Thread

1. areoform · 1790346680 · focus · HN ↗

   There is a deeper issue, in a crash, a poorly secured rigid baby carrier seat becomes a potentially lethal projectile. Worst comes to worst, today, the projectile is an infant. An infant is substantially softer and less massive than a rigid seat containing an infant.

   For soft babywearing carriers, the outlook is also grim. The kinematics of the baby, adult, carrier and airplane seat lead to crush injuries that are worse than the poorly restrained arm hold version.

   Could there be a solution here that straps around a seat to give babies a safe seat?

   Yes, but it wouldn't necessarily be easy to use or consumer friendly. The ideal solution would have the baby with their back facing front, and the attached carrier facing inwards towards the seat. It would have to be carefully specced and tested so no unverified, third-party seats... Logically extrapolated, in this scenario, the airline becomes responsible for the baby's wellbeing. And I don't think that's a good place for the airlines to be?

   1. lkbm · 1790347411 · focus · HN ↗

      Not sure how much we need to optimize for this. Plane crashes are rare. I'm happy to risk a baby seat crashing into me if my plane crashes if it means the 99.99987% of the flights are slightly better.

      1. p_l · 1790347799 · focus · HN ↗

         The math is more that benefits aren't that great and the dangers are pretty big, especially if someone fails to properly secure the carrier and you get a rejected takeoff

         1. fn-mote · 1790349108 · focus · HN ↗

            Really? Flight staff are checking to make sure everyone wears a seatbelt. Check the carriers, too. Seems like a non-issue.

            What parent in their right mind is bothering to bring a baby carrier and can’t manage to secure it?

            1. drdexebtjl · 1790349569 · focus · HN ↗

               You would be surprised.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.