The first rule of problem solving:
23 air carrier accident reports of lap-held infants since 1970 indicated the following injuries would probably have been prevented by a child restraint system:
PPT Slide
Chronological history of child restraint in aircraft according to Dick Chandler
History, continued:
History, continued
1981 - NHTSA objects to FAA TSO, wants FAA to accept seats that meet only NHTSA standards
History, continued (but on a different track):
History, continued (still on the different track):
Diversion ?
Children weighing less than 40 pounds
If the traveler must provide a CRS -
If the airline must provide the CRS -
Maybe we need a different approach. Consider: 1. Aircraft are not automobiles. 2. There are other ways, besides the automobile CRS, to provide good protection against injury in an aircraft crash or turbulence. 3. A mandate that all occupants be restrained in an aircraft need not mandate the use of automobile CRS. 4. If we do mandate that all occupants be restrained in an aircraft, we should continue to allow parents to use their CRS. 5. Then, if they bring the CRS, they can be seated wherever the CRS is allowed.
6. If parents don’t bring CRS for their children, they would all be seated in the rear of the aircraft in rear-facing adult passenger seats.
This approach has several advantages: - it is simple and would work - child restraints in rear facing adult seats don’t carry high crash loads. The cushioned seat back will do the job, and distribute the load in an optimum manner. A baby belly belt might even be enough for positioning the child and for turbulence. - those parents and children would (typically) be near a lavatory, floor level emergency exits, and possibly a galley, for their convenience - with many airlines, they would board first, and have more time to get settled
Home Page: ../Presentations.htm