HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Federal transportation safety officials are using the deadly crash of an overloaded plane in Montana to revive a long-standing debate about whether small children should be allowed to travel on the laps of adults.
The 10-seater plane crashed as it was landing in Butte in March 2009, killing all 14 people aboard, including seven children. Investigators say that several of the children were found far from the plane, suggesting that they weren’t properly restrained.
The National Transportation Safety Board is asking aviation regulators to require all passengers to have their own seats and seat belts, including children under the age of 2 who are now allowed to sit on an adult’s lap during takeoff, landing and turbulence.
The recommendation last month is similar to others the NTSB has submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration over the past two decades, only to be rebuffed. This time, the NTSB, which does not have rule-making authority, is using the Butte crash as an example.
“We strongly believe one seat, one person,” said Nora Marshall, chief of NTSB survival factors in aviation safety.
FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette said the agency will take a fresh look at the NTSB’s recent recommendation, but the agency has no immediate plans to change its rules.
The Pilatus PC-12 was carrying three California families to a weeklong ski holiday in Bozeman, but then diverted to Butte for reasons that are still not clear and crashed into a cemetery next to the city’s airport. The seven children aboard were ages 1 through 9.
The NTSB has not completed its investigation into the cause of the crash. But the NTSB has released some new information with its latest recommendation, saying that four of the children were thrown far from the plane.
The crash was so severe that it’s unlikely anybody would have survived even with proper restraints, but the “accident renews the NTSB’s longstanding concerns” about the restraints, the recommendation reads.
The FAA agrees that the safest place for an infant or a toddler on a flight is in an approved child restraint and not an adult’s lap.
But the FAA won‘t make it a requirement because the agency believes many families with small children wouldn’t pay the cost of an extra ticket, and instead would travel by highway, which statistically is much more dangerous than air travel.
Earlier in the decade, the FAA considered changing the rule, but decided against it, citing statistics from 2004 that showed nearly 43,000 people died on U.S. highways, compared to 13 fatalities on commercial flights.
The agency estimated then that a child-restraint requirement could result in 13 to 42 additional highway fatalities over 10 years.
“What we found was that there were some parents who would be sensitive to price and they would choose to drive instead of fly,” Duquette said. “We would be forcing them into automobiles, which are less safe.”
The NTSB conducted its own study in 2004 and concluded that real-world evidence from the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contradicts the FAA’s estimates.
The transportation safety board looked at travel between 2000 and 2002, when domestic plane travel decreased 8.3 percent and highway travel increased 4 percent as a result of the attacks.
There was a slight percent increase in overall highway fatalities, but the number of children under the age of 5 killed in highway accidents during that time actually decreased, the study found.
“There does not appear to be a clearly defined relationship between diversion from air travel and highway accidents or injury,” the report concluded.
One NTSB member, vice chairman Christopher Hart, called it “futile” to keep making the same recommendation to the FAA and said the board should take a different approach.
“We have made that recommendation before, without success, and we have no reason to believe that this approach will achieve a better result this time,” Hart wrote in a dissent to the August recommendation.
Instead, he said, the recommendation should be for the FAA to do more research that will lead the agency to the conclusion that there is no age where a lap child can be safely held, and force it to justify using the arbitrary age of 2 as the cutoff.
The Air Transport Association, which represents most of the airline industry, is staying out of the debate and declined to comment on what the effects would be on airlines if the rule were to change.
“We haven’t seen any reason to change that rule,” said David A. Castelveter, ATA’s vice president of communications. “The rule is the rule and we fully comply.”
Marshall of the NTSB said even if the transportation safety board can’t persuade the FAA to change the rule, it is hoping crashes like the one in Butte will educate people about the importance of placing small children in their own seats with their own seat belts.
“We have this message and the vehicle to get the message out. It starts with an accident,” she said.
Submitting your tip... please wait!
hoovermatt08
Posted on September 8, 2010 at 7:36am“Instead, he said, the recommendation should be for the FAA to do more research that will lead the agency to the conclusion that there is no age where a lap child can be safely held, and force it to justify using the arbitrary age of 2 as the cutoff.”
Paraphrase. “We recommend they do research that will lead to this conclusion”. May I ask, why the research if you already know the conclusion you want?
Report Post »Dolt
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 10:31pmEven by their own admission, no one would have survived this crash. Yet, somehow we still need more rules and regulation that would literally change NOTHING about this outcome. Yes, let’s do it. …. for the children! What uncaring evil POS would go against the children??
Report Post »AdviCZAR
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 8:52pmBlaze, your fonts suk, I can’t see a damn thing I am typing on my iPhone. Reminds me of Redhat 7.3!
Report Post »seniorcitizen
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 5:02pmIf all 14 people on the plane died, does it make sense that somehow these children would have survived if they were wearing seat belts – or to put it crudely would it have just been easier to gather all the dead.
Report Post »littlebin518
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 6:58pmOuch!
Report Post »Dolt
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 10:35pmTHIS!
Report Post »CinRyan
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 4:20pmWhat the NTSB fails to take into account is the sheer number of people who travel via each type of transportation versus the number of people that die via that type. So…
How many people fly on planes every calendar year?
How many people drive on highways every calendar year?
Even take into account the repeat trips.
Think about how many times you use your car every day .. to work, from work, to store, back home, pickup kids, drop off kids, etc.
I think the numbers would prove that there are way fewer people that travel via planes every year, versus the number of people that travel via car every year. The percentage of those killed on planes would definitely be way higher I think.
Yes, the article gives numbers (13 on plane and 43K+ by car) but they simply don’t go into percentages of passengers versus deaths.
Just my thoughts….
Report Post »Brooke Lorren
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 2:55pmTell this to the people of British Airways! I purchased a ticked for my toddler and they wouldn’t let my child sit in the car seat during takeoffs and landings! They said that her car seat wasn’t approved by their standards (even though it was approved to go on US highways). Instead of using the seat that I paid for, I was forced to have her stand on my lap during takeoff and landing. Now, she should have sat, but she kept trying to stand up. That’s a whole lot safer!
I don‘t think that we need to make a law as to whether they can sit on a parent’s lap or not… I’m not into the nanny state thing… but I think that if you pay for a seat for your infant, they should be allowed to sit in it!
Report Post »warriorcop
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 2:36pmIt is safe as long as you don’t slam into a mountain
Report Post »independentvoteril
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 1:19pmWhen a plane CRASHES your chance of survival are NONE or a MIRACLE.. with our without seat belts.. guess if I was going down in a plane I would want to hold my child close and be talking to them.. their chances of survival are the same but my voice would keep them relaxed..
Report Post »shotgun
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 11:58amWe dont need any more rules!!! FREEDOM = RISKS And the last I checked Amercians are still willing to die for their freedom. Of course we all have our own opinions on what we should do…. But we can make our own decisions. People should run the government not the other way around. We need to take back our country befor we are all strapped to a board at birth until death as not to break the rules. Can you say POLICE STATE???????????????
Report Post »Skwerl
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 10:55amHaving been stuck on long flights with other people’s screaming children I would not be averse to exiling small children to a secure and soundproof area. Crying babies always seem louder on an airplane.
[Before you as: No, I do not have kids yet. But the notion of a quiet flight has got to be attractive to those who do though.]
Report Post »RickJenkins
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 10:29amregulation regulation regulation… this is just another way that the parasites in government employment are looking to justify their existence.
Report Post »PAAM
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 9:27amI’ve seen the cabin attendants over look parents who strap the infant on their lap & into their own seat belt – squish a baby! The child restraints are always the best option & parents should be encouraged to use them, even @ a discount rate. OBTW, the video on how to travel w/an infant is a bit lame & out of touch – none of my 3 kids cared if I gave them a cuddly toy. Bring the stuff they like: blankee, nuke, bottle, cup, food, snacks & sing lots of songs. Don‘t travel if they’re sick or have cold. Oh yeah, wake them up on descent or have them chop on their nuke to prevent an ear block. Lastly, as a passenger, I don‘t want to entertain someone’s kids…I travel w/noise canceling headphones.
Report Post »cpamom
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 9:06amNO! For heaven’s sake!
If there is a crash, children will probably not survive if the adults don’t, and if the STUPID regulators get hold of this, just think of the plane flights with tied down babies/children screaming because they can‘t get comforted on their mothers’ laps!
Nightmare! Another non-solution for a non-problem by lefties.
Report Post »benrush
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 8:24amWho should make decisions about their personal safety? People, or nameless and unaccountable bureaucrats who make sweeping, personal decisions for us all? Local government is best.
Report Post »MRC
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 8:15amThis is the perfect story to illustrate the absurdity of government. It sounds so righteous to say that we will pass a law that will make airlines insist that children must sit in their own seat on an airline instead of in their parents laps. It will probably get a lot of support from the people.
But….. Here’s the problem. Over 30 years ago economists have studied this issue (when a plane skidded off the runway in Minnesota, killing several infants who were not restrained.) There was a huge clamor for the same legislation. But the problem is that if you insist those children have their own seat, some poorer families will decide to drive instead. And, driving is much more dangerous than flying. So the NET EFFECT of this proposed new law would be to KILL POOR CHILDREN and SAVE THE LIVES OF RICH CHILDREN!!! And the study concluded that far more poor children will be killed than rich children will be saved, so ultimately passing this legislation will KILL CHILDREN.
Keep the federal government and its ignorant laws out of our lives. Sometimes, they literally kill us.
Report Post »ziplock2010
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 9:19pmLook, if a plane is going to crash it is going to crash. Those seat belts are to keep you in your seat during turbulence. Being a father of young kids, it is also impossible to find those seat restraints that th FAA has endorsed. I have tried.
One more thing. I understand that there is a risk in flying, and if I hold my kid on my lap, and something happens to him during a crash, I will not and can not keep anyone responsible except for my self. Why, because it was crash.
Report Post »missmarie
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 7:53pmBottom line is that all the passengers on the plane died. A common occurrence with these smaller planes. Why the NTSB is focusing on child safety seat portion of the regulations is beyond me. What this country needs is a return to personal responsibility, common sense and intelligent thought. (Opps, sorry Dang – I guess that leaves you out!)
Our federal agencies seem to do nothing but hemorrhage cash with the promise of protecting us from harm through regulation and fines. How’s that working for us? Particularly where the NTSB is concerned – I can’t think of many instances where they were pro-active – the majority of their regulations appear after a catastrophe.
Perhaps it is time to stop relying on these federal agencies to save us. Wake up America! Take care of yourself, be responsible for yourself, and, if you are blessed with a family, then it is even more critical that you do everything in your power to safeguard them.
Also, I am aware of the family background, and although I don’t agree with the choices they made in life, I pray their souls found peace in death. Particularly the poor, innocent, young souls. I pray for the family and friends of these victims, that their hearts not be hardened by their loss and that they find comfort in the Lord.
Report Post »missmarie
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 7:59pmOpps! I meant to say a common occurrence with a small plane crashing with such force as this one.
Report Post »CaliforniaConservative
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 6:55pmTwo of the adults on board were dentists and two (I think) were doctors. They were all very good people who spent time, money, and energy helping in their children’s schools and in their communities.
The cemetary they crashed into had a statue honoring aborted babies. The grandfather of several of the children killed in the crash had part ownership of a planned parenthood clinic. Many people view this “irony” as the grandfather’s punishment. (”The sins of the father…….”) Although I am pro-life, I think this view is extremely cruel.
Report Post »trailblaze
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 5:16pmDoes anyone remember who was on that plane? Do a quick google search and learn who these were the children and grandchildren of – en route to skiing trip. Also, read where the plane crashed. Just a cemetary – no – a very important tribute monument had been erected. Look into it – it’s chilling. Which is why I remembered the story, despite the fact this article doesn’t even touch on these facts.
Report Post »FFPanama
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 5:26pmWho are Fieldcamp, Jacobson and Ching? Are they supposed to be famous? Since 2 were doctors, were they Plastic Surgeons who worked on some famous person’s nose? What is so special about who these people were? Kids were killed, families were wiped out. Isn’t that what is important rather than WHO these supposed special people were?
Report Post »Autonomous_System
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 7:11pmhttp://deaconforlife.blogspot.com/2009/03/family-of-irving-bud-feldkamp-owner-of.html
Thanks for the heads up Trailblaze. Interesting story.
Report Post »trailblaze
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 11:00pmSearch this: Family of Irving ‘Bud’ Feldkamp, Owner of the Nation’s Largest Privately Owned Abortion Chain, Dies in Montana Plane Crash
Read the story till the end. Gives pause.
Report Post »Dolt
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 10:34pmIt wasn‘t mentioned in this story because it’s irrelevant. Not everything has to be a cause or political.
Report Post »smartypoop
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 4:30pmAnd yet school busses accross the country still dont have seat belts in them.
Report Post »Not to sound cold, I have family and frends in Montana and they all fly out of Billings or Helena, but if a plane crash is significant enough to kill everyone one board, strapping them into a restraint wont make a bit of difference.
My sympathies to the berieved families.
danglingbags
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 4:28pmI KNOW… OBAMA SIGNED THE KIDS DONT NEED SEATBELT ACT OF 2010 AND IT IS HIS FAULT.
I HEAR THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO SIGN THE “DECRIMINALIZATION OF DROWNING PUPPIES ACT OF 2010 ON TUESDAY.
REMBEMBER…GOD IS GOOD, BUT GOLD IS GREATER SO BUY GOLD…….THINK ABOUT IT DOES GLENN TALK MORE ABOUT GOLD OR GOD……OR GOLDLINE?
deadmeat
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 5:00pmI hate to respond to a troll, but anyone who listens to Glenn EVER, knows he talks more about God. Duh?
Report Post »FFPanama
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 5:28pmHey Congressman Weiner! How’s it going? Been to any Lobbyist luncheons lately?
Report Post »1st a Father
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 5:33pmGood observation about Obama, Dingleberrys. I would never have thought of it myself, thanks.
A couple things I noted about this story you all may wish to consider are that. The plain was over loaded, which is already against regulations and all of its occupants were killed. I doubt these children would have survived if they had been in a child seat. Granted, they may have loaded the plain less full had they needed to obey another regulation forcing them to place only one seat per occupant. But, since they really don’t know what caused the accident, we will likely never know.
The truth is, the chance of surviving a plain crash is very low. placing an infant in a child set would do very little to save a baby in a crash and may actually pose a hazard to other passengers on-board. Let’s stop trying to regulate every aspect of our lives and instead help make things better through education and the use of common sense.
Report Post »CrackerSmurf
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 6:08pmVery well could be. I love it another debate on how to take more rights from people and all you have to say is it’s Dimwits fault. Fact being fact if the people found properly restrained were all dead as well THEN MAYBE it did not matter if they were restrained. It’s destinies fault no person but FATE. This was when they were meant to go so they went. Show some respect you farching loser.
Report Post »baldwin4freedom
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 6:17pm1ST A FATHER says it all. Enough said.
Report Post »evil_johnny
Posted on September 6, 2010 at 7:17pmHey dingleberry can you get one of theose pens used to sign the dead puppy act . I hear it will be worth alot in the future.
I thought he used a pencil so he could erase his signature. Maybe disappearing ink .
But never the less thanks for the laugh. I hear Weds open mic night
Report Post »D330
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 9:18amDangling, with due respect, you’re a schmuck.
Report Post »jmb847
Posted on September 7, 2010 at 11:04amWhat does Danglingbags mean? Is it something to put your gold in. Must be or maybe it is just a colapsed container of hot air.
Report Post »