The question of whether child seats should be required in airliners has been around for a number of decades.
The FAA does not require child seats based on a concept known as “diversion.” If child seat use is required, parents will have to pay for their young children, but the young child flys for free when held on the parent’s lap. To avoid this added cost, the family will “divert” and drive, which is much less safe than flying resulting in more people being killed and injured.
1) Diversion does not say every family will drive. Even if a small number divert (say 5%), FAA’s analysis showed that for every life saved by requiring child seats in airlines, there would be 60 additional lives (counting both the young child as well as siblings and parents) lost in auto crashes. The FAA, DOT, and NHTSA have repeated these analyses several times and always come to the same conclusion. A child safety seat mandate results in increased fatalities and injuries, and as a result, the FAA and DOT have refused to require the use of child restraints.
2) The FAA does not dispute the safety benefits of child restraints, and the FAA’s position is and has always been to strongly recommend the use of child restraints. But the public has not heard that FAA recommendation, and most of the public believes that because child seat use is not required, the FAA thinks that child seat use is no safer than flying with your young child held on your lap
3) In August 2004 the NTSB produced an analysis of whether diversion was a valid concept. The study looked at other events where diversion occurred for reasons other than child restraints. For example, after the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack, vacation travel by air decreased markedly. The study found that there did not appear to be a clearly defined relationship between diversion from air travel and highway accidents or injury despite the difference in risk between road and commercial airline travel.
4) There has been no move to require the use of child restraints. Since the NTSB was founded in 1967, there have been only two airliner accidents where child seat use would have prevented child fatalities. United 232 in Sioux city, Iowa in 1989, and US Air 1016 in Charlotte, North Carolina, July 2, 1994. There was a total of 2 young children killed in these 2 accidents. Should the FAA be devoting resources to developing a child seat requirement and not addressing other issues like Boeing’s inability to assemble one of their products correctly, or developing a system so two airliners on a runway do not get dangerously close to each other?
5) The FAA’s crash test facility evaluated child seat performance in airline seats. The study found that differences in the location of seat belt anchors in airline seats compared to auto seats resulted in child seats in airline seats sliding forward in a crash to the point that the child would likely hit the seat in front of them.
Student at Rowan-Cabarrus Community College
7moFacts 💪🏾