View Full Version : Infants as pax.

Kaptin M
11th Sep 2004, 23:12
As this is a Safety topic, is it possible for the mods to leave it on this main forum for max exposure, please?

On another occasion, I've had a "debate" with non-flying staff about the designation (or NON designation) of infants as passengers.
In many carriers today, airlines - in their attempt to cut costs - are working on providing the absolute MINIMUM number of Flight Attendants required, this number being determined by the number of passengers carried - 1 F/A per 50 pax.
But to reduce this number even further, infants are NOT included in the passenger count.

Except on ALL company documentation, eg. Weight & Balance (as given to the cockpit crew), pax inventory..PPI. PSL, PIL...whatever name you want to call it....given to the Purser, or Chief, and the number of infants is included with the total pax count as advised to the cockpit crew by the C/A's.

IMO, the life of an infant is NO different to anyone else - but I guess to an airline they are not occupying (nor purchasing) a seat - although in most cases the parents will still have to pay to have them carried.

So WHY is the total number of F/A's - responsible for the Safety of ALL passengers in the aircraft - not determined by the TOTAL number of lives on board at the time.
It's rubbish, imo, to say that the person who carried them onboard will carry them off in an emergency. for many and vaired reasons.

Can ANYONE please provide me with a plausable reason as to WHY infants are excluded from the total pax count determining the legal number of F/A's required?

11th Sep 2004, 23:23
Kap, fair comment.

In at least 2 airlines that I can recall, there was a limit on the number of infants per flight. I'm really scratching here but the figure 5 rings a bell on a BAe142 for some reason.

The FAM/ Op's Manual would give the finite answer to this.


PS You haven't done it again have you?:D

11th Sep 2004, 23:24
Ummm Kaptain M,

The number of flight attendants required is based on the number of seats, not passengers.

See FAR Sec. 121.391 (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/374B1C00FF9F18BB852566EF006C7AA6?OpenDocument) for the complete text of the regulations determining required number of flight attendants


Kaptin M
12th Sep 2004, 00:25
That cannot be entirely correct, Wino, as some freighter aircraft have seats installed, but carry NO flight attendants, even when ground staff are occasionally transported.

Let's remember WHY F/A's are required - to organise/assist during any emergency, and esp. an evacuation, which could just as easily occur during (pax) onboard refuelling.

12th Sep 2004, 00:46
Well 19 pax aircraft like the Beach 1900 carry NO flight attendants (again its that number of fitted seats thing) with 19 fair paying passengers. The carriage of passengers (Non fare paying) on a freighter is carried under a slightly different exemption that includes making sure the pax are briefed on the operations of the doors and slides.

During Refueling there are certain minimum numbers of flight attendants that are required (50 percent is a good guideline) But the requirements for flight are determined by the number of fitted seats which is why lap children (2 and under) which can legally be carried on the lap without their own seats do not count.


12th Sep 2004, 01:46
The number of flight attendants required is based on the number of seats, not passengers.
Hi Wino...

That is true of many countries in the world, but there are a few exceptions.

Yes, the US FARs and European JARs require that there be one flight attendant for every 50 passenger seats (1:50) or portion thereof installed in the aircraft.

However, in Canada, the CARs require that there be one flight attendant for every 40 passengers (1:40) or portion thereof on board an aircraft. There are additional requirements that in effect dictate a minimum staffing level based on the aircraft type/configuration, the number of exits and any special considerations arising from the certification emergency evacuation demonstration.

The Australian Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) require that there be one flight attendant for every 36 passengers (1:36) or portion thereof on board and for aircraft with more than 216 seats or that has twin aisles, the minimum cannot be less than the number of floor level exits.

The main difference with the various regulatory authorities is that the Canadian and Australian requirements are based upon the number of passengers actually on board whereas the U.S. and European requirements are based upon the number of seats installed in the aircraft, whether occupied or not.

CAR 705.104 - Flight Attendant Requirements (http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/REGSERV/CARAC/CARS/cars/705e.htm#705_104)

CAO 20.16.3(6) Cabin Attendants (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/Cao20/201603.pdf)

Kaptain M...

Here is one interpretation as established by the lawyers some years ago here in Canada:

Advisory Circular 0116 - Infant Passenger Count (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/commerce/circulars/AC0116.htm)

Kaptin M
12th Sep 2004, 02:55
Thanks for the input so far.

Your link to the advisory circular provided some useful info, thanks CD, namely:-
An infant secured in a lap-held position by a parent or guardian passenger is not counted as a passenger for purposes of determining the minimum number of flight attendants required on board an aircraft, and the maximum number of occupants authorized to be on board an aircraft. However, the infant is counted as a passenger for purposes of applying regulatory requirements such as those pertaining to oxygen, life preservers and survival equipment.

An infant secured in a restraint system is counted as a passenger for purposes of determining the minimum number of flight attendants required on board an aircraft, determining the maximum number of occupants authorized to be on board an aircraft, and applying regulatory requirements such as those pertaining to oxygen, life preservers and survival equipment.

Here in Japan, they confuse the issue, by stating the minimum number of F/A's to be carried based on the number of seats, but then nominate how to determine this number based on actual passengers {

I contend that as infants appear in ALL company documentation as "pax/passengers", that the companies must comply with the determination of F/A's according to the rules THEY have stated!

Why a "lap-held" infant is NOT counted, whereas one who is in say a crib, as provided by almost all airlines, IS counted beggars belief.
This law implies that the infant must be seated in the parent's/guardian's lap for the ENTIRE flight, if the airline companies are going to apply this rule.
We're talking about Safety, for the sake of only ONE extra F/A.

Of course, the argument ALL centres around cost cutting - but HERE is one example of where penny pinching IS reflected on a degradation of Safety.

Is an infant's life worth less than someone older?

Devils Advocate
12th Sep 2004, 06:20
Wrt....: 'We're talking about Safety, for the sake of only ONE extra F/A. Of course, the argument ALL centres around cost cutting - but HERE is one example of where penny pinching IS reflected on a degradation of Safety.'

Q). Empirically, how many 'infants' have been injured and / or killed in aviation incidents / accidents and in those incidents / accidents would having an extra F/A onboard have made much of difference to the outcome ?

I think we'd all agree that one of the FA's rolls is to open the doors and scream at the pax to get out ( which includes people in charge of infants ). Accordingly one supposes it could be argued that a more legitimate reason for having an extra F/A onboard is to ensure that each door is ‘personned’ (pc) by at least one F/A.
I.e. The legal requirement for most aircraft ( i.e. those which have more than 19 seats ) is for 1 F/A per 50 seats or fraction of seats thereof - and even that number can be reduced to 2 ( subject to certain provisos ).

So extra F/A's onboard specifically to address infant safety, uhm ?!

Kaptin M
12th Sep 2004, 07:39
Many llc's these days work on employing the absolute minimum number of F/A's that they can get away with, DA - using the case of the popular B737, this is usually 3 F/A's for a 150 seat configuration.

However, it is not unusual to see a full load of 150, PLUS (say) 6, or 8 infants - a total PAX count of over 150, which would -employing the formula of 1 C.A. per 50 pax (or unit thereof) incur the NECESSITY to have another Cabin Attendant on board, for Safety reasons.

You are correct, DA one of the roles of an F/A is "to open the doors and scream at the pax to get out", however another role, following an evacuation of an aircraft is to check the cabin to ensure that everybody has vacated.
There is no guarantee that the person(s) who carried the infant)s) on board is going to survive, and to demonstrate this necessity, ALL of the airlines with whom I have been employed have small, life size dolls that the checkers will place on/under seats of the mock-ups used during aircrew emergency training and re-validations, to make sure that the infants are all accounted for.

After all, infants ARE passengers........aren't they?

Captain Stable
12th Sep 2004, 08:37
Assume that you have a severe failure of some description in cruise and you are going to ditch.

How much extra work is each infant going to result in the members of the cabin crew doing? At what point will they not be able to cope (i.e. ensure all pax are briefed and prepared and the cabin secure)? Do the regulations take into account the possible number of infants in the 1 CC:50 SLF ratio? Is there a sufficiently low limit on the max number of infants (plus other disabled pax - blind/deaf/UNMINs/WCHCs/WCHRs) on board an aircraft?


Devils Advocate
12th Sep 2004, 09:29
For the enlightenment of those unfamiliar some of the limits upon the carriage of infants.... these are typically a function of the following: The number of additional pax Oxygen dropdown masks ( i.e. at least one per pax seat + one additional mask ) - wherein not all aircraft have equal numbers of O2 masks either side of the aisle(s).
The number of infant lifejackets & lifecots that are carried.
The number of available extension seatbelts.
The need to seat Able Bodied Pax (ABP's) in particular seats - e.g adjacent to doors and / or emergency exits.
Any local limitation in force, i.e. either regulatory or by company SOP.Thus, basically, which ever is the most limiting of these conditions becomes the limt.

Kaptin M
12th Sep 2004, 11:18
Do the regulations take into account the possible number of infants in the 1 CC:50 SLF ratio?

Thanks Captain Stable, that is pretty much the issue I am trying to address.
Although it would appear that in many cases the Regulations of different countries define 1 F/A per X number of passengers, the determination of whether infants are included is obscure.
In my opinion, infants should HAVE to be included in the passenger total that determines the number of Flight Attendants required.

I'd like to use this forum to urge ALL pilots concerned with Safety, to raise this issue with your Company and with the aviation Authority in the country where you are working.

Bomber Harris
12th Sep 2004, 11:49
I don't think this is a science. Did you happen to notice that th "50" in the 1:50 rule is a "very round number". Nobody can really say how many pax a CA can safely take care of. You have to be sensible about this sort of thing. However, the regulators have to make a ruling...it's their job....and they picked 50.

Nobody can make a rule (including all of us here) and not have somebody come along and think of a scenario that was never dreamed of during the rule making. The problem is..i guess... rulemakers are slow to update rules.

Anyway, my take on it is that a babe in arms will not take any longer to evacuate that mother alone (in fact mabe quciker if you factor in instinct:D ) . So no big deal. I think a clinically obese person would take much longer and cause more of an obstruction. Do we regulate against the number of obese people per CA? No, it's not practical.

There are some things we just have to take on the chin in life, and one of them is counting mothers and babes jumping out of an aircraft as one person.

Of course my argument wouldn't stand up in court. Now KM, if you were to ask what would happen at the ensuing board of enquiry....well I have no idea...ask a lawyer. But history has never proven this to be an issue so it is probably unlikely the 'ensuing board of enquiry' will ever occur.

So for me I'm afraid I have to put this one down to nit picking....sorry

12th Sep 2004, 13:39
Kaptin M - it's not just the lo-cos who put the minimum number of cabin crew on 737s these days. Lufthansa stopped putting 4 on and reduced it to 3 earlier this year to try to save costs - at the same time dumbing-down their European Business Class service to its current poor standard.

No doubt all to pay for electric beds and WLAN internet for the premium classes on longhaul?

12th Sep 2004, 16:44
In certain cases it would take longer to evacuate an infant, ie: a planned ditching.
The parents have to be instructed how to operate a life cot, not the easiest thing to do when you've had time in the classroom let alone when you're panicking about your survival chances. It would take 1 member of cabin crew quite a while to instruct the parent of one infant & probably 2 if there were several infants on board. Also the cabin crew would probably have to fetch blankets for each infant if they didn't already have them. Safety aside, cabin crew also spend a lot of time during the service warming bottles & baby food & retrieving abandoned nappies, all an extra workload for a minimum crew.
I think this is a very good thread & not before time!

12th Sep 2004, 17:59
Hmmm cany help feeling that this all a bit of an academic discussion.
Fundamentally the safest way to transport infants is in a proper infant seat and not on an adults lap.
Briefing an adult with an infant during a planned emergency might take more time, but so would any blind or deaf adults, or foreign language only passengers - so should their number also be used to calculate the required number of flight attendants? Where do you draw the line? Safety in the real world sometimes has to take second place to commercial pressure.
Maybe the best thing would be to ensure that the SLF actually pay attention to the pre-flight safety demo properly. Mind you the configuration of some cabins and the number of demos carried out means that some pax can't always see the demo anyway.

12th Sep 2004, 18:35
Fundamentally the safest way to transport infants is in a proper infant seat and not on an adults lap.

Right, I agree, which is why when we travel with SD Junior we take his seat with us so he can sit on it in the extra seat/ticket we have paid for.

However.......Despite seeing children on flights in child seats strapped to the airline seat, and despite assurances weeks prior to the flight, and at checkin before the flight....SD carried Juniors seat out to aircraft to be told at the steps "Sorry you cant take that on the aircraft".....

I argued the safety aspect of said seat and showed we had paid for SD Juniors ticket, who is 2... pointed out that the child seat fits in the airline seats great and we have done it before - on their carrier and others, but FA wouldnt budge. Eventually as other pax were held up I let it drop, seat was put in the hold, and SD junior had to sit in seat far too huge for him with the belt too big etc:* :mad:

On the return Flight it wasnt a problem..:hmm:

Out of a half dozen flights in the last year with the little guy, One refusal (above, AF) and one objection on boarding - eventually the FA gave in that it was safer after pointing out the seat would fit properly.

Infants on flights is indeed a subject that needs discussing, Airlines & crews should encourage safety, not tell you black is white....

Regards, SD

12th Sep 2004, 21:07
Despite what I consider the sense shown by SD the fact that an infant pays only 10% of most scheduled fares (or is free on some domestic services) influences parents. I can't help feeling, therefore, that as long as the fare remains so low the anomalies referred to here will remain in place.

13th Sep 2004, 02:50
I hope not too much of a diversion, but some (even large, reputable) airline reservations systems cannot even count infants properly...

For instance, FF points redeemers with an infant.

13th Sep 2004, 07:43

I assure you that I paid the same price for my ticket as I did for SD juniors ticket, and this is the case for all the airlines I have flown with or checked prices for.....

Regards, SD.

PS. If you are talking about a child under 2, who is to sit on the parents lap, then that could be different. But if you want a separate seat for your child, then you definitely pay for it, I know from experience!!!

surely not
13th Sep 2004, 08:01
Skydriller, if your child is 2, then on International flights they should only be charged the child fare, i.e. 50% of the adult fare.

If on a UK domestic, then they are still under 3 and classed as an infant, and assumed to be lap carried. If you then decide not to lap carry but to purchase a seat, the airline charges you full fare on the basis that they are potentially losing an opportunity for an adult full fare pax to occupy the seat.

Young Paul
13th Sep 2004, 09:19
I'm with those people who pointed out that 1 crew per 50 seats is "arbitrary", and quibbling over infants carried is a bit of an academic exercise. In any case, the CAA for one will mandate an increase in the minimum crew required if it thinks the 1 in 50 rule isn't enough - the min crew on 195 seat A321's is 5, for example. However, at three crew stations, that is still only one crew member per two doors!

In SEP training, the crews are taught basically to deal with a crowd. There is far more variation in passengers than worrying about a couple of infants more or less. The difference between 195+ charter passengers, many slightly the worse for wear for drink, going to say Corfu on a Saturday night, and 90 passengers on the same aircraft on a Wednesday lunchtime flight between London and Brussels (say) is immense.

Incidentally, I have three children of my own and have taken them on various flights, so this isn't a statement of indifference, by any means. In fact, one of the things that bugs me when I am on a flight with my family is what would happen in a serious emergency. And that's why I would be most unhappy about letting my children travel unaccompanied until they are about 15.

15th Sep 2004, 10:28
Skydriller makes a good point about the problems flying with infants even when you book a seat.
It pretty horrifying to find that the point of the extension belt for infants is mearly to prevent them becoming an unrestrained projectile in a crash and offers NO PROTECTION for the infant and increases the risk of injury for the adult carrying them!
At least in the US the rules for using infant car seats on aircraft are clear, the CAA in the UK seam to want to dodge the issue by not making it easy to find information on apprioved car seats for aviation use.
Of course the oxygen issue is another point; quite often you could have 3adults and 2lap carried infants in a row on a narrow body where there are only 4 masks if your lucky and perhaps 3.

15th Sep 2004, 11:17
SD, I think I'd have gone along with the FA and informed her that any injury to my child through her decision will be her responsibility and in that event appropriate legal action will be taken against her personally. All b/s no doubt, but I'd have felt better.

Iron City
15th Sep 2004, 15:23
Daysleeper- That is why seatbelt extensions, belly bands, harnesses etc for carrying babys are not allowed in U.S. airliners. There is also not a specific TSO approval for child safety seats for use in aircraft, rather that is all done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the aviation authorities just say if it is okay for automobiles then it is okay for aircraft. The biggest problem is still strapping the seat into the aircraft and having it work properly in a crash. There are videos on the Civil Aeromedical Center web site that show how these will work (or not work) in a crash and it is sobering indeed.

A few years ago FAA declined to make a rule requiring use of child safety seats because the analysis results were that the cost would drive more families to drive on the highways, a much more hazardous way to travel, and the net overall result of such a rule would be more dead children. Predictable yelling and accusations all around.

15th Sep 2004, 21:40
Ok, this doesn't relate specifically to the cabin crew ratio but it does relate specifically to the carriage of infants... so it's not really off topic. ;)

Has there been testing conducted of child restraint systems on board aircraft? The answer is yes:

The Performance of Child Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane Passenger Seats

ABSTRACT: The performance of child restraint devices (CRDs) in commercial transport airplane passenger seats was evaluated by a dynamic impact test program. Background information on the policies and regulations related to child restraints is summarized. Tests were conducted at the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. Six types (CRDs) certified for use in airplanes were tested. Booster seats, forward facing carriers, aft facing carriers, a harness device, a belly belt, and passenger seat lap belts were evaluated. Impact tests were conducted with CRDs installed on airplane passenger seats. The test severity was 16 Gpk with an impact velocity of 44 ft/sec. Effects of multiple row seats, aft row occupant impact loads, and seat back breakover were part of the project protocol. Four child size anthropomorphic test dummies were utilized. The 6-month and 36-month size ATDs defined in 49 CFR Part 572, the 6-month size CRABI ATD, and a 24-month size experimental ATD identified as CAMIX were used in these tests. An experimental device to measure abdominal pressure was evaluated in the CRABI and CAMIX ATDs. Analyses of the data acquired from the tests and observations related to the performance of the CRDs in airplane seats are presented.

Click here for the full report... (http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/faa/am/AM94-19.pdf)

See the following link for some excellent video relating to dyanimc child restraint testing:

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute - Biodynamics Research Team (http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/AAM-600/Biodynamics/600Biody.html)

As for the belly-belt or loop-belt, the German authority also conducted testing on this device and published the following information:

JAR-OPS 1.320 and 1.730 outline, among other things, the transportation of infants and children. The provisions allow multiple occupancy of aircraft passenger seats. Accordingly, infants (< 2 years) are properly transported on an adult's lap. JAR OPS 1.730 further regulates that an operator is only allowed to operate an aircraft if he or she provides an additional loop belt or other restraint device for each infant.
For the transportation of infants on an adult's lap, the adult is restrained with a pelvic belt, and the infant is fixed on the adult's lap with an additional loop belt.
In a suddenly occurring deceleration in the longitudinal aircraft axis, the adult and the infant show a pronounced jack-knife effect. The upper torso and the lower extremities of the infant as well as of the adult sitting behind the infant fold up in a forward direction, with the loop belt restraining the infant. Finally, the loop belt drives into the infant's abdomen and only stops at his or her vertebral spine. From the technical point of view, the infant acts like an energy absorption element for the adult; the crash loads acting on the adult are thus reduced, and the infant fixed with the loop belt thus suffers most serious up to fatal injuries.

Examination on the Enhancement of Cabin Safety for Infants (http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2001Conference/files/CrashCabinSafetyComponentTesting/MSperberPAPER.pdf)

There is also now a Minimum Performance Standard identified for the design and manufacture of CRS intended for use in transport aircraft. This MPS has been adopted by the FAA and included in TSO C100b.

This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) defines minimum performance standards and related qualification criteria for add-on child restraint systems (CRS) which provide protection for small children in passenger seats of transport category airplanes. The AS is not intended to provide design criteria that could be met only by an aircraft-specific CRS. The goal of this standard is to achieve child-occupant protection by specifying a dynamic test method and evaluation criteria for the performance of CRS under emergency landing conditions."

Performance Standard for Child Restraint Systems in Transport Category Airplanes (https://shop.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=STD&PROD_CD=AS5276/1)
TSO-C100b ~ Child Restraint Systems (CRS) (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/3F6D56364A0414EF86256DC60069642B?OpenDocument)

This really is a topic that is important to all of us involved in passenger safety. I don't think there is an airline or regulatory authority anywhere that does not recommend, encourage, and cajole parents to pay for that extra seat and protect their infant by using an approved child restraint system.

Why would a parent endanger their child's life by carrying them on their lap unsecured?

That is a question that I often ask myself. Clearly, these parents fall into one of two groups: either they have put a price on their child's life (the price of a seat ticket) or they simply do not comprehend the potential hazards to their children while hurtling through the air at a high rate of speed (likely, the same parents that let their children crawl all around the car as they speed down the highway).

Personally, I'm fairly passionate about recommending the use of approved child restraint systems (CRS) on board aircraft and tell parents that whenever the opportunity presents itself.

There is alot of information on the 'net regarding the pro's and con's of mandating the use of CRS on board aircraft. Probably the biggest hurdle faced by regulators on this issue is the possibility of 'divergence'. This is the term that has been applied to parents who would opt not to pay for an additional seat for their child on board the aircraft if CRS are mandated and would rather 'divert' their mode of travel to their car where, statistically some groups feel there is a greater threat to injury or death. Here is an example of the view of some US pediatricians:

$1.3 Billion per Death Prevented
Effects & Costs of Requiring Child-Restraint Systems for Young Children on Commercial Airplanes, from Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, October, 2003 (extracts):

Child-restraint seat use could prevent about 0.4 child air crash deaths per year in the United States. Increased deaths as a result of car travel could exceed deaths prevented by restraint use if the proportion of families switching from air to car travel exceeded about 5 percent to 10 percent.

Assuming no increase in car travel, for each dollar increase in the cost of implementing the regulation per round trip per family, the cost per death prevented would increase by about $6.4 million.

For example, if the additional cost per round trip were $200 per young child, the cost per death prevented, ignoring car crash deaths, would be about $1.3 billion.

There are many factors we did not consider in this analysis ... the reduction in nonfatal injuries from CRS [child restraint system] use is likely to be small ... we did not consider decreased anxiety of parents and airline personnel and reduction of injuries to young children during turbulence and to surrounding passengers from unrestrained young children during crashes.

Conclusions: Unless space for young children in restraint seats can be provided at low cost to families, with little or no diversion to automobile travel, a policy requiring restraint seat use could cause a net increase in deaths. Even excluding this possibility, the cost of the proposed policy per death prevented is high.

(ASW note: The full article may be viewed at Effects and Costs of Requiring Child-Restraint Systems for Young Children Traveling (http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/157/10/969?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Billion+per+Death+Prevented&searchid=1087386978930_600&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=archpedi)

Here are some links with more information:

FAA: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) - Child Restraint Systems (http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=126825&docketid=9483)

The link above contains the proposed rulemaking effort by the FAA. The docket on that contains 280 submissions, both in favour and opposed to the rulemaking.

CEI: Comments to the Federal Aviation Administration on the draft of the Child Restraint Study Report (http://www.cei.org/gencon/027,01508.cfm)

Testimony of Barry Sweedler, Director Office of Safety Recommendations NTSB (http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/S960801.htm)

A Change Is In The Air: Child Restraint Systems (http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/change.htm)

Tips for Parents Using Child Restraints on Aircraft (http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/phl/tipsfor.htm)

Child Restraint Regulatory Developments in the United States (http://www.ntsb.gov/events/1999/meet_airchild/FAA_Pres/tsld001.htm)

Association of Flight Attendants: Child Restraint Systems (http://www.afanet.org/kidscrs.htm)

National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation: Child Safety Seat Press Release (http://www.planesafe.org/safety/safetyseat.htm)

AAP CALLS FOR AN END TO LAP TRAVEL FOR CHILDREN ON PLANES (http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/novair.htm)

FAA - Child Safety Seats (http://www.faa.gov/passengers/childsafetyseats.cfm)

Transport Canada Tips: Travelling With Children (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/commerce/CabinSafety/tips/tips5.htm#children)

Transport Canada FAQ: Infant Car Seats (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/commerce/CabinSafety/tips/faq2.htm)

Transport Canada Advisory Circular: Child Restraint Systems (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/commerce/circulars/AC0177.htm)

Airlinecrew.net - Child Restraint on Airliners (http://www.airlinecrew.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=110859&Main=110540)

USAToday - Child Seats Urged for Air Travel - 3 August 2004 (There is also now a Minimum Performance Standard identified for the design and manufacture of CRS intended for use in transport aircraft. This MPS has been adopted by the FAA and included in TSO C100b.)

16th Sep 2004, 11:56
Having had a chance to read CD's reply

Does anyone have contact details for
AFI (Aviation Furnishings International)
who manufacture the "carechair" refered to by the CAA as apporved for use on UK reg aircraft.