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?
> 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?
Aren't airlines responsible for the well-being of everyone on a plane? That seems like it kind of goes with the territory of charging money for hurtling people across the sky in a giant metal box.
I think this is ill-phrased, but true. It isn't about being responsible for wellbeing, it is about legal liability in case of accidents.
If you (as the airline) did what the rules where that everybody else follows and the FAA mandates and the baby dies you can argue you did everything correctly and the rules are at fault.
If you however go your own special, non-FAA-approved solution, typically the burden of proof that this special solution is at least up to par with existing certified standards is on you, the airline and if a baby dies it is on you alone to defend that solution.
Meaning from the standpoint of an airline there is not a lot to gain, but much to lose if they do things outside established standards.
This may sound idiotic, but it also prevents other "creative" solutions where airlines sacrifice safety willingly to spend less money.
I don't disagree with that. To me, that implies that there should be better established standards. The parent comment described some of the mechanisms, but stopped short of suggesting that they become standard, which I think is why I was sort of confused.
>This may sound idiotic, but it also prevents other "creative" solutions where airlines sacrifice safety willingly to spend less money.
Everyone loves to say this from the comfort of their arm chair somewhere in an ivory tower but literally every aviation and adjacent workplace has a phrase to the tune of "here we cut stupid corners, cutting smart ones is illegal"
Which is to say, the do-gooders in their infinite wisdom have blocked progress on various axis, some of them no-brainers, some of them the most reasonable ones, because once upon a time someone took it too far and something happened. So all investigation of where to save money, where to find improvement, etc, etc, happens on axis of optimization that are frequently absurd. This is where most of the "creative" solutions you deride come from.
> because once upon a time someone took it too far and something happened.
It's easier to accept red tape once you follow "something happened" down to the idiots who "took it too far". Progress is blocked along the axes your fuckups have access to, end of story.
If you don't like red tape quit playing grab-ass around heavy machinery.
>It's easier to accept red tape once you follow "something happened" down to the idiots who "took it too far". Progress is blocked along the axes your fuckups have access to, end of story. If you don't like red tape quit playing grab-ass around heavy machinery.
<sigh> This is exactly the sort of sneering smugness that makes people rightly hate the safety guy and you are a bad person for as long as you continue to engage in it.
Well I did not say this was a good thing. But if your FAA is the deciding factor and there is something airlines want, the naturally occurring thought would be that airplane manufacturers, airlines and the regulators came together to decide on the future of these regulations, always with the premise that the future should be safer and more comfortable than the present.
And such bodies do exist, e.g. the ARAC (Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee) or specially formed ARCs (Aviation Rulemaking Committees). Whether they are capable of producing the desired innovation or if not, why, I can't tell.
areoform · · focus · HN ↗
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?
saghm · · focus · HN ↗
Aren't airlines responsible for the well-being of everyone on a plane? That seems like it kind of goes with the territory of charging money for hurtling people across the sky in a giant metal box.
atoav · · focus · HN ↗
If you (as the airline) did what the rules where that everybody else follows and the FAA mandates and the baby dies you can argue you did everything correctly and the rules are at fault.
If you however go your own special, non-FAA-approved solution, typically the burden of proof that this special solution is at least up to par with existing certified standards is on you, the airline and if a baby dies it is on you alone to defend that solution.
Meaning from the standpoint of an airline there is not a lot to gain, but much to lose if they do things outside established standards.
This may sound idiotic, but it also prevents other "creative" solutions where airlines sacrifice safety willingly to spend less money.
saghm · · focus · HN ↗
cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
Everyone loves to say this from the comfort of their arm chair somewhere in an ivory tower but literally every aviation and adjacent workplace has a phrase to the tune of "here we cut stupid corners, cutting smart ones is illegal"
Which is to say, the do-gooders in their infinite wisdom have blocked progress on various axis, some of them no-brainers, some of them the most reasonable ones, because once upon a time someone took it too far and something happened. So all investigation of where to save money, where to find improvement, etc, etc, happens on axis of optimization that are frequently absurd. This is where most of the "creative" solutions you deride come from.
gopher_space · · focus · HN ↗
It's easier to accept red tape once you follow "something happened" down to the idiots who "took it too far". Progress is blocked along the axes your fuckups have access to, end of story.
If you don't like red tape quit playing grab-ass around heavy machinery.
cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
<sigh> This is exactly the sort of sneering smugness that makes people rightly hate the safety guy and you are a bad person for as long as you continue to engage in it.
atoav · · focus · HN ↗
And such bodies do exist, e.g. the ARAC (Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee) or specially formed ARCs (Aviation Rulemaking Committees). Whether they are capable of producing the desired innovation or if not, why, I can't tell.