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 Daniel 

Botelho Knopp 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 Daniel is aboard its aircraft is 

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

Daniel 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 is 4 year’s old, weighs 44 pounds, and is 44 inches tall. At the time of our travel he will 

probably be 45 pounds. My son’s physical condition is Quadriplegic Cerebral Palsy. 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 am also 

submitting the following contact information: 

Denise Botelho Knopp

4219 145th Ave Se 98006 Bellevue WA

deniseknopp@hotmail.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 Daniel 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 Daniel and a high level of safety for the other passengers and 

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

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

for a passenger seated behind Daniel while he is using the CARES restraint. I also propose that 

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

caregiver accompanying him. In addition, I propose that Daniel’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 on August/2015. 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 he 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 him during the flight.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

___________________________________

Denise Knopp (MOM)