3 ms·

This seems like it could be solved with a restraint for the baby. Like one of those baby carriers that parents wear with the baby resting against the parent’s c

This seems like it could be solved with a restraint for the baby. Like one of those baby carriers that parents wear with the baby resting against the parent’s chest. They don’t necessarily need to keep the baby in there for the whole flight but when the seatbelt light comes on the baby should be safely restrained.

SkyMarshal 4y ago
Exactly my first thought too. Seems like a simple enough solution that protects the baby without requiring purchasing a second seat.
shric 4y ago
Just speculating... airplane seatbelts don't restrain the torso of the adult, so any strong forward motion could potentially injure or kill the baby restrained in such a manner?
- chongli 4y ago
  Well that would have to be included: a shoulder belt as part of the system. This would keep the parent’s body from pitching forward and harming the baby. It wouldn’t need to be on every seat. It could be something extra they attach to your seat when you bring your baby on board.
  - _s 4y ago
    Car-styled seatbelts with shoulder restraints already exist in newer business class seats. The shoulder but detaches too so you only have a lap belt when lying down.
- dymk 4y ago
  A critical function of a seatbelt is to protect others in the cabin from a flying body tumbling about, in addition to being protecting the person buckled up.
____a 4y ago
The irony is today you literally have to take a baby out of those carriers for take off and landing, but can have them in it at other times on the plane. That said, there might be a way to make a new type of carrier that is safer.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  This is mentioned in the article. The concern appears to be that a baby strapped to your chest will shoot out of the carrier (not clear how), not that it will be damaged by getting squished between your chest and your lap: > The couple also secured Avalee-Rose in a carrier worn like a chest pack. “That felt safer because she was always on me, strapped in,” said Ejmont, whose family of five is based in Australia and spends about half the year traveling. But like the bassinet, the airline requires parents to remove their babies during certain maneuvers and conditions. > Hoffman warns that the carrier is not foolproof, especially during severe turbulence. “The child can slip out of it because of all of that force. A plane that falls 4,000 feet in seconds — that’s like being shot out of a cannon.[1] A front pack is not going to do the same as a car seat.” The obvious solution would appear to be: 1. Get rid of the rule that prohibits these carriers. 2. Look into what it takes for a harness to prevent something strapped into it from suddenly coming unstrapped. [1] It's not clear to me what Hoffman might mean here. Falling doesn't exert any force. Force is needed to stop falling, but you have a lot of discretion over how that occurs.
snapplebobapple 4y ago
I agree, if you spend all my money i bet you can find a safer solution.

SkyMarshal 4y ago

Exactly my first thought too. Seems like a simple enough solution that protects the baby without requiring purchasing a second seat.

shric 4y ago

Just speculating... airplane seatbelts don't restrain the torso of the adult, so any strong forward motion could potentially injure or kill the baby restrained in such a manner?

chongli 4y ago
Well that would have to be included: a shoulder belt as part of the system. This would keep the parent’s body from pitching forward and harming the baby. It wouldn’t need to be on every seat. It could be something extra they attach to your seat when you bring your baby on board.
- _s 4y ago
  Car-styled seatbelts with shoulder restraints already exist in newer business class seats. The shoulder but detaches too so you only have a lap belt when lying down.
dymk 4y ago
A critical function of a seatbelt is to protect others in the cabin from a flying body tumbling about, in addition to being protecting the person buckled up.

____a 4y ago

The irony is today you literally have to take a baby out of those carriers for take off and landing, but can have them in it at other times on the plane. That said, there might be a way to make a new type of carrier that is safer.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
This is mentioned in the article. The concern appears to be that a baby strapped to your chest will shoot out of the carrier (not clear how), not that it will be damaged by getting squished between your chest and your lap: > The couple also secured Avalee-Rose in a carrier worn like a chest pack. “That felt safer because she was always on me, strapped in,” said Ejmont, whose family of five is based in Australia and spends about half the year traveling. But like the bassinet, the airline requires parents to remove their babies during certain maneuvers and conditions. > Hoffman warns that the carrier is not foolproof, especially during severe turbulence. “The child can slip out of it because of all of that force. A plane that falls 4,000 feet in seconds — that’s like being shot out of a cannon.[1] A front pack is not going to do the same as a car seat.” The obvious solution would appear to be: 1. Get rid of the rule that prohibits these carriers. 2. Look into what it takes for a harness to prevent something strapped into it from suddenly coming unstrapped. [1] It's not clear to me what Hoffman might mean here. Falling doesn't exert any force. Force is needed to stop falling, but you have a lot of discretion over how that occurs.

snapplebobapple 4y ago

I agree, if you spend all my money i bet you can find a safer solution.