Child seat

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?

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?
|

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

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
newsPB5g.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...

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
| newsPB5g.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...
|
|

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

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

How do the rules differ in Canada?

Google: Transport Canada+child seat

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

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.