Child booster seat

E

evapilotaz

En-Route
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
2,623
Location
Gilbert AZ. VFR All Year Baby
Display Name
Display name:
Drone airspace abuser
I took my 11yr child flying for the first time in a c172n yesterday. He is to short to see over the dashboard of the airplane. I thinking about getting him a pilot booster seat. Has any one done this with their child? Thanks
 
There are no "pilot booster seats" for child use. Although it makes a lot of sense and would probably enhance safety, booster-type seats are explicitly prohibited by 14 CFR 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B )(4).

OTOH, there are a number of seat cushion devices which might be very useful in this situation, such as these:
RV7%20Bluelr.jpg
softseat-seat-cushion-base-lumbar-combo-tn.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dad used pillows with me when I was a kid.

I do the same for my kids now too.
 
My 9 year old can see over the nose of a 172N, and he's not that big. Do you have a height or tilt adjustment on the right seat? Some 172s do, others don't. With a booster cushion, he can't reach the rudder pedals. He fits real nice in a 152 (but I don't).

He can't see over a 182.
 
evapilotaz said:
I rather have a cushion seat that elevates him a few inches. I think he
Would enjoy the flight more if he could see over the nose.
Click to expand...

You can buy something that costs a bunch or improvise...when I mention pillows they are seat cushions from table chairs you sit on at home...2-3 stacked work well. Apologies for not being specific. Although my 3 yr old doubles his pillow over in the back seat, sits on top for at most 30 min...after that he uses it to take a nap.;)
 
Ron Levy said:
There are no "pilot booster seats" for child use. Although it makes a lot of sense and would probably enhance safety, booster-type seats are explicitly prohibited by 14 CFR 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B )(4).
Click to expand...

Except as provided in § 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B)(3)(iii) and § 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B)(3)(iv), booster-type child restraint systems (as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness-type child restraint systems, and lap held child restraints are not approved for use in aircraft​

Does "not approved" mean prohibited?

All of this relates to the exceptions to the requirements that "[E]ach person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft . . . must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing."

It follows that child seats must be approved, because a child in a child seat is not "occupy[ing] an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her," and the exception only exists for approved child seats.

But a child in a booster seat appears to be "occupy[ing] an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her," since the child in the booster seat uses the existing seatbelt. The booster seat is just designed to elevate the kid slightly to put him or her in the right position for the safety belt. This seems to be the same as an adult sitting on a pillow (or one of the cushions you posted).

Is there some authority that says that booster seats are specifically prohibited?
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Except as provided in § 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B)(3)(iii) and § 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B)(3)(iv), booster-type child restraint systems (as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness-type child restraint systems, and lap held child restraints are not approved for use in aircraft​

Does "not approved" mean prohibited?
Click to expand...

No it means if you crash and everyone survives except the kid in the not approved seat...the FAA doesn't have to answer to anyone because none of the booster seat manufacturers wanted to pay an outrageous price to get it certified.

If the booster seat is good enough for a car....should do well in any crash that you can walk away from in an airplane.
 
TEFLONSEAN said:
No it means if you crash and everyone survives except the kid in the not approved seat...the FAA doesn't have to answer to anyone because none of the booster seat manufacturers wanted to pay an outrageous price to get it certified.

If the booster seat is good enough for a car....should do well in any crash that you can walk away from in an airplane.
Click to expand...

Umm, you might want to research this before spouting off.

The regulation isn't terribly valid for light aircraft, but it was for airliners at the time.

It had nothing to do with "outrageous" certification costs -- in fact, almost all car seats (not boosters) with integral harnesses DO have the approval. The regulation was based on real data -- there was an elevated risk from close proximity to the seat in front that simply doesn't occur in cars.

The study is an interesting read. One of the major factors was the booster seat breaking because it didn't fit well in an airliner seat. It's also clear that more recent booster seats aren't constructed in the same manner, so the regulation might need some updating.

And "not approved" does indeed mean prohibited. Why else would that regulation even exist?
 
Last edited:
we use the same booster seat as in the car

no it doesn't say "FAA approved" anywhere in it that I can see. Nor did the sears catalog that i sat on in the champ when i was her age.
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • piper napping sm.JPG
    piper napping sm.JPG
    38.2 KB · Views: 121
Ok my son is 11 years old so this isn't a booster seat like you put you small children in a car.

I'm talking about getting him this one in the attached picture. FAA approved I'm not sure. He can use the airplane seat and shoulder belt with this.
 

Attachments

  • booster.JPG
    booster.JPG
    82.4 KB · Views: 42
MAKG1 said:
My 9 year old can see over the nose of a 172N, and he's not that big. Do you have a height or tilt adjustment on the right seat? Some 172s do, others don't. With a booster cushion, he can't reach the rudder pedals. He fits real nice in a 152 (but I don't).

He can't see over a 182.
Click to expand...

I have to check again if there is a seat Height adjustment but I don't think so. He has long legs so I have him pushed far enough were he cannot reach the rudder peddles.
 
evapilotaz said:
Ok my son is 11 years old so this isn't a booster seat like you put you small children in a car.

I'm talking about getting him this one in the attached picture. FAA approved I'm not sure. He can use the airplane seat and shoulder belt with this.
Click to expand...
That is a "cushion", not a "booster-type seat." As with the other cushion devices I mentioned above, I see no violation of the regulations in its use.
 
Definitely go the booster cushion route for his age.

Why you wouldn't put a kid in a car seat or booster seat as they should be in the car is beyond me. Probably just a good example of the FAA lagging behind on rule making.
 
Ron Levy said:
:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Sometimes with government regulations you need to be a social engineer. If reality doesn't comply with regulation, you dont find regulation, you change reality. "Booster" becomes "cushion".
 
gitmo234 said:
Sometimes with government regulations you need to be a social engineer. If reality doesn't comply with regulation, you dont find regulation, you change reality. "Booster" becomes "cushion".
Click to expand...
Not sure that means being a social engineer, more like a creative wordsmith. :D
 
Ron Levy said:
Not sure that means being a social engineer, more like a creative wordsmith. :D
Click to expand...

And it's legit when you read the study on which that reg was based.

What they considered a booster seat 20 years ago and what we do now are not the same.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes.

Yes -- the regulation cited, which says the device must be "approved", and "booster-type seats" are specifically "not approved".
Click to expand...


Words have meaning Ron. With the law, you cannot make assumptions which is what you have done.

Not approved and prohibited are different. The booster seats are not prohibited statutorily. Even a layman in law can see that. I think I would be a valid argument the booster seat is not statutorily prohibited. I also think if the FAA were to try and enforce it, prima facia, why is it good for millions of kids in cars, but in an aircraft it somehow becomes dangerous? I think even an administrative law judge could make this call without much deliberation.
 
Unit74 said:
Words have meaning Ron. With the law, you cannot make assumptions...
Click to expand...
I agree. If you say "booster seat", there's no assumption to be made -- it is explicitly banned by the regulation. But, as I pointed out, if you say "cushion", there's no issue.

which is what you have done
Click to expand...
Hokum. The OP said "booster seat", and the regulation is specific on "booster-type seats".
 
What I find I problematic with "cushions"dates back to my collision investigation days.....

The term is called submarining, where as the wearer of the belt has it either too loose or of such a small stature that it is ineffective. When adhering to Newton's first law, the ill fitting belt results in the person sliding under the belt and being deposited somewhere in the lower dashboard.

Should a responsible parent who can lawfully transport a child in an airplane be forced to stuff pillows under the child to comply with a regulation that fails to adequately address child transportation in an aircraft?

That's tantamount to saying only an adult figure which the belt was certified to restrain may use said restraint, and all other nonstandard occupants are not authorized to use the restraint before certification is obtained. Foolishness abounds in the laws and that's why there are judges.

I ask this....

What is safer? A child in a commercially manufactured booster seat or a stack of pillows under their hind quarters, both belted down?

Like I said, if challenged, the FAA has no rational basis to affirm a " not authorized" on a booster seat. It's simply foolishness and in this day and age, and the basis for any argument against would be down right inflammatory. Does the FAA hate children?
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes.

Yes -- the regulation cited, which says the device must be "approved", and "booster-type seats" are specifically "not approved".
Click to expand...
The regulation cited says that (paraphrasing) every occupant of an aircraft has to have his own seat and wear his seatbelt.

One of the exceptions to this requirement is for a child occupying an "approved child restraint system." The specific provision you cite is a qualification on this exception. IOW, If you are complying with the requirement by putting each occupant in his own approved seat with safety belt, the exception (and the qualification on the exception) are irrelevant.

The exception is necessary for "car seats" i.e, "approved child restraint systems," because when a kid is in a car seat, he doesn't use the built-in safety belt, rather, he's secured by the car seat's restraints. But a belt-positioning booster seat is not restraining and when using one, the built-in seatbelt is used. IMO, the kid in a booster seat is complying with 91.107(a)(3), so the exception shouldn't matter.

I also don't see any difference, regulation wise, between a booster seat and the portable cushions you posted.

I note that the analogous section under Part 121 includes the following prohibition:

14 C.F.R. § 121.311 Seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses.
. . .
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the following prohibitions apply to certificate holders:
(1) Except as provided in § 121.311(b)(2)(ii)(C)(3) and § 121.311(b)(2)(ii)(C)(4), no certificate holder may permit a child, in an aircraft, to occupy a booster-type child restraint system, a vest-type child restraint system, a harness-type child restraint system, or a lap held child restraint system during take off, landing, and movement on the surface.​

The fact that the FAA felt the need to include an express prohibition under part 121, but did not include it under part 91, further suggests to me that booster seats are not prohibited in part 91 operations.

That's just my interpretation; the FAA might have a different one; entertainment purposes only; if you need legal advice, consult an attorney; etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
:sigh:

Just don't get anything called a "booster seat". Instead, get something with the word "cushion".

Is that simple enough?

Jeez....
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Has anyone actually read the CFR definition of "booster seat"?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title49-vol6/pdf/CFR-2011-title49-vol6-sec571-213.pdf

Seems like some potential for trouble using a backless seat cushion or a belt positioning system that wasn't designed for the way an airplane shoulder harness pulls...

I'd say the pic that Jeff posted doesn't meet the CFR definition of a booster seat.
Click to expand...


Therein lies the rub.... You have multiple regulations that crisscross all over each other. Which one has the right of way?

I will reaffirm that using a commercially produced child seat is 100% legit and would discourage anyone from stuffing pillows under a child's bottom. That's lunacy.:nono:
 
MauleSkinner said:
Has anyone actually read the CFR definition of "booster seat"?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title49-vol6/pdf/CFR-2011-title49-vol6-sec571-213.pdf

Seems like some potential for trouble using a backless seat cushion or a belt positioning system that wasn't designed for the way an airplane shoulder harness pulls...

I'd say the pic that Jeff posted doesn't meet the CFR definition of a booster seat.
Click to expand...
The pic is of a "belt-positioning seat," which is a type of booster seat.
 
Wow did I open a can of worms by saying booster seat? I meant a cushion seat that would elevate him a few inches. You guys are way smarter than I am about this stuff. It's been very interesting though.
 
Well what do you know the Cessna I fly does indeed have hight adjustable seats and my sons was all the way down. Next time I crank it all the way up for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top