- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
What’s does that mean?
Flight attendants union asking for an end to lap infants
- Thread starter y_p_w
- Start date
If it feels like the plane drops 100 feet in an instant that feels severe to me. Not sure what the pilots think.
Self loading cargo/baggage = passengers
We have an easy test:
Coffee spills out of cup - light.
Coffee cup comes off table - moderate.
Coffee cup hits ceiling - severe.
I feel like there's a joke somewhere in here, where you compare high G / sudden movement changes between commercial aircraft and your prior Naval fighter life...
Would fighter pilots ever complain about flying through high turbulence? And is it similar between the aircraft? [total thread drift, sorry.]
Turbulence doesn’t bother me.
That said, for the safety of my cabin crew, I am very conservative in trying to avoid it, and I’m asking them to be seated when I anticipate it.
I’ve got a five point harness.
They’re usually up and walking around.
I do my best to find a smooth ride, and more importantly, to keep everyone safe.
That said, for the safety of my cabin crew, I am very conservative in trying to avoid it, and I’m asking them to be seated when I anticipate it.
I’ve got a five point harness.
They’re usually up and walking around.
I do my best to find a smooth ride, and more importantly, to keep everyone safe.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
You haven’t flown through severe turbulence or you would have read about it.
Its very rare to fly through it.
I have never flown through it and same with any FO I fly with.
I have being flying a long time ( particularly hours ).
That said, I have been in the area where other flights ( not a severe tub forecast, an actual plane experienced it ) reported it. This doesn’t happen very often ( me anyways ).
Once we get a Pirep like that , we must avoid that area. It’s very specific.
Don’t worry about it but keep your seat belt on when seated.
Don't know about turbulence, but I remember going to an air show once and winds were maybe 40-50 MPH and swirling everywhere. I asked some USAF guy there if it might stop the show, but he said that it wasn't even a particularly windy day. Apparently it didn't phase the Thunderbirds and keep them from flying in close formation. That was the same show (I didn't witness it) where Eddie Andreini grounded his Stearman while inverted and died after it caught on fire.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
Fighters have higher wing loading.
So, during my many risk management/risk assessment courses I've been through, this usually has come up as an example. I'd have to do some digging, but the basis is that requiring a purchased seat for an infant would make a certain number of families that would otherwise fly make the decision to drive. Injuries or deaths on commercial aviation are just so incredibly rare per passenger mile, that the slight increase of people deciding to drive, even if the child were properly restrained in a car seat, would result in more child deaths.
The safety of a child riding in the lap of a parent on a commercial airliner is as close to 100% assured as they will be at any time in their life.
The safety of a child riding in the lap of a parent on a commercial airliner is as close to 100% assured as they will be at any time in their life.
It's not a perfect parallel but this issue reminds me of the argument for/against school busses having seatbelts. It's not a great parallel, as planes don't have to share skies with distracted pilots, but I have to to wonder, if the FAA isn't doing similar risk analysis to come up with their recommendations.
Having not read the FAA reports, findings, discussions, etc I'm not qualified to weigh in, but do wonder if it's not a similar thought process. And unlike the school bus conundrum, flying parents always have the option of buying "extra" tickets and lugging a child seat. [I felt bad, the one time we flew, made it almost to the end--before our daughter upchucked. At least she was pretty well behaved, right until the bitter end.]
I am having hard time following your “reasoning.” So, did FAA suppose to let Boeing killing people until they go out of business? Do you like to have DOT on your tires? Maybe we should pay ATC people $17 per hour?
Government and people are same thing. Definition of institutions is that it is relationship between people. That is it.
Boeing MAX is classic example what happens when regulation is minimized.
346 people died, and your idea is: let them learn, because that is how my kid learned how to ride a bike.
I always wondered about it, and even today I kind of wonder when I get into a bus. I've yet to find any kind of public transit bus where there were seatbelts except maybe for the driver. There have been claims that the large interior reduces the danger, but I'm not sure how. I've heard of crashes where passengers dies when they went through windows. New school buses are mandated to have seat belts. I saw this when I rode on school buses made available for remote parking lots. Some were older ones without belts and some were the newer ones. Still - those bench style seats are really awkward with seatbelts. They had slots right in the bench backs. It's hard to center properly without a bucket seat.
But still - all airline passengers have belts now. Still - the one thing I remember from years ago were rear facing seats. I think some Southwest setups had that, and I'm sure that Alaska had that at one time. Rear facing is supposedly very safe, especially without the possibility of jackknifing with a lap belt.
At least for school buses, the argument was that the kids would use them to slap each other silly. Or not use them properly. What was the driver to do, get up and walk the aisle after picking up each and every kid? Then there was the cost of adding. Finally, being a really big object, school buses tend not to come to sudden stops. And tend not to be in accidents. Risk/reward ratio wasn’t there, or so went the argument. Put in big padded seats, in unlikely case they get bounced around in the unlikely event of an accident, and hope for the best.
Unless using the bathroom I keep buckled up.
The perception of the severity of turbulence might be gauged by how the flight attendants react. On one US airline which I won’t mention the name of here, they will stop service at the smallest bump. On one flight with this airline it became late in the flight for me so I ate nutrition bars that I had packed and then fell asleep. This was a 12 hour flight. Apparently the attendant opened my tray table and set my meal up while I was sleeping. It sat there for the duration until they figured out that I wasn’t going to eat, then they took it back.
Other airlines will stop service as well but with this particular airline all it took was a small bump.
Other airlines will stop service as well but with this particular airline all it took was a small bump.
That is the same airline whose pilots are always complaining about turbulence.
I’ve heard other pilots ask ATC,
“Is that a report of actual moderate or Delta moderate?”
That is the same airline whose pilots are always complaining about turbulence.
I’ve heard other pilots ask ATC,
“Is that a report of actual moderate or Delta moderate?”
It wasn’t Delta.
JHZR2
Staff member
When we have done it, there’s a full body to body harness (ergo baby) that holds the baby to mom. Frankly, holding a baby loose around any place (plane, airport terminal, security) is silly. If you gate check a stroller, you may not need to carry baby everywhere, but rolling a stroller in the airport has its own drawbacks. You don’t hold baby in the harness the whole flight, but if there was turbulence or sleep, that harness is on, and far more robust than the airplane seatbelt.
Given that any time the kids are awake, we want to engage them, not just let them be plastered to screens or locked in a seat, this works. We have brought child/infant seats onboard and nickeled them in on many cases too. But it too has limitations and drawbacks.
Assuming that air travel is substantially safer than vehicle travel, and at least in my 750k+ miles in the air (AA says I’m at 565k miles and I have a few hundred k at other carriers), I’ve only had one turbulence event that I truly feared that my beverage would lift off the tray… it seems like the calculus is somewhat different than say, driving.
But had lap infants been banned, our decisions would have changed to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars not paid for flying over the last ten or so years.
If flying is safe, then it’s safe. If sensors are better every day, then that’s so. Yes, the fluke thing can happen but I’m also paying for qualified pilots and crew to avoid that.
Anyway, it has worked for us, overseas, cross country, all over. Many times. But it’s not without planning and inclusion of harnessing equipment.
Similar threads
