an emergency.
Unfortunately, these laws of physics have been proven time and again, in the most heartbreaking of circumstances. In several cases, lap children have been seriously injured and killed in accidents that were survivable. There also are documented cases—including a flight near Puerto Rico in 1990—in which lap children were the only serious injuries when a commercial aircraft encountered severe turbulence. These are sobering findings that can make any parent's chest constrict. But the stakes couldn't be higher, so it's critical that all those who are traveling with small children understand the gravity of their decisions.
The 1989 crash landing of United Airlines Flight 232 near Sioux City, Iowa was particularly illuminating. The NTSB's accident report noted there were four lap children on the airplane (one of whom was 26 months old), and as per procedure, when the passengers were instructed to brace for impact, the cabin crew told the parents to place those four babies on the floor. The report stated: "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." Tragically, the boy who had been held in seat 22E died of asphyxia secondary to smoke inhalation. That accident report included a recommendation from the NTSB that the FAA make child restraint systems mandatory.
In 2004, the chief flight attendant from Flight 232 testified at an NTSB Advocacy Briefing and described how she issued the instructions about placing those babies on the cabin floor. Jan Lohr stated: "We are required to secure all items from carry-on bags to galley items, including coffee pots, to comply with regulations aimed at ensuring safety onboard the aircraft. We do this because we are trained that in an emergency loose items can become missiles flying through the cabin. A lap child is one of those 'loose items' in the cabin that may not only suffer serious injury themselves but also injure others. Is this allowable exception truly creating a safe cabin environment? ... When preparing the cabin for an emergency, flight attendants should not have to look a parent in the eye and instruct them to continue to hold the lap child when we know there is a very real possibility that child may not survive without proper restraints."
Jan Lohr, who suffered the anguish of being confronted by the mother of the child in seat 22E at the accident scene after the child perished, summed up her testimony by saying: "No parent should find out in this way that holding a child on a lap is unsafe."
Confronting realities
Let's be clear: The best way to ensure your baby or small child will be safe while flying is to strap him or her into a safety seat. Is it a guarantee against injury or death? Of course not. But the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
What this means, of course, is that you need to purchase a seat for every member of your traveling party, regardless of age or size. There was a time not too long ago when you could be fairly certain of a nearby empty seat, so even without purchasing a ticket, you could bring a safety device onboard and the cabin staff would allow you to occupy an adjoining seat. But with passenger load factors at all-time highs, we all know the days of stretching out next to an empty middle seat are long gone.
Therefore the only solution is to buy a seat for anyone under two. Can that pose a financial hardship? No question. And I'm not ashamed to say that when my finances were squeezed and I couldn't afford to buy two round-trip seats, I passed on taking my son on several trips. Thankfully, some carriers — particularly Southwest Airlines — make it easier by offering discounted tickets for infants and kids. But if the FAA or the airlines won't say it, you need to say it yourself: If a trip is too expensive for a child's seat, then that's a trip that shouldn't be taken.
Many of us are old enough to remember when seat belts in cars were still an option, if not a novelty. Since I'm the youngest in a very large family, I spent the first decade of my life viewing the world from the third seats of several station wagons. At times, however, we folded those seats and stretched out as if playing Twister at highway speeds. That would be unthinkable now. Hopefully, within a short time, we'll view flying with small children as lap passengers in the same way. It was done once, but it's a nostalgic custom that needs to end. For good.
Bill McGee, a contributing editor to Consumer Reports and the former editor of Consumer Reports Travel Letter, is an FAA-licensed aircraft dispatcher who worked in airline operations and management for several years. Tell him what you think of his latest column by sending him an e-mail at travel@usatoday. Include your name, hometown and daytime phone number, and he may use your feedback in a future column.