The FAA has one of my favorite examples of thoughtful rulemaking.
They haven't banned flying with a baby on your lap, because the extra
cost would mean many parents would drive instead. Since driving is
far less safe than flying, a ban would lead to more deaths. I'd love
to see more of this "all things considered" thinking around bans.
In fact, one specific place where I'd like to see this thinking
applied is adjacent to this rule: babywearing carriers on planes. When our
babies were little, carriers were massively helpful
in flying. The baby likes it, and your arms are free. But for
takeoff and landing, the FAA requires you to take your baby out of the
carrier and hold them in your arms.
The rule is that if an under-two is going to ride on a lap, they must
not "occupy or use any restraining device," (14
CFR 121.311.b.1) and FAA
guidance to parents is clear: "Baby carriers ...are not allowed to
be used during ground movement, take-off, or landing."
This notice proposes to withdraw FAA approval for the use
of booster seats and vest- and harness-type child restraint systems in
aircraft during takeoff, landing, and movement on the surface. ... The
FAA believes that, during an aircraft crash, the banned devices may
put children in a potentially worse situation than the allowable
alternatives.
This is based on their 1994
study, where the FAA compared child restraint options. They
looked at "booster seats, forward facing carriers, aft facing
carriers, a harness device, a belly belt, and passenger seat lap
belts." The "carriers" here are car seats; they didn't test
babywearing carriers. I don't think that's a major flaw in the study,
however, since I do expect babywearing carriers would have performed
poorly. [1] The real problem is that they didn't test the most common
alternative, holding the baby in your lap. So "may put children in a
potentially worse situation than the allowable alternatives" seems
clearly wrong to me.
In the 1996 final
rule [2] they discuss why they're making a different decision than
the UK (CAA) and Europe (JAA, predates EASA), and they avoid the
obvious comparison. They say belly belts can be dangerous,
acknowledge that lap-holding has risks, predict parents will buy a
second seat, and then also say they don't want to require a second
seat because people will drive. This isn't completely nuts, since
it's possible that allowing belly belts would have caused some parents
to choose them over a second seat. It's pretty unlikely for the
effects to balance out in just this way, however, and I don't see any
indication that they tried to do this balancing.
I expect that, if fairly evaluated, modern babywearing carriers would
prove much safer than arms during turbulence, crashes, and
evacuations. And I think this is likely enough that if we're not
going to do these tests we should default to not banning
carriers. In 2024 there was a bill proposing to do something like
this (Rep Bill Posey's HR
8972), but it went to the aviation subcommittee and died without a
vote.
I don't think the harm of the current rule is very large in the scheme
of things: flying is very safe, even for unrestrained lap infants.
Most of the harm is probably the inconvenience of waking happily
sleeping babies. Still, it bugs me as a clear example of incoherent
rulemaking. The FAA sensibly considered substitution behavior in
deciding not to ban lap infants, but failed to balance it here.
[1] The closest thing to a carrier they tested was a 'belly belt':
"This belt is designed to be buckled around the child's abdomen and is
secured to an adult's abdomen with the adult's safety belt by routing
the safety belt through a small loop of webbing sewn on the belly
belt." They did not perform well: "In the test, these systems allowed
the anthropomorphic test dummy to make severe contact with the back of
the seat in the row in front of the test dummy. The child also may be
crushed by the forward bending motion of the adult to whom the child
is attached."
[2] Here's the section, if the PDF is hard to load or read:
CAA and JAA state that they permit
the belly belt on the grounds that it
provides a measure of protection to
children and/or other passengers versus
lap holding a child.
FAA Response: The FAA would like
to emphasize that belly belts are not
permitted under current regulations.
Even if belly belts do provide some
measure or protection, the CAMI study
found that belly belts allowed the test
dummy to make severe contact with the
back of the seat in the row in front of
the test dummy and that a child may be
crushed by the forward bending motion
of the adult to whom the child is
attached. Consideration of revising this
current prohibition is beyond the scope
of the notice.
The JAA also stated that in a crash or
severe air turbulence, parents are often
unable to keep a lap-held child in their
arms.
FAA Response: As discussed earlier,
the FAA has determined that mandating
child restraint devices could cause more
deaths and injuries than it would
prevent. However, the FAA does not
encourage lap-holding children. The
FAA expects, with its education
campaign providing clear guidance on
child restraint devices, parents will
choose an approved device, rather than
lap holding their children, in order to
provide the safest traveling environment
for their children. The two members of
the APCS Working Group submitted
identical letters that discussed the need
to mandate restraints for children. In
addition, they stated that the FAA's
argument that the extra cost to families
caused by mandating child restraint
devices would force them to less safe
road travel is invalid since the same cost
situation arises when the child is 3 or
4 or 10 years old.
FAA Response: The APCS Working
Group's argument is that the extra cost
to families of mandating child restraint
devices is no more of a deterrent to air
travel than the price of a ticket for a
child of any age. However, the FAA
notes that this argument does not take
into account that ordinarily there is no
charge for a lap-held child, whereas
certificate holders very often do charge
if a seat is requested for this infant.
Thus, many people would switch to less
safe automobile travel as a result of
mandating child restraint usage because
unlike most rulemakings where the
compliance costs are passed along to all
travelers, mandatory use of child
restraint would impose compliance
costs only on families with infants.
The FAA has one of my favorite examples of thoughtful rulemaking. They haven't banned flying with a baby on your lap, because the extra cost would mean many parents would drive instead. Since driving is far less safe than flying, a ban would lead to more deaths. I'd love to see more of this "all things considered" thinking around bans.
In fact, one specific place where I'd like to see this thinking applied is adjacent to this rule: babywearing carriers on planes. When our babies were little, carriers were massively helpful in flying. The baby likes it, and your arms are free. But for takeoff and landing, the FAA requires you to take your baby out of the carrier and hold them in your arms.
The rule is that if an under-two is going to ride on a lap, they must not "occupy or use any restraining device," (14 CFR 121.311.b.1) and FAA guidance to parents is clear: "Baby carriers ...are not allowed to be used during ground movement, take-off, or landing."
This goes back to 1995, and if you look at the notice of proposed rulemaking it says:
This is based on their 1994 study, where the FAA compared child restraint options. They looked at "booster seats, forward facing carriers, aft facing carriers, a harness device, a belly belt, and passenger seat lap belts." The "carriers" here are car seats; they didn't test babywearing carriers. I don't think that's a major flaw in the study, however, since I do expect babywearing carriers would have performed poorly. [1] The real problem is that they didn't test the most common alternative, holding the baby in your lap. So "may put children in a potentially worse situation than the allowable alternatives" seems clearly wrong to me.
In the 1996 final rule [2] they discuss why they're making a different decision than the UK (CAA) and Europe (JAA, predates EASA), and they avoid the obvious comparison. They say belly belts can be dangerous, acknowledge that lap-holding has risks, predict parents will buy a second seat, and then also say they don't want to require a second seat because people will drive. This isn't completely nuts, since it's possible that allowing belly belts would have caused some parents to choose them over a second seat. It's pretty unlikely for the effects to balance out in just this way, however, and I don't see any indication that they tried to do this balancing.
I expect that, if fairly evaluated, modern babywearing carriers would prove much safer than arms during turbulence, crashes, and evacuations. And I think this is likely enough that if we're not going to do these tests we should default to not banning carriers. In 2024 there was a bill proposing to do something like this (Rep Bill Posey's HR 8972), but it went to the aviation subcommittee and died without a vote.
I don't think the harm of the current rule is very large in the scheme of things: flying is very safe, even for unrestrained lap infants. Most of the harm is probably the inconvenience of waking happily sleeping babies. Still, it bugs me as a clear example of incoherent rulemaking. The FAA sensibly considered substitution behavior in deciding not to ban lap infants, but failed to balance it here.
[1] The closest thing to a carrier they tested was a 'belly belt': "This belt is designed to be buckled around the child's abdomen and is secured to an adult's abdomen with the adult's safety belt by routing the safety belt through a small loop of webbing sewn on the belly belt." They did not perform well: "In the test, these systems allowed the anthropomorphic test dummy to make severe contact with the back of the seat in the row in front of the test dummy. The child also may be crushed by the forward bending motion of the adult to whom the child is attached."
[2] Here's the section, if the PDF is hard to load or read:
Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, hacker news, mastodon, bluesky