Landing Incident @ SFO

Status
Not open for further replies.
drunkenbeagle said:
There is a reason it is allowed. If it required buying a seat, more children would die in car crashes than would be saved from aircraft accidents, because families are price sensitive.

Hard to be in favor of a rule that kills kids.

When it is your own kid, buy them a ticket and a good safety seat.
Click to expand...


+1
Additionally, you get priority boarding to set the safety seat up and now you have to pay for that anyways, might be a wash.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
When it is your own kid, buy them a ticket and a good safety seat.
Click to expand...

I do. Knowing what types of G forces are involved and even a minor heavy landing or deceleration, I never even give a second thought to the idea of holding a child on the lap.

Personally, I don't think that should be allowed, And not just for the safety of the child, but for everyone else. Objects unsecured in the cabin (like lap children) become 60 pound projectiles that can injure, maim, or kill other passengers in the cockpit when those deceleration forces occur.
 
Hacker15e said:
Personally, I don't think that should be allowed, And not just for the safety of the child, but for everyone else. Objects unsecured in the cabin (like lap children) become 60 pound projectiles that can injure, maim, or kill other passengers in the cockpit when those deceleration forces occur.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world, sure. Letting emotion come before facts rarely improves safety though, which is why it has not happened.

Pricing free seats into the cost of tickets would be the best way to solve the infant-in-arms problem. I would be all for that. I am guessing the air lines would not be.
 
A few more off the NTSB site:

BOmrpDcCUAAUOxw.jpg:large


BOmr2MGCEAAmew6.jpg:large


BOmrxRcCIAAebKG.jpg:large
 
drunkenbeagle said:
In a perfect world, sure. Letting emotion come before facts rarely improves safety though, which is why it has not happened.

Pricing free seats into the cost of tickets would be the best way to solve the infant-in-arms problem. I would be all for that. I am guessing the air lines would not be.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was a factor in the decision-making, but a statistician claimed that making passengers buy seats for infants would result in more infant deaths as it would result in more travel by car. I think it might have been in Freakonomics. If true, would support your free seat idea.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I don't think it was a factor in the decision-making, but a statistician claimed that making passengers buy seats for infants would result in more infant deaths as it would result in more travel by car. I think it might have been in Freakonomics. If true, would support your free seat idea.
Click to expand...
Was it in Freakonomics? It sounds like something made up by somebody who read that book...
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I don't think it was a factor in the decision-making, but a statistician claimed that making passengers buy seats for infants would result in more infant deaths as it would result in more travel by car. I think it might have been in Freakonomics. If true, would support your free seat idea.
Click to expand...

Decided well before that, but I think that it was an example in that book.

Putting 20 airbags in cars and making them weigh 5 tons makes them safer, but doesn't save lives if no one can afford to buy them.
 
Jafari RastaMan said:
Was it in Freakonomics? It sounds like something made up by somebody who read that book...
Click to expand...

No nothing made up. Freakonomics has talked about it in a Podcast, but it was a reference to the DOT who decided the infant was safer in an airplane than by car, so if you make the infant's seat free, he's less likely to die from an accident. Usually this is right before they start talking about "unintended consequences" or "how statistics don't always make good decisions". Anyway, the DOT is quoted often for their help in this whole infant decision.

PS. Been a long time since I read the book though, could be in there too.
 
jynxyjoe said:
No nothing made up. Freakonomics has talked about it in a Podcast, but it was a reference to the DOT who decided the infant was safer in an airplane than by car, so if you make the infant's seat free, he's less likely to die from an accident. Usually this is right before they start talking about "unintended consequences" or "how statistics don't always make good decisions". Anyway, the DOT is quoted often for their help in this whole infant decision.

PS. Been a long time since I read the book though, could be in there too.
Click to expand...
Ahh..ok, I dont listen to the podcast. Its also been a while since I read the book, so I could be mistaken. It just seems difficult to make a claim like that and there would be a lot of variables..
 
Jafari RastaMan said:
Ahh..ok, I dont listen to the podcast. Its also been a while since I read the book, so I could be mistaken. It just seems difficult to make a claim like that and there would be a lot of variables..
Click to expand...

I just did a search of both freakonomic books I have and neither mention the study. I can't even find the original reasoning from the FAA (With the help of the airlines I'm sure) which was printed long ago. I want to say this was clear back in '78 or something like that.
 
My airline has a seat belt that attaches to the parents seat belt for lap children. It's not perfect but it is something..
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Decided well before that, but I think that it was an example in that book.

Putting 20 airbags in cars and making them weigh 5 tons makes them safer, but doesn't save lives if no one can afford to buy them.
Click to expand...

Safer in a collision, and statistically more likely to be unable to avoid a collision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top