### Letter **- Request to Use CARES for Larger/Older Persons:** 

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 Luke Shaffer to be able to use an FAA Approved Child Restra in t 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 Luke Shaffer is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 1 4 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Luke Shaffer 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 son Luke Shaffer’s physical condition is as follows My son Luke Shaffer has Cerebral palsy and has a hard time sitting without a harness system

. Luke has high tone and can be rigid at times. He can not sit up straight without the extra help. Luke is 11 years old 4 foot 9 (approx.) and he weighs between 60 and 65 pounds. As a result of his physical condition, he needs the support and security prov ided 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 t hey are securel y restrained in their seats during all phases of flight. The regulation also ensures that an individual does not cause harm to other passenge rs on the airplane by being thrown into them during turbulent or emergency conditions. I propose that Luke Shaffer 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 Luke Shaffer and a high level of safety for the other passengers and crew on the airplane. In fact, in Luke’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 Luke Shaffer is in the public interest. In a ddition, 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 unabl e 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 beli eve that the limit of 44 pounds was established because, with the additional weight of the child attached to the seatback, th e seatback would move forward more quickly in an accident scenario and this might cause a higher HIC load for the person seated in th e 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 o rder 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 Luke Shaffer only sits in a passenger seat wit h no passenger seated behind him . Theref ore, no unsafe condition would exist for a passenger seated behind Luke wh ile he isusing the CARES restraint. I also propose that all operations under this exemption be conducted with at least one of Luke’s parents or a caregiver accompanying him or her. In addition, I propose that Luke’s parent or 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 wa nt to travel May 5th 2012 thru May 10th 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 thi s 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 a child to use an FAA Approved Child Restraint System on an aircraft, even though the child exceeds the weight limits for the CRS. Due to physical challenges, without the support and se cu rity of thi s FAA Approved Child Restraint System, this child would be unable to fly. Werequest that this child be allowed to occupy an FAA Ap proved Child Restraint (CARES, manufactured by AmSafe, Inc.), even though he exceeds the manufacturer’s weight limits of 44 p ounds. In this case, the safety of this child is greatly enhanced by the extra support and security that the FAA Approved Restraint System will provide for him during the flight.