‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Allow babywearing carriers on planes

202 points · 277 comments · surprisetalk

  1. areoform · · 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. jefftk · · focus · HN ↗
      > a poorly secured rigid baby carrier seat becomes a potentially lethal projectile

      Rigid carriers are already permitted on planes, as long as they're FAA approved (which many are). You attach them with the seatbelt, and the flight attendants check.

      What I'm proposing in this post is that the FAA not require parents to remove lab infants from babywearing carriers.

      1. mbreese · · focus · HN ↗
        From the comments here, many people don’t get the difference. If you’ve never flown with a kid, there is a nuance that is easy to miss.

        I was going to make a comment earlier about how my kids travelled in car seats years ago before I realized you were talking about lap kids without their own seat.

        1. jefftk · · focus · HN ↗
          Any suggestions on how I might clean up the wording? Currently I have: "In fact, one specific place where I'd like to see this thinking applied is adjacent to this rule: babywearing carriers on planes."
          1. schiffern · · focus · HN ↗
            Maybe just include an example picture/diagram?
          2. jollyllama · · focus · HN ↗
            This. The web page title should be "Allow Babywearing on Planes"
            1. jefftk · · focus · HN ↗
              Good idea! Changed "Carriers" to "Babywearing Carriers"
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.