Request to Use CARES for Larger/Older Persons

I am writing to request an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent required for 

Mark Radliff to be able to use an FAA Approved Child Restraint System even though he 

exceeds the weight limits for the CRS. In addition, if my petition is granted, I request that any 

air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Mark Radliff is aboard its 

aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary 

to allow Mark Radliff to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint 

system during use of that child restraint system aboard an aircraft.

I believe the pertinent section from 14 CFR part 121 from which we seek relief is Section 

121.311 Seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses.

My father is 63 year’s old, weighs 190 pounds, and is 5 foot 11 inches tall. My father’s

physical condition is as follow: he was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, an 

ascending paralysis condition that can affect anyone at anytime, and subsequently 

can not move his arms and legs at this time; as well as very limited trunk muscle 

capability, though he is otherwise is in fairly good health and has been given the ‘ok’ 

to travel commercially by his doctors. This will be a single-time use, as my sister and I 

are teaming up with my father to relocate him closer to us as his life-situation has 

altered so greatly for some time yet to come. As a result of his physical condition, he

needs the support and security provided by an FAA Approved Child Restraint, but because 

of his weight is incapable of compliance with the regulation.

I understand that the regulation is written to create a high level of safety for each individual 

passenger by ensuring that they are securely restrained in their seats during all phases of 

flight. The regulation also ensures that an individual does not cause harm to other 

passengers on the airplane by being thrown into them during turbulent or emergency 

conditions.

I propose that Mark Radliff be allowed to occupy an FAA Approved Child Restraint (CARES, 

manufactured by AmSafe, Inc.), even though he exceeds the manufacturer’s weight limits. 

This ensures a high level of safety for my father, Mark Radliff and a high level of safety for 

the other passengers and crew on the airplane. In fact, in Mark Radliff’s case, safety is 

greatly enhanced by the extra support and security that the FAA Approved Restraint System 

will provide during the entire flight.

Enhancing safety for Mark Radliff is in the public interest. In addition, the public interest is 

also served by the fact that the use of this FAA Approved Child Restraint System allows him
to use commercial air transportation. Without the support and security of the FAA Approved 

Child Restraint System, he would be unable to fly commercially.

I also believe that, with certain limitations established by the FAA in a grant to this petition, 

there can be an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the affected regulation. The 

CARES restraint has been certified by the manufacturer for use by children 22- 44 pounds. 

However, the components of the CARES restraint are the same as those used in restraints 

for adults on aircraft and would maintain their integrity if used by someone who weighed 

several hundred pounds.

I believe that the limit of 44 pounds was established because, with the additional weight of 

the child attached to the seatback, the seatback would move forward more quickly in an 

accident scenario and this might cause a higher HIC load for the person seated in the seat 

behind the passenger using the CARES restraint (because the seatback moving forward 

more quickly would mean that it would not be there to attenuate the energy from the impact 

of the person seated behind the person using the CARES restraint).

In order to achieve an equivalent level of safety as that provided by the affected regulation, I 

propose that the FAA establish a limitation in a grant to this petition that Mark Radliff only 

sits in a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind her. Therefore, no unsafe 

condition would exist for a passenger seated behind Mark Radliff while he is using the 

CARES restraint. I also propose that all operations under this exemption be conducted with 

at least one of Mark Radliff’s caregiver accompanying him or her (which as his daughter 

and caregiver I, Cassandra Radliff, will be). In addition, I propose that Mark Radliff’s 

caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption.

I also request that the processing of this petition not be delayed for publication and comment 

in the Federal Register. We want to travel Friday, October, 26th, 2012. If you take the time 

to put this in the Federal Register, it will delay the process and we may not be able to travel 

in this timeframe.

If it is necessary to put a summary in the Federal Register, I submit the following:

This is a request for an exemption from FAR 121.311 (b) to the extent required for an adult to 

use an FAA Approved Child Restraint System on an aircraft, even though the adult exceeds 

the weight limits for the CRS. Due to physical challenges, without the support and security of 

this FAA Approved Child Restraint System, this adult would be unable to fly. We request that 

this adult be allowed to occupy an FAA Approved Child Restraint (CARES, manufactured by 
AmSafe, Inc.), even though he exceeds the manufacturer’s weight limits of 44 pounds. In this 

case, the safety of this adult and parent is greatly enhanced by the extra support and 

security that the FAA Approved Restraint System will provide for him during the flight.