DOI: 10.21949/1529728
title: Analysis of Child Restraint System (CRS) Compatibility with Aircraft Seats [supporting dataset]

description: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) encourages the use of aircraft-approved child restraint systems (CRS, or child safety seats) on aircraft. CRS are primarily designed for use in automotive vehicles. The installation of a CRS on an aircraft seat can be challenging due to physical space restrictions. If too many barriers exist for caregivers attempting to fly with a CRS, they might choose a less safe option such as holding their infant or buckling a small child into a lap belt only. The broad objective of this work is to quantify compatibility concerns between CRS and aircraft seats and belts to ultimately facilitate higher rates of CRS use on aircraft. The physical dimensions of aircraft seats (n=8) were obtained through collaboration with the seat manufacturers. Seats included economy and premium in regional jet, narrow body, and wide body aircraft. The corresponding dimensions of various CRS (n=64) were compiled from previous studies. Compatibility between CRS and aircraft seats was predicted in terms of seat width, seat cushion angles, seat cushion length, head restraint height, depth, and belt buckle location. Aircraft seat dimensions were also compared to automotive vehicle seat dimensions (n=111) collected during previous studies so that broad comparisons could be made across the seating environments. Aircraft seat dimensions were also compared to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 213 inversion bench and the aircraft/CRS compatibility guidance within SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 4466. The width of several aircraft seats could not accommodate the width of many CRS, especially larger types of CRS in regional jet or narrow body aircraft. Aircraft seat cushion angles were more horizontal than those in vehicles. The seat back angle with respect to seat cushion angle matched forward-facing (FF) CRS reasonably well, suggesting good fit in terms of angle. Seat cushion length in aircraft are shorter than the length needed to accommodate many rear-facing (RF) CRS. The depth of aircraft seats (fore/aft space between rows) is similar to that of vehicles with the front row slider track in the fully rearward position. This may cause difficulty installing large CRS in RF mode. Aircraft seat belt buckle hardware often sits within the belt path of many CRS. The FMVSS 213 inversion bench has a steeper seat pan angle and more acute angle between seat cushions compared to the aircraft seat dimensions collected in this study. The aircraft seat dimensions matched the guidance in SAE ARP4466 well, and the recommended dimensions would accommodate some of the smaller CRS but not larger CRS.

The total size of the ZIP file is 12KB.
description: This item is made available under the terms of Public Domain. Use the following citation:  United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Office of Aviation. Office of Aerospace Medicine (2023). Analysis of Child Restraint System (CRS) Compatibility with Aircraft Seats [supporting datasets]. https://doi.org/10.21949/1529728