NTSB want FAA to require child restraints for all planes, including GA

wsuffa said:
Folks, we're at a fork in the thread. If we continue down the politcal path, this will either be closed or move to Spin Zone.
Click to expand...
We are talking about aviation politics. Per the description of the SZ that is for non-aviation and other hot topics. I think as long as we keep this focused in on how the NTSB and FAA work on this particular topic we should be ok. This is a useful discussion for how we as pilots and aviation enthusiast can interact with the regulatory authorities that directly affect us.

But if we veer off into generalities I agree with you Bill.

Anyway that is my $.02 take it for what it is worth, $.014 after taxes. :D:D
 
Everskyward said:
I don't know about that but I think Scott has a loud and persistent voice. ;)
Click to expand...
True dat!

The last FAA issue I made my voice heard on was the VIP TFRs. After a POTUS visit to Chicago I made an appointment with the local CoS for my Congresscritter. I sat with him for 30 minutes, showed him a map of the affected areas, the three conflicting NOTAMs and some examples of what the SS/FAA/DHS does to offenders. Was I heard, yes, will something be done as a result of my single meeting? I doubt it. Will I continue to voice my objection? Sure. Will TFRs go away, I doubt it, but perhaps they will be modified and made smaller. Will I be happy? No, but I will be satisfied as I am a realist.
 
FWIW, the NTSB has been trying to eliminate the lap child exception for a long time.

From 1990: Safety recommendation from the Sioux City accident.

Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board
recommends that the Federal Aviation Administration:

Revise 14 CFR 91, 121 and 135 to require that all
occupants be restrained during takeoff, landing, and
turbulent conditions, and that all infants and small
children below the weight of 40 pounds and under the
height of 40 inches be restrained in an approved child
restraint system appropriate to their height and
weight. (Class 11, Priority Action) (A-90-78)

Conduct research to determine the adequacy of aircraft
seatbelts to restrain children too large to use child
safety seats and to develop some suitable means of
providing adequate restraint for such children. (Class
11, Priority Action) (A-90-79)
Click to expand...
 
wsuffa said:
Folks, we're at a fork in the thread. If we continue down the politcal path, this will either be closed or move to Spin Zone.
Click to expand...

I hope not. Scott is giving us very valuable insights on how to be heard.
 
ScottM said:
Yes I do believe that "we the people" can do much. The NTSB is not the body that makes the rules. That would be the FAA with their political appointees. Those appointees come from elected officials and the agency is overseen by Congress, another group that is made up of elected officials. While maybe you have given up on America I have not. I do not see that the system is any more corrupted than it has ever been. I just see a lot of people who do not understand how the system works. I also see a lot of people that think when they do not get their way that the system must be broken. But the reality is that the system works on consensus of many viewpoints. With even more voices than ever being heard that consensus is harder than ever to achieve.
Click to expand...
I can understand Tom's frustration. What you described is several layers of indirection away from what he can most directly control: his vote at the ballot box.

Scott, what do you recommend to someone who doesn't have your Rolodex, or whose representative is not on a Transportation committee? It's not like they can say "I'm not voting for you next election if you don't listen to me."



ScottM said:
I am not going to get my knickers in a twist over something like this. Nor will I spittle and rant about big out of control government. It is the NTSB's job to do stuff like this. It is our job to make our voices heard. I would rather focus my energies constructively in this debate.
Click to expand...

Well, sometimes the best some of us can do is keep being AOPA members and let them do some organized speaking on behalf of GA.

Not wanting to get in the middle of the sausage factory doesn't obviate our rights ***** about it. :incazzato::wink2:
 
rpadula said:
Scott, what do you recommend to someone who doesn't have your Rolodex, or whose representative is not on a Transportation committee? It's not like they can say "I'm not voting for you next election if you don't listen to me."
Click to expand...
The best thing to do is get to know the people who work in your local reps office. Start by calling and making an appointment with the local legislative affairs staffer. Go in with a short list of things that you would like their help on. Do not go in with a 'you suck' attitude. That will get you a smile and a lollypop, what you want is to be listened to. Even if the rep is doing something that is opposite to what you want you can be respectful. Follow up your meeting with a letter thanking them for their time.

Then next month and each following month, rinse and repeat.

Eventually they start to know you. I also see these guys at community functions. Even if I have nothing to say I go over and say hi to them and let them know I will be seeing them soon. A smile and a handshake can open doors. After a bit of doing this you can start to get appointments with the rep when he or she is in town. When that happens go in with your bullet points, because you are only going to get about 10 minutes with the rep at most.

Outside of professional lobbying the best response I got was on an issue that I raised so many times with the senator's staff that I got a meeting, photo op and invite to help draft legislation with his staff on the issue. That bill did make it out of committee and got a vote on the Senate floor. It had my words in it. While it failed in the floor vote I can at least say that I got my views heard at the highest level and that is a win. My cost was a few postage stamps and my time.

Citizenship is hard work, but it is worthwhile work.
 
ScottM said:
The best thing to do is get to know the people who work in your local reps office. Start by calling and making an appointment with the local legislative affairs staffer. Go in with a short list of things that you would like their help on. Do not go in with a 'you suck' attitude. That will get you a smile and a lollypop, what you want is to be listened to. Even if the rep is doing something that is opposite to what you want you can be respectful. Follow up your meeting with a letter thanking them for their time.

Then next month and each following month, rinse and repeat.

Eventually they start to know you. I also see these guys at community functions. Even if I have nothing to say I go over and say hi to them and let them know I will be seeing them soon. A smile and a handshake can open doors. After a bit of doing this you can start to get appointments with the rep when he or she is in town. When that happens go in with your bullet points, because you are only going to get about 10 minutes with the rep at most.

Outside of professional lobbying the best response I got was on an issue that I raised so many times with the senator's staff that I got a meeting, photo op and invite to help draft legislation with his staff on the issue. That bill did make it out of committee and got a vote on the Senate floor. It had my words in it. While it failed in the floor vote I can at least say that I got my views heard at the highest level and that is a win. My cost was a few postage stamps and my time.

Citizenship is hard work, but it is worthwhile work.
Click to expand...
Good read. Good advice. That's how you do anything worthwhile. This post ought to be a keeper.
 
ScottM said:
The best thing to do is get to know the people who work in your local reps office. Start by calling and making an appointment with the local legislative affairs staffer. Go in with a short list of things that you would like their help on. Do not go in with a 'you suck' attitude. That will get you a smile and a lollypop, what you want is to be listened to. Even if the rep is doing something that is opposite to what you want you can be respectful. Follow up your meeting with a letter thanking them for their time.

Then next month and each following month, rinse and repeat.

Eventually they start to know you. I also see these guys at community functions. Even if I have nothing to say I go over and say hi to them and let them know I will be seeing them soon. A smile and a handshake can open doors. After a bit of doing this you can start to get appointments with the rep when he or she is in town. When that happens go in with your bullet points, because you are only going to get about 10 minutes with the rep at most.

Outside of professional lobbying the best response I got was on an issue that I raised so many times with the senator's staff that I got a meeting, photo op and invite to help draft legislation with his staff on the issue. That bill did make it out of committee and got a vote on the Senate floor. It had my words in it. While it failed in the floor vote I can at least say that I got my views heard at the highest level and that is a win. My cost was a few postage stamps and my time.

Citizenship is hard work, but it is worthwhile work.
Click to expand...

I get it Scott I do, but while citizenship may not be "easy" it should not be a part-time job that requires such efforts. I know I am talking about "fantasy land" here, but it just should not.

You HAVE to work, so you work, on average, 40 hours a week (and many, many people work M-F), with the usual 30 minutes into work and 30 minutes home. So you are up at 6a....and if you are lucky home between 5-6p. You have a family (both parents work nowadays, remember) and have to get the lawn mowed, that house project done, take the kids to soccer practice or go see a recital. The weekend comes and you can then try to get ahold of our Congress-critter, but wait, most do not have weekend office hours. So now you try to find out where they will be so you can go glad-hand them, you and a hundred other people. So to really get "involved" you have to take a vacation day, go so this person, know the ropes to get past the low-level front-line block-and-tackle girl (or guy) and then you get five minutes.

Sorry man....but it really should not be that hard.
 
tdager said:
I get it Scott I do, but while citizenship may not be "easy" it should not be a part-time job that requires such efforts. I know I am talking about "fantasy land" here, but it just should not. .
Click to expand...
You're right it is not a pat time job. Citizenship is a full time job. Anything worht as much as this country requires sacrifice and work from each of us. Government happens FOR those that show up. For those that do not they lose their say and government happen TO them.

On this particular issue with the NTSBand child seats for GA, I would let my reps know, first with a letter, what I think of this recomendation. I would also let the head of the FAA know and I would write AOPA legislative affairs, then I would wait for the next step.
 
Bob Noel said:
Which is more hazardous, holding an infant on a 767 ride across the
country (say LAX to LGA) or having the infant in a car seat and driving
from LA to NY?
Click to expand...

That's hard to say. Chances are a lot would depend on the car driver's skill and attention during the trip even though some automobile accidents are virtually unavoidable by one of the vehicles involved. Clearly the chances of any serious mishap on the airliner are lower than automobile travel on a per mile basis, especially when there's only one takeoff and landing for the trip. But one would also have to factor in the relatively large increase in consequences to a hand held infant compared to one properly secured. And IMO that's where the real issue lies, combining a low probability event with a significant risk factor that only comes into play when the low probability event occurs. I do know that there have been documented cases where a restrained child survived a plane crash or severe turbulence event with minimal injury that would likely have been fatal had the child been on someone's lap and the same is true for automobiles.

For me the bottom line is that whatever the odds of severe CAT or a crash, a restrained child has a significantly better chance of avoiding serious injury than one sitting on a parent's lap and to make the choice of monetary savings over the obvious potential safety advantage of a paid for seat for the child seems rather irresponsible. IOW it's the choice of money vs child safety that bothers me.

I don't need anyone to agree with me, I'm just expressing my point of view. And FWIW my daughter who's traveled on private and commercial airplanes since she was born (and before) has always ridden in her own seat with the best restraints available.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
For me the bottom line is that whatever the odds of severe CAT or a crash, a restrained child has a significantly better chance of avoiding serious injury than one sitting on a parent's lap and to make the choice of monetary savings over the obvious potential safety advantage of a paid for seat for the child seems rather irresponsible. IOW it's the choice of money vs child safety that bothers me.
Click to expand...
I agree Lance and I think that is more than an opinion. There is plenty of data to support the idea of restraint increasing the chances of survival. This comes down to purely a monetary decision.
 
No politics, but maybe an unpopular opinion....


I think parents who hold their kids in the lap to save a buck on airfare are jackasses. Period. Full stop. Thanks for playing.
 
flyersfan31 said:
No politics, but maybe an unpopular opinion....


I think parents who hold their kids in the lap to save a buck on airfare are jackasses. Period. Full stop. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...
That is easy to say when you can afford two tickets. Much less easy to say when you can't. "Save a buck" is a reach - a lot of folks simply don't have the money to spend another $400.

Grandma is on the other side of the country in her dead-bed and you'd like grandma to see your baby before she dies. Statistically speaking the risk probably isn't all that bad on an airliner. You're faced with the decision of spending money you don't have, not showing the child to grandma, or taking a rather small calculated risk.

If you *HAVE* the money and can easily spend it without totally botching your finances then taking the risk is pretty silly.

You can always make another baby. Probably look about the same.
 
gismo said:
For me the bottom line is that whatever the odds of severe CAT or a crash, a restrained child has a significantly better chance of avoiding serious injury than one sitting on a parent's lap and to make the choice of monetary savings over the obvious potential safety advantage of a paid for seat for the child seems rather irresponsible. IOW it's the choice of money vs child safety that bothers me.
Click to expand...

oh, I agree that buckling in is safer than not. However, is there not
some level of safety that is safe enough? Or do we always have to
find the absolute zero risk situation?

So, it is not a simple money vs child safety issue. It may in fact
be more expensive to fly across the country than drive. And it
is, I believe, safer than driving, even just holding the infant in
the lap.

Put another way, if the chance of a crash is low enough, I submit
that the survability of the crash becomes irrelevant.
 
Bob Noel said:
oh, I agree that buckling in is safer than not. However, is there not
some level of safety that is safe enough? Or do we always have to
find the absolute zero risk situation?

So, it is not a simple money vs child safety issue. It may in fact
be more expensive to fly across the country than drive. And it
is, I believe, safer than driving, even just holding the infant in
the lap.

Put another way, if the chance of a crash is low enough, I submit
that the survability of the crash becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...

If the chances of a crash were so low as to make the risk of an unrestrained child insignificant, then why require adults to be seated and restrained? There's plenty of room in the isles for any passenger wanting to save on the airfare. At least the adults would be making a choice that primarily affects only themselves. Maybe we should require kids to be restrained but allow parents to ride in the isles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top