Allow babywearing carriers on planes
A proposal to let parents keep infants in soft “babywearing” carriers during takeoff and landing has sparked debate over aviation safety rules and risk tradeoffs. Commenters contrast the FAA’s current stance—which allows lap infants partly to avoid pushing families into more dangerous car travel—with evidence that neither arms nor typical carriers perform well in high‑G crash tests, and raise concerns about evacuation, projectiles, and liability. Many argue that the real safety gains lie in better-tested, standardized restraint systems and smarter, data-driven regulation rather than blanket bans that make flying with children unnecessarily difficult.
FAA lap-infant policy & “all things considered” reasoning
- Many praise FAA’s decision not to require separate seats/CRSs for infants, arguing higher ticket costs would push families to drive, which is statistically less safe per mile.
- Others are skeptical of the FAA’s math, cite criticism from NTSB and pediatric groups (per commenters), and question whether the safety benefit is meaningful in absolute numbers.
- Some note that if CO₂-related mortality is considered, car travel may be “safer” overall than increased flying; others say this kind of holistic accounting is inherently judgment-based.
- Suggestions outside FAA’s remit (subsidized infant seats, tougher driving laws, high‑speed rail) appear but are recognized as not something FAA/DOT can directly implement.
Babywearing carriers on planes
- Many parents report being forced to wake sleeping babies to remove soft carriers during takeoff/landing and find this rule pointless and harmful to travel experience.
- Others emphasize that FAs must enforce rules and noncompliance can escalate to removal from the plane or legal trouble, even if enforcement often seems inconsistent.
- Several argue adults routinely manage their own risk; they see banning babywearing in specific phases of flight as overreach.
Safety arguments: crush injuries, projectiles, and tests
- One line of argument: in a crash, infant in a soft carrier can suffer severe crush/spinal injuries from adult + belt forces; rigid seats can become dangerous projectiles or block egress if poorly secured.
- Others counter that serious crashes are rare; turbulence is more relevant, and any restraint is better than none. Some dismiss projectile risk compared to overhead bags, laptops, etc.
- An Australian sled-test report is cited: common infant carriers failed to restrain at 9G and could worsen outcomes. Critics note the missing comparison to a baby just held in arms.
- Evacuation concerns are raised: more complex straps, lack of muscle memory, and aisle blockage; others note airlines already restrict where car seats can be placed.
Existing child restraints & alternatives
- Certified rigid car seats are already allowed and widely used; installation on planes is simpler than in cars, though many misuse car seats generally.
- The CARES harness is an FAA‑approved option for small children but has mixed airline acceptance, especially outside the US.
- Some airlines provide bassinets and infant lap-belts; availability is limited, and bassinets fit only very young infants.
Broader tangents: security, travel modes, and regulation
- Thread digresses into airport security “theater” vs reduced terrorism, whether easier flying would shift travel from driving, and whether HSR would eventually acquire similar security.
- Other tangents: car-seat regulations possibly discouraging larger families, differences in car-seat safety standards (US vs European/ADAC), and general frustration with rulemaking that over-weights edge cases vs everyday convenience.