First, it would be fair to note that 7 of the 14 people on board were children. This was interesting to me because my initial reaction to the passenger load was that they had been overweight. Not necessarily. Second, if 4 of the child passengers were under 2 years old, then they could have been within the boundary of all rules. Third, the crux of the problem with issuing a statement about child safety restraints as a direct result of this crash is that the accident was fatal to ALL passengers. The NTSB implies that the accident would have been survivable if all children under 2 years old were restrained. I see no evidence to support that conclusion (yet).

Finally, I believe EVERYONE already knows the safest place for a child is in a proper restraining device and not in someone’s lap. For the average American, it’s a matter of saving $$$ while taking a minimal risk when they use the “under 2″ rule. I think anyone who has seen a 1.5 year old in action knows it’s unrealistic for them to be in someone’s “lap” for the duration of a flight. The big question is… how is this issue really related to this tragic accident? I believe it’s NOT.