Child seat

[Andrew Sarangan]

We are considering a flight from the U.S. to Canada with our one-year
old. I am a bit confused by the FAR's regarding child seats. On the one
hand, it says that the child may be simply held by an adult, but then
it says if you use a child seat it must be approved for aircraft use.
Common sense would dictate that any child seat is better than nothing.
But the FARs seem to say that no seat is better than a car seat. Anyone
have experience with this?

How do the rules differ in Canada?

[Jim Macklin]

As I understand the rules, any DOT approved child seat is OK
in an airplane for an appropriate sized child.

The rule that says a child may be held may be legal, but it
will be a serious injury in turbulence and a death if there
is a crash.

Can't speak for Canada, but the aircraft rules apply to the
pilot and airplane, N registration and US pilot certificate,
follow US FAR. You do have to follow Canadian flight rules
in Canada. The AOPA has some pretty complete advisories on
flying into Canada as per Customs clearance, flight plans
and I'm sure they can give you the best answer about car
child seats.

www.aopa.org


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
| We are considering a flight from the U.S. to Canada with
our one-year
| old. I am a bit confused by the FAR's regarding child
seats. On the one
| hand, it says that the child may be simply held by an
adult, but then
| it says if you use a child seat it must be approved for
aircraft use.
| Common sense would dictate that any child seat is better
than nothing.
| But the FARs seem to say that no seat is better than a car
seat. Anyone
| have experience with this?
|
| How do the rules differ in Canada?
|

[Denny]

Bureaucracy is for making rules about how many angels are allowed to
dance on the head of a pin... Unless you are into that sort of thing,
use your car seat, strap your child in, and go fly...
denny

[Peter R.]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:

> Common sense would dictate that any child seat is better than nothing.
> But the FARs seem to say that no seat is better than a car seat. Anyone
> have experience with this?

Who cares whether there is a specific rule or not? It seems to me that you
are over-thinking this one. Use a DOT-approved car seat for your child.

The passenger seats in the back of my Bonanza only have lap belts. When my
older children, who are 6 and 8, ride along I still use put them in Eddie
Bauer Cosco booster seats because of the five-point harness system.

--
Peter

[john smith]

> How do the rules differ in Canada?

Google: Transport Canada+child seat

[Robert M. Gary]

>As I understand the rules, any DOT approved child seat is OK
> in an airplane for an appropriate sized child.

Its a bit more specific than that. When my boys were small there were
only 2 seat manufactors taht met the requirements.

91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B)
(2) Seats manufactured to U.S. standards on or after February 26,
1985,^M
must bear two labels:^M
(i) "This child restraint system conforms to all applicable Federal
motor^M
vehicle safety standards"; and^M
(ii) "THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND
AIRCRAFT"^M
in red lettering;^M

[Robert M. Gary]

The "no seat" rule is just there to make the airlines happy because
they can't sell a full fare ticket for an infant (they can try but
won't get a lot of takers). Of course the airplane is only 1/2 the
issue, having a proper seat for them once you get there is the other
1/2. Living in California, our child seat/booster seat requirements can
be quiet strict. Unfortunately, each state has slightly different rules
on what age/weight kids must be for each type of seat (including which
direction the seat faces). Its confusing enough in California that we
have regular semenars/inspections offered by local law enforcement for
parents. We went to several of the inspections, the kids loved it
because they got cheap plastic toys.
I'm not sure if Canada has a standard set of rules or if each province
has its own rules.

-Robert

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> The "no seat" rule is just there to make the airlines happy because
> they can't sell a full fare ticket for an infant (they can try but
> won't get a lot of takers).

It's a little more sophisticated than that.
Airline seat backs are not as rigid as auto seats. The problem with the
earlier safety seats was that they would not withstand a rear impact and
would fold in half, crushing the child.
Newer, approved child safety seats are supposed to be more resistant to
folding.

[Ross Richardson]

I have always strapped my DoT approved child seat in the back of the
Cessna 172F. I take the holding strap and go over the seat and lock it
to where the seat belts are connected to the floor. My seat belts make
the connection right behind the seat. Very difficult to release the
seat belt to remove the child seat. I fly my grandchildren in it until
they out grew it. Now is use booster seats so they can see out.

Ross

P.S. Don't forget hearing protection. I made some adapters for my adult
headsets that worked just fine and the grandkids never were bothered
about wearing them.

Ross

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> We are considering a flight from the U.S. to Canada with our one-year
> old. I am a bit confused by the FAR's regarding child seats. On the one
> hand, it says that the child may be simply held by an adult, but then
> it says if you use a child seat it must be approved for aircraft use.
> Common sense would dictate that any child seat is better than nothing.
> But the FARs seem to say that no seat is better than a car seat. Anyone
> have experience with this?
>
> How do the rules differ in Canada?
>

[Robert M. Gary]

>> The "no seat" rule is just there to make the airlines happy because

> It's a little more sophisticated than that.
> Airline seat backs are not as rigid as auto seats. The problem with the
> earlier safety seats was that they would not withstand a rear impact and
> would fold in half, crushing the child.

I don't see how the design of the airline seat makes holding the child
in your lap easier. We're not talking about child seats in this part of
the thread, only why the FAA allows you to hold a child.

-Robert

[john smith]

In article m>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> >> The "no seat" rule is just there to make the airlines happy because
>
> > It's a little more sophisticated than that.
> > Airline seat backs are not as rigid as auto seats. The problem with the
> > earlier safety seats was that they would not withstand a rear impact and
> > would fold in half, crushing the child.
>
> I don't see how the design of the airline seat makes holding the child
> in your lap easier. We're not talking about child seats in this part of
> the thread, only why the FAA allows you to hold a child.

The OP inquired about Canadian requirements for child safety seats.
He noted that the US had changed requirements. I provided the reason for
the requirements change.
Ten years ago, I commuted for a year between Ohio and Puerto Rico with a
3 year old and a five year old. I ALWAYS purchased separate seats and
brought along the child safety seats for my children.
The flight crews (Delta and USAir) were always very helpful, carrying
the two seats while I carried the children and carryon from the plane to
the terminal.

[Robert M. Gary]

> The OP inquired about Canadian requirements for child safety seats.
> He noted that the US had changed requirements. I provided the reason for
> the requirements change.

Maybe my reader was messed up. It showed your response as under my
comment on the "no seat" rule, not under the OP.

-Robert

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 06:48:30 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> The "no seat" rule is just there to make the airlines happy because they
> can't sell a full fare ticket for an infant (they can try but won't get a
> lot of takers).

Perhaps that's why US airlines don't bother to carry the little "double
belt" do-dad that actually makes carrying a child in one's arms not a
completely risky act. Luftansa always seems to have them.

Of course, Luftansa also has those mini-cribs.

- Andrew

[Robert M. Gary]

> Of course, Luftansa also has those mini-cribs.

And hot towels ! :)

-Robert
(holder of Luftansa frequent flyer card)

[pittss1c]

No headset appeard it would work for an infant (especially when their
age is in small numbers of weeks)

Eventually I modified earmuffs to fit (and not fold) and integrated 2"
memory foam into the muffs to seal around/in the ear.

Mike


Ross Richardson wrote:
> I have always strapped my DoT approved child seat in the back of the
> Cessna 172F. I take the holding strap and go over the seat and lock it
> to where the seat belts are connected to the floor. My seat belts make
> the connection right behind the seat. Very difficult to release the
> seat belt to remove the child seat. I fly my grandchildren in it until
> they out grew it. Now is use booster seats so they can see out.
>
> Ross
>
> P.S. Don't forget hearing protection. I made some adapters for my adult
> headsets that worked just fine and the grandkids never were bothered
> about wearing them.
>
> Ross
>
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
>> We are considering a flight from the U.S. to Canada with our one-year
>> old. I am a bit confused by the FAR's regarding child seats. On the one
>> hand, it says that the child may be simply held by an adult, but then
>> it says if you use a child seat it must be approved for aircraft use.
>> Common sense would dictate that any child seat is better than nothing.
>> But the FARs seem to say that no seat is better than a car seat. Anyone
>> have experience with this?
>>
>> How do the rules differ in Canada?
>>

[Ross Richardson]

The very small head would be a problem. My grandchildren started flying
when they were two or three and my little adapters to adult headsets
worked fine. And, i was lucky that they did not want to pull them off or
play with them. I did have my grandson almost chew the cord into. Caught
him in time.

Ross

pittss1c wrote:

> No headset appeard it would work for an infant (especially when their
> age is in small numbers of weeks)
>
> Eventually I modified earmuffs to fit (and not fold) and integrated 2"
> memory foam into the muffs to seal around/in the ear.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Ross Richardson wrote:
>
>> I have always strapped my DoT approved child seat in the back of the
>> Cessna 172F. I take the holding strap and go over the seat and lock it
>> to where the seat belts are connected to the floor. My seat belts make
>> the connection right behind the seat. Very difficult to release the
>> seat belt to remove the child seat. I fly my grandchildren in it until
>> they out grew it. Now is use booster seats so they can see out.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> P.S. Don't forget hearing protection. I made some adapters for my
>> adult headsets that worked just fine and the grandkids never were
>> bothered about wearing them.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>>
>>> We are considering a flight from the U.S. to Canada with our one-year
>>> old. I am a bit confused by the FAR's regarding child seats. On the one
>>> hand, it says that the child may be simply held by an adult, but then
>>> it says if you use a child seat it must be approved for aircraft use.
>>> Common sense would dictate that any child seat is better than nothing.
>>> But the FARs seem to say that no seat is better than a car seat. Anyone
>>> have experience with this?
>>>
>>> How do the rules differ in Canada?
>>>

[Michael Ware]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:DPB5g.6110$8q.122@dukeread08...
> As I understand the rules, any DOT approved child seat is OK
> in an airplane for an appropriate sized child.
<snip>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
Only true if the child seat in question was manufactured between 1981 and
1985. After that, must be both DOT approved and certified for aircraft use.
Other specifics apply, see §91.107 for details.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict...

[Jim Macklin]

A better and more complete answer. I also found a back
issue of AOPA Pilot with a big article on child seats. July
2005


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Michael Ware" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:DPB5g.6110$8q.122@dukeread08...
| > As I understand the rules, any DOT approved child seat
is OK
| > in an airplane for an appropriate sized child.
| <snip>
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| Only true if the child seat in question was manufactured
between 1981 and
| 1985. After that, must be both DOT approved and certified
for aircraft use.
| Other specifics apply, see §91.107 for details.
|
| --
| Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict...
|
|