[____a]

The irony is today you literally have to take a baby out of those carriers for take off and landing, but can have them in it at other times on the plane. That said, there might be a way to make a new type of carrier that is safer.

[thaumasiotes]

This is mentioned in the article. The concern appears to be that a baby strapped to your chest will shoot out of the carrier (not clear how), not that it will be damaged by getting squished between your chest and your lap:

> The couple also secured Avalee-Rose in a carrier worn like a chest pack. “That felt safer because she was always on me, strapped in,” said Ejmont, whose family of five is based in Australia and spends about half the year traveling. But like the bassinet, the airline requires parents to remove their babies during certain maneuvers and conditions.

> Hoffman warns that the carrier is not foolproof, especially during severe turbulence. “The child can slip out of it because of all of that force. A plane that falls 4,000 feet in seconds — that’s like being shot out of a cannon.[1] A front pack is not going to do the same as a car seat.”

The obvious solution would appear to be:

1. Get rid of the rule that prohibits these carriers.

2. Look into what it takes for a harness to prevent something strapped into it from suddenly coming unstrapped.

[1] It's not clear to me what Hoffman might mean here. Falling doesn't exert any force. Force is needed to stop falling, but you have a lot of discretion over how that occurs.