Request to Use CARES Child Restraint System for Larger/Older Persons

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

Jacobsen to be able to use an FAA Approved Child Restraint System even though she 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 Madalyn Jacobsen is aboard its aircraft is granted an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Madalyn Jacobsen 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 Daughter is 6 year’s old, weighs 55 pounds, and is 48 inches tall. My daughters’s physical condition is 

as follows seizures, hyperactivity, impulsivity, non-verbal due to Angelman Syndrome. As a result of her 

physical condition, she needs the support and security provided by an FAA Approved Child Restraint, but 

because of her weight is incapable of compliance with the regulation. I am also submitting the 

following contact information: Gina Jacobsen, 510 Chapel Court Eagan Mn 55121 and 

gfkj1211@gmail.com

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 Madalyn Jacobsen be allowed to occupy an FAA Approved Child Restraint (CARES, 

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

a high level of safety for Madalyn Jacobsen and a high level of safety for the other passengers and crew 

on the airplane. In fact, in Madalyn’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 Madalyn 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 her to use commercial air 

transportation. Without the support and security of the FAA Approved Child Restraint System, she

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 Madalyn only sits in a passenger seat 

with no passenger seated behind her. Therefore, no unsafe condition would exist for a passenger seated 

behind Madalyn while she is using the CARES restraint. I also propose that all operations under this 

exemption be conducted with at least one of Madalyn’s parents or a caregiver accompanying him or 

her. In addition, I propose that Madayln’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 want to travel February 11-19, 2016. 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 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 security of this FAA Approved Child Restraint 

System, this child would be unable to fly. We request that this child be allowed to occupy an FAA 

Approved Child Restraint (CARES, manufactured by AmSafe, Inc.), even though she exceeds the 

manufacturer’s weight limits of 44 pounds. 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 her during the flight.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Gina Jacobsen

Madalyn’s Mother

510 Chapel Court

Eagan, Mn 55121

651-442-1084

Gfkj1211@gmail.com