As terrible as this trade-off is, it is worth noting that the risk of death on a commercial airliner for anyone, including infants held in laps, remains extremely low. So let the feeling of guilt subside if you flew with your baby on your lap. . “Commercial aircraft accidents are still extremely rare, and the logistics of having babies in specific seats, with the installation of a CRS for each flight, can outweigh the safety aspects” , notes Sarah Barry, deputy director of the School of Aviation and Safety at the University of Ottawa. New University of Buckinghamshire in the United Kingdom.
That said, the FAA’s cost-benefit analysis didn’t convince everyone. Last year, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA union called for a change in the rule and a requirement for a seat for all passengers, as they have done for the past three decades .
This campaign was sparked in part by the crash of United Airlines Flight 232 in 1989, in which 112 passengers were killed out of the 296 on board. The plane’s systems shut down mid-flight, and with a crash landing imminent, flight attendants asked parents of lap-held babies to place them on the ground between their feet, surrounded by blankets. , and to keep them on the ground as best they could. Of the four lap-held babies aboard the flight, three were injured and one, 22-month-old Evan Tsao, died of smoke inhalation after sliding into the back of the plane.
The following year, the NTSB added infant seats to the FAA’s list of most wanted safety upgrades, but the request was removed in 2006 after the FAA’s own modeling showed that purchasing this additional ticket would motivate 20% of families to drive rather than fly. especially those with the tightest budgets, which in turn leads to an increase in road deaths.
This belief was supported by 2002 academic research that showed the policy change would result in a small net increase in deaths, even if only 5 percent of families chose to hit the road instead. Additionally, the study found that the cost of the regulation per death averted would be approximately $1.3 billion at the time, which is considered by researchers to be “a poor use of societal resources.”
The researchers admitted that the paper had limitations, because they did not consider what would happen if the seats were free, or if airlines simply gave away empty, unsold seats to parents by changing the seat layout . (This also ignores the fact that ticket prices often rise for other reasons and that the cost-benefit balance may change in other countries where driving is not an option – trains are slightly less safe than trains). planes, but nowhere near as dangerous as highway driving.)
