Hacker News Reader

Is a rigid carrier more dangerous as a projectile, or more so as an obstacle to evacuation?

Lethal projectile. 2x more mass = 2x more energy.

In this scenario, there isn't going to be evacuation. At best, it's search and rescue. At worst, search and recovery.

The poorly attached rigid seat, with a well-secured infant, increases the infant's odds of survival, but the mass increase reduces everyone else's odds of survival (including other infants and caregivers).

There are designs and policies where it becomes "worth it." But it would have to be study to figure out at what point the tradeoff becomes worth it.

It's a grim outcome, but great safety engineering is built on the worst case taken seriously.

I've only done one return flight with Thai Airways (LHR-BKK) with a child seat, but it's only allowed by a window seat or in the middle seat in a 3x3x3 configuration. Probably standard but I didn't check for a while.

(Sorry, meant to reply to parent)

Pretty much the same experience I've had on other carriers. Where you can/can't put them is pretty logical.

>In this scenario, there isn't going to be evacuation. At best, it's search and rescue. At worst, search and recovery.

Scenarios without evacuations are ones where nearly everyone or everyone is already dead. That’s not a case to optimize for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com