Infants and Air Travel: Should Child Seats Be Required?

Organizations urge child restraint requirement

In August, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) revisited Safety Recommendation A-95-51, which suggests that the FAA revise the Code of Federal Regulation (14 CFR) to require that all occupants be restrained during takeoff, landing, and turbulent conditions. The NTSB reports that the practice of infants being held rather than restrained dates back to the beginning of commercial air travel. In their August report, they state, "The infant exemption from a restraint requirement was initially granted out of practicality, since infants could not be properly restrained in existing aircraft seats." This is no longer the case. Many of the child restraint seats on the market today satisfy both vehicle and air travel. To ensure that a safety seat has received FAA approval, parents should look for a label reading: "This restraint is certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft."

In a policy statement dated November 2001, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) states: "Children should be afforded the same protection as other passengers. Restraint use in aircraft for children younger than two years should be mandatory during takeoff, landing, and conditions of turbulence." The AAP also encourages pediatricians to talk to families about safe air travel.

Both the National Safe Kids Campaign and the Association of Flight Attendants have also advocated the use of child restraint systems in aircraft. This leaves many parents in a quandary. If the use of a CRS is imperative to a child’s safety, why hasn’t it been made mandatory, and why haven’t the risks been emphasized?

Although the FAA encourages the use of child safety restraints in airplanes, it also argues that requiring parents to purchase a seat for their baby will force many (due to financial reasons) to divert to travel by car, which is more dangerous overall. This seems to be the most compelling argument. The FAA also argues that more adult passengers will be bumped due to an increased number of seats being occupied by children under two, and that costs associated with the CRS requirement will have to be absorbed by both the air carriers and the passengers.

Local parents weigh in

While governmental organizations continue to hash out their differences with statistical analyses and reports, parents are faced with making a personal decision about what to do with their baby while traveling by air. In the August report, the NTSB states: "The infrequency of large-scale fatal air carrier accidents in the United States, combined with an ongoing public image of air accidents as always catastrophic, may lead travelers to minimize the importance of passenger restraints. Accident data clearly show this perception to be incorrect, considering that between 1983 and 2000, more than 95 percent of occupants of aircraft involved in air carrier accidents survived." This leads one to consider those accidents where restrained passengers survived and non-restrained infant passengers did not. The AAP policy statement cites the 1987 crash in Denver, CO; the 1989 crash in Sioux City, IA; and the 1994 crash in Charlotte, NC.

Tracy MacQueen, a Glen Oaks resident and mother of two, chose to travel using a child restraint seat for her youngest daughter. "I used her car restraint seat," she says. "The airline told me that I would have to pay full fare for a seat by doing this. They said that I could opt to have her on my lap for free." MacQueen, a registered nurse, attributes her medical background to her awareness of the dangers associated with lap travel: "I know all of the dangers and I opted to do it regardless of being told to or not." She explains further, "I would have preferred that it be listed as a requirement, especially for those who are not aware of the safety issues."