Hacker News Reader

Comment by jefftk | Hacker News Reader

> a poorly secured rigid baby carrier seat becomes a potentially lethal projectile

Rigid carriers are already permitted on planes, as long as they're FAA approved (which many are). You attach them with the seatbelt, and the flight attendants check.

What I'm proposing in this post is that the FAA not require parents to remove lab infants from babywearing carriers.

View on HN

From the comments here, many people don’t get the difference. If you’ve never flown with a kid, there is a nuance that is easy to miss.

I was going to make a comment earlier about how my kids travelled in car seats years ago before I realized you were talking about lap kids without their own seat.

Any suggestions on how I might clean up the wording? Currently I have: "In fact, one specific place where I'd like to see this thinking applied is adjacent to this rule: babywearing carriers on planes."

This. The web page title should be "Allow Babywearing on Planes"

Good idea! Changed "Carriers" to "Babywearing Carriers"

Maybe just include an example picture/diagram?

I'm surprised at the amount of people here confusing carriers with car seats. It seemed obvious enough to me in the article. It's about wearing babies on the plane, not babies sitting in their own seat.

There indeed seem to be a lot of folks commenting who think being able to safely have a car seat on a plane would be a revolutionary change, when that's the part that's a solved problem.

It isn't that surprising given that hackernews tends to skew tin demographics towards young men. And people who don't read articles but have strong opinions on everything.

I've updated the title to include "babywearing" to try to make it clearer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com