
A mother thought her baby was blown out of a plane. The FAA still allows infants on laps
It's an unimaginable horror, and one that safety regulators could have prevented by requiring that parents secure infants on board planes in a car seat, as they must be when riding in a car.
But despite years of calls for just such a rule, none exists.
Testimony this week at the National Transportation Safety Board hearing into the incident, and transcripts of interviews with flight attendants conducted by NTSB investigators that were released this week, tell of the panic aboard the flight.
Passengers' clothing was ripped off, and their phones were blown out of their hands and sent hurtling into the night by the by the rush of air that accompanied the rapid decompression. The flight attendants weren't sure whether they had lost any of the passengers until the plane had landed.
Initially, they weren't even sure if the pilots were conscious or in need of medical attention themselves due to problems communicating between the cabin and cockpit.
But among the flight attendants' most serious concerns were the three infants on the flight who were being held on their parents' laps, not in a car seat. And one of those parents, a mother, told flight attendants during the incident that she had lost her son and believed he had been blown outside the plane.
'I was holding her, I said, 'What's going on, what's happening?' and she just says, 'I was holding my son and I think my son blew out the window,'' one of the flight attendants told NTSB investigators, according to a transcript of the interview. 'And that's when I lift up my head and saw the hole and I just started like shaking.'
'I didn't know at that point that that mom was freaking out because she thought her son went out the window,' another flight attendant told investigators.
Fortunately, the child had not gone out the hole, although the transcripts from the NTSB did not detail where the child was during the incident or give the name of the mother involved. The plane was able to land within minutes without any serious physical injuries to the 177 people on aboard, including the three infants.
Among the NTSB's recommendations following the conclusion of its investigation this week was to once again suggest that the Federal Aviation Administration require passengers ages two and younger have their own seats to protect them. The NTSB does not have the power to make such a requirement. It has been asking the FAA, which is the federal regulator that sets such regulations, for such a rule for decades.
Even if parts don't often fall off planes mid-flight, infants on planes are at risk of being thrown from their parents' arms by far more common turbulence, which can occur without warning.
One NTSB investigator testified Tuesday about incidents in which infants were injured during severe turbulence, in one instance landing a few rows behind the child's mother in an empty row.
'I've long believed that parents of lap children do not fully realize the serious risk to which they're exposing their young children,' NTSB board member Thomas Chapman said at the hearing. 'The experts agree that the safest place for an infant is secured in their own seat. If there's turbulence or worse, you may not be able to protect your baby in your arms.'
Chapman said the NTSB has been pushing for a rule requiring infants be secured in a seat but that 'we just have not been able to persuade FAA that this is an area where they should take action.'
An advisory to airlines posted on the FAA's website advises that the agency 'does not require but, because of the safety benefits thereof, does encourage the use of approved child/infant seats aboard aircraft.'
When CNN asked about the lack of a rule, the FAA said in a statement: 'The FAA takes NTSB recommendations seriously and will carefully consider those issued yesterday.' The statement added: 'The safest place for a child under age two is an approved child-restraint system or device, not an adult's lap. This can go a long way in keeping children safe during a flight.'
But there may be a more intricate calculus involved for the FAA.
An agency spokesperson told CNN it is concerned that requiring parents to buy an extra seat for plane travel will lead more of them to drive to their destinations.
And the agency believes that would create a greater risk to the children and parents, since flying is a much safer method of transportation than driving.
Airlines also likely worry about lost revenue from more parents opting to drive instead.
Airlines for America, the industry trade group, did not directly address whether or not there should be a rule requiring infants to have their own seat in a statement.
'The safety of all passengers and crew members is always the top priority of U.S. airlines, which is why we follow federal laws and strictly comply with the guidance and rules established by our safety regulator, the FAA,' the group said.
But one expert accused the FAA of putting airline profits over safety.
'The NTSB has one job, and that's to improve safety. They're not concerned about the financial impact,' said Anthony Brickhouse, a crash investigator and US-based aerospace safety consultant. 'The FAA looks at safety, but they also look at the financial impact. Safety and money have been in conflict since the beginning of time. And if you want to know the reasons for anything they do, follow the money.'
Brickhouse said if the lap babies had been in or near row 26, where the door plug blew off, they likely would have be lost.
'Why is it that you're required to be buckled in a car, but mommy and daddy can hold you on a flight?' he said. 'You would think this close call could move the needle. It's frustrating to think we need to get tragedy to get change.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


News24
27 minutes ago
- News24
Caiphus Nyoka murder: Marais refused to turn State witness, court hears
Be among those who shape the future with knowledge. Uncover exclusive stories that captivate your mind and heart with our FREE 14-day subscription trial. Dive into a world of inspiration, learning, and empowerment. You can only trial once.

Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bedford Town Council approves land swap to strengthen conservation and support Joppa Hill Farm
Joppa Hill View Joppa Hill Educational Farm is situated on 35 acres of land leased from the town of Bedford. The Bedford Town Council approved plans for a strategic land adjustment within the Joppa Hill Conservation Area to strengthen conservation and support Joppa Hill Educational Farm. At the June 11 meeting, the council voted unanimously to take 8.3 acres (near the educational farm) out of long-term conservation status so it can be used for municipal or farm-related purposes. In exchange, 25 acres of land (previously designated for municipal use) would go into permanent conservation. The Joppa Hill Conservation Area is a 190-acre parcel of land owned by the town of Bedford and subject to a conservation easement by the Piscataquog Land Conservancy. The conservation easement limits certain uses of the property to protect the land, but has provisions for two soccer fields, an educational farm and a municipal zone for possible future use. Joppa Hill Educational Farm leases 35 of those acres and operates as a working farm and community hub open to the public every day. According to reports from Chris Bandazian, president of the farm, and Drew Cline, former chairman of the farm's board, the original proposed 25-acre municipal zone is not suitable for building. The thought to preserve an area for municipal use was established in the early 2000s with nothing particular in mind for its use. Attempts to develop the land would be difficult and expensive and would be better used for conservation, according to Cline. 'The amount of impact to the property no matter where you would try to put anything was pretty strong and the shape, soil and habitat make it really inconducive to building anything there as opposed to what it's currently being used for, which is conservation,' Cline said in the meeting. 'We really walked through the whole area to figure out if it would be cost effective or feasible and it was a real challenge.' Bandazian said when the 25 acres were mapped, they found that the land mainly consisted of wetlands and steep slopes. 'It revealed what you would observe on the field, virtually everything was a wetland and even what appears to be dry land most of the year cannot be used for farm equipment because it's so wet.' Bandazian said in the meeting. 'To be able to use it would require a lot of land clearing, fill, and a 10-foot retaining wall on each side.' Bandazian suggested the parcel be put in long-term conservation and 8.3 acres of land closer to the farm be excluded in exchange. The 8.3 acres would include an already disturbed area that could help alleviate parking issues and support educational programs for the farm. Chairwoman Lori Radke called it a win-win. 'The town doesn't have a lot of conservation and I think this is a great opportunity to conserve what we have,' Radke said. 'We want to make this the best place for having both municipal and conservation.' Executive Director of Joppa Hill Educational Farm Sarah Grosvenor said they will work with the Piscataquog Land Conservancy to finalize the land adjustment. 'There's no actual plans in place for building anything on that 8.3 acres yet,' Grosvenor said. 'It just gives us more freedom if we did want to end up proposing something to the town on a future project.' The farm is taking additional measures to preserve the health of the land and its animals. 'We are no longer providing grain cups for visitors to feed animals because we want to prioritize the health of our animals,' Grosvenor said. 'Some of our animals were overweight and two sadly passed away because of an over abundance of carbohydrates and starch, and having too much grain contributed to that.' Joppa Hill Horses Grazing Three horses graze on a pasture at Joppa Hill Educational Farm in Bedford. The farm also implemented rotational grazing for the livestock, which is a pasture management method where animals are moved between different grazing areas to let the grass rest and regrow. This helps keep pastures healthy, improves soil quality, and gives animals fresh forage more often. Grosvenor said the new changes have come as a surprise to the public, but she hopes they will understand the farm's vision. 'Our mission is to preserve the land and the farm as a working farm where we can continue to provide educational opportunities through a variety of different ways,' she said.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Your response to this baffling optical illusion could depend on where you grew up
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Last year we covered the 'coffer' illusion, a visual riddling that was blowing/bending/frying/breaking the internet's collective mind. And like all the best illusions, it seems this one keeps on giving, as new scientific research has revealed that your perception of it could be influenced by one unexpected factor. For the uninitiated, the coffer illusion depicts what appears to be a series of rectangles – but actually contains 16 circles. They're initially hard to spot, but once you've managed it, they can't be unseen (spoiler alert: they're in the gaps between the rectangles). How quickly you find the circles, though, could depend on where in the world you grew up. As reported by the Guardian, a study led by Ivan Kroupin at the London School of Economics has explored how people from different backgrounds interpret the coffer illusion, found that "people in the UK and US saw it mainly in one way, as comprising rectangles – while people from rural communities in Namibia typically saw it another way: as containing circles." So why the difference? The suggestion is that those hailing from western industrialised countries "are generally exposed to highly 'carpentered' environments, with lots of straight lines, right angles," whereas rural Namibians, for example, see the circles first because "their environments being dominated by structures such as round huts instead of angular environments." "During the data collection, it was quite striking to see individuals immediately identify and describe features of an image - circles - which took all authors a significant amount of time to identify at all," the study explains, before going on to suggest different responses to the illusion could hint at larger visual discrepancies between people. "In sum, the world does not look the same to all of us—the present results show this at the very least. And it remains a possibility that such cultural variation exists even at layers of visual perception previously assumed to be universal."