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 

McKenzie 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 McKenzie is aboard its aircraft is granted 

an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow McKenzie 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.

McKenzie is 8 year’s old, weighs 65 pounds, and is 56 inches tall. McKenzie’s physical 

condition is as follows lack of head, trunk or extremity 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:Mother of child: Angie Andersen 1100 Madison St SE Albany, OR 

97322

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 McKenzie 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 McKenzie and a high level of safety for the other passengers 

and crew on the airplane. In fact, in McKenzie’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 McKenzie 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 McKenzie only sits in a 

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

for a passenger seated behind McKenzie while she is using the CARES restraint. I also propose 

that all operations under this exemption be conducted with at least one of McKenzie’s parents or 

a caregiver accompanying him or her. In addition, I propose that McKenzie’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 26 – March 3rd, 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.

Nicole Canale, MPT

Randall Children’s Hospital

2801 N Gantenbein Avenue

Portland, OR 97227

ncanale@lhs.org

(503) 413-4214