Infant Restraint System
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Infant Restraint System
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone can point me in the right direction of where to purchase an infant restraint system? (Or Belly Belt as I believe they have also been referred to).
Google brings up a lot of Q&A's regarding their requirement including CASA information - but nothing regarding who sells them, or where they can be obtained from.
Living in the sticks, I only have the internet as an option - so if anyone knows of a shop directly, can you please give me some information?
Cheers
AdzA
I was wondering if anyone can point me in the right direction of where to purchase an infant restraint system? (Or Belly Belt as I believe they have also been referred to).
Google brings up a lot of Q&A's regarding their requirement including CASA information - but nothing regarding who sells them, or where they can be obtained from.
Living in the sticks, I only have the internet as an option - so if anyone knows of a shop directly, can you please give me some information?
Cheers
AdzA
Moderator
If "belly belt" is an add-on to the normal adult seatbelt (ie the kid still sits on the adult's lap), avoid it like the plague .. total waste of time and money and near-guaranteed to kill the kid and seriously injure the adult in a prang.
If you want to carry an infant, the best option (and it's permitted - unless the current rules have changed somewhat) is to use an aviation acceptable automobile car seat in an aircraft seat fitted with a lapsash restraint system. The kid sits in his/her own seat the same as in the car.
I'm a bit out of touch with CAR 35 stuff these days so I can't give you current information off the top of my head.
If you give us your location, I can provide some appropriate CASA and current CAR 35 contacts for you to ring and discuss the current rules.
If you want to carry an infant, the best option (and it's permitted - unless the current rules have changed somewhat) is to use an aviation acceptable automobile car seat in an aircraft seat fitted with a lapsash restraint system. The kid sits in his/her own seat the same as in the car.
I'm a bit out of touch with CAR 35 stuff these days so I can't give you current information off the top of my head.
If you give us your location, I can provide some appropriate CASA and current CAR 35 contacts for you to ring and discuss the current rules.
This is my pick, if they are old enough to use this
Safe Airplane Travel for Kids - CARES Child Aviation Restraint System | Kids Fly Safe - CARES | Kids Fly Safe
Safe Airplane Travel for Kids - CARES Child Aviation Restraint System | Kids Fly Safe - CARES | Kids Fly Safe
Moderator
Flyingmac's concept has much to recommend it - but my poodles would probably bring me to heel if I tried it on them ... still laughing so hard it hurts ...
empacher48's linked item certainly appears to be better than nothing (and very much better than the traditional belly strap) but has some deficiencies -
(a) the seatback may incorporate a break forward friction fitting for the rear seat passenger headstrike consideration
(b) there is no effective lateral restraint for the child such as you get from the wings on a car seat
(c) I would expect a significant problem with submarining under load. The car seat has a crutch strap to prevent this and is a must do up item for using a car seat.
(d) interference to the loop belt from a mischievous rear seater could make the flight a bit tiresome
I'm located in Rural Victoria
I'll make a few enquiries on your behalf tomorrow and either post or PM
Some light reading to start you off -
(a) FSA July/August 2006
(b) CAAP 235-2(1)
(c) Report on the use of child auto seats in heavy aircraft
(d) Report on the use of child auto seats in heavy aircraft.
(d) is a followup report to (c). It's a year or so since I last spoke with Mark so I can only presume he is still with CASA - he is a pretty knowledgeable chap on crashworthiness stuff.
empacher48's linked item certainly appears to be better than nothing (and very much better than the traditional belly strap) but has some deficiencies -
(a) the seatback may incorporate a break forward friction fitting for the rear seat passenger headstrike consideration
(b) there is no effective lateral restraint for the child such as you get from the wings on a car seat
(c) I would expect a significant problem with submarining under load. The car seat has a crutch strap to prevent this and is a must do up item for using a car seat.
(d) interference to the loop belt from a mischievous rear seater could make the flight a bit tiresome
I'm located in Rural Victoria
I'll make a few enquiries on your behalf tomorrow and either post or PM
Some light reading to start you off -
(a) FSA July/August 2006
(b) CAAP 235-2(1)
(c) Report on the use of child auto seats in heavy aircraft
(d) Report on the use of child auto seats in heavy aircraft.
(d) is a followup report to (c). It's a year or so since I last spoke with Mark so I can only presume he is still with CASA - he is a pretty knowledgeable chap on crashworthiness stuff.
Moderator
I wouldn't touch any lapbelt kid mod for my kids when they were littlies and would wring their necks if they used the same for my grandkids now. I used to use kiddie car seats in GA personal flying quite a while before CASA's antecedents introduced the idea - they work/worked real well.
The best, and reasonably feasible, option is a car seat with upper restraint. While the lapsash belt is not the be all and end all for upper restraint, it is the best overall compromise. From what I can see in the linked information the CARES belt system is probably the next best available option - caveat - I have no test background with that latter system so my comment is only a first thought rather than an engineering assessment.
Keep in mind that car structural/test requirements are a lot better than aircraft - you put your kid in a car seat in a lapsash aircraft belt system and, overall, your kid is really well off - the car seat is over strength for the aircraft certification standard and is a much lower than certification required load for the aircraft seat. It won't guarantee the kid survives a prang but he/she is likely to do better than the adult occupants in the same aircraft mishap.
In fact, the main concern is the whole seat ripping out of the floor for older standard (static) seat assemblies.
Sit a kid on my knee when you have sensible and available alternative options ? - not in a fit.
As an aside, I have an extensive background over many years in seating design, testing, certification, and manufacture.
The best, and reasonably feasible, option is a car seat with upper restraint. While the lapsash belt is not the be all and end all for upper restraint, it is the best overall compromise. From what I can see in the linked information the CARES belt system is probably the next best available option - caveat - I have no test background with that latter system so my comment is only a first thought rather than an engineering assessment.
Keep in mind that car structural/test requirements are a lot better than aircraft - you put your kid in a car seat in a lapsash aircraft belt system and, overall, your kid is really well off - the car seat is over strength for the aircraft certification standard and is a much lower than certification required load for the aircraft seat. It won't guarantee the kid survives a prang but he/she is likely to do better than the adult occupants in the same aircraft mishap.
In fact, the main concern is the whole seat ripping out of the floor for older standard (static) seat assemblies.
Sit a kid on my knee when you have sensible and available alternative options ? - not in a fit.
As an aside, I have an extensive background over many years in seating design, testing, certification, and manufacture.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do use the Cares system from Amsafe that I linked to.
When fitted properly to the seat and secured there is very little sideways movement available as the harness which goes over the shoulders and connects to the lapbelt is very snug.
The reason I got CARES was it was AUD$140 vs $600+ and a great difficulty finding an FAA approved child seat. There is a place in Melbourne that distributes the CARES and on the website I linked are the FAA, JAA, CASA and NZCAA approvals. They help if flying on airlines and bolshy flight attendants try to tell you it's not certified.
When fitted properly to the seat and secured there is very little sideways movement available as the harness which goes over the shoulders and connects to the lapbelt is very snug.
The reason I got CARES was it was AUD$140 vs $600+ and a great difficulty finding an FAA approved child seat. There is a place in Melbourne that distributes the CARES and on the website I linked are the FAA, JAA, CASA and NZCAA approvals. They help if flying on airlines and bolshy flight attendants try to tell you it's not certified.
Last edited by empacher48; 3rd May 2011 at 19:33. Reason: Must stop using an iPhone to post, the autocorrect is useless
With my kids we used a capsule type carrier (the same as the car) when they were really young, and then normal car seats now they are older.
Fitted in the same manner as to the car with a rear strap going back to a baggage tie down in the rear baggage compartment.
This was in a Tobago and it was easy to fit and just seemed to work.
Bevan..
Fitted in the same manner as to the car with a rear strap going back to a baggage tie down in the rear baggage compartment.
This was in a Tobago and it was easy to fit and just seemed to work.
Bevan..
Moderator
there is very little sideways movement
That's what you see under low loading .. but it's a false sense of security.
The story is VERY different under side crash loads. The only reasonably performing assembly of this sort is the TARC style harness which is fitted to the bulk of the hostie seats in the airline aircraft (search for "TARC project 216-10" should bring up some results).
You can ID the style by the shoulder harness's passing over the shoulders and then passing between the arm and torso to attach at the intersection of the seat and back. The significant difference is that the TARC harness provides some torso restraint while the older style (such as CARES) puts all the upper body side restraint onto the neck.
If you routinely travel by airlines, then the CARES assembly looks to be a useful compromise unless the airline offers car seats.
See also AAC 175-2
try to tell you it's not certified
The trick for Oz is to have an approved assembly and
(a) prearrange with the airline for acceptance
(b) carry a copy of the approval documentation
FRQ Charlie Bravo
Just noticed your upside down avatar ... how ever did you get that set up ?
That's what you see under low loading .. but it's a false sense of security.
The story is VERY different under side crash loads. The only reasonably performing assembly of this sort is the TARC style harness which is fitted to the bulk of the hostie seats in the airline aircraft (search for "TARC project 216-10" should bring up some results).
You can ID the style by the shoulder harness's passing over the shoulders and then passing between the arm and torso to attach at the intersection of the seat and back. The significant difference is that the TARC harness provides some torso restraint while the older style (such as CARES) puts all the upper body side restraint onto the neck.
If you routinely travel by airlines, then the CARES assembly looks to be a useful compromise unless the airline offers car seats.
See also AAC 175-2
try to tell you it's not certified
The trick for Oz is to have an approved assembly and
(a) prearrange with the airline for acceptance
(b) carry a copy of the approval documentation
FRQ Charlie Bravo
Just noticed your upside down avatar ... how ever did you get that set up ?
Moderator
The CASA website lists the following folk in Victoria for CAR 35. I know them all and they're fine.
Comments - Dick Gower is more in the electrical field and, for Edge, you are after Lorraine's husband, Bob.
Victorian CAR 35 folk
I would be very surprised if Jerry and Bob haven't been involved in the work you are after and should be able either to put you onto an existing supplier or provide suitable guidance as to the way ahead in your particular circumstances.
Comments - Dick Gower is more in the electrical field and, for Edge, you are after Lorraine's husband, Bob.
Victorian CAR 35 folk
I would be very surprised if Jerry and Bob haven't been involved in the work you are after and should be able either to put you onto an existing supplier or provide suitable guidance as to the way ahead in your particular circumstances.
If you peel back the carpet or side trim and have a look at how the bracket is attached to the airframe (not the bolt between the seat belt and the bracket), I think you'll be a lot less fussy about child seat attachment. I'll be interested in JT's view, but I have a good working knowledge of automotive seat belt mount strength requirements and what I've seen of aeroplane mounts is so far away from this, that my conclusion is that they are really only there to stop you from hitting your head against the roof in turbulence. It really makes you wonder about CASA's obsession with seat belt condition and using CASA approved repairers.
In simple terms, automotive seat belt mounts (of which there are 3) must take a load of 680 kg each. The bolt is prescribed as a 7/16 inch (yes inch not metric) compared that with the typical 1/4 inch aircraft bolt.
In simple terms, automotive seat belt mounts (of which there are 3) must take a load of 680 kg each. The bolt is prescribed as a 7/16 inch (yes inch not metric) compared that with the typical 1/4 inch aircraft bolt.
Moderator
ah .. interesting comments ...
If you peel back the carpet or side trim and have a look at how the bracket is attached to the airframe
One of the things which most folk don't seem to appreciate (and which Old Akro - who obviously does know - is highlighting for us here) is that there is a range of seating standards in the marketplace.
For aircraft, excluding ancient standards such as the 6G static of the early DC3 days, in general we will see two main groups of standards in the fleet -
(a) static load design seats. The generic minimum loads were specified in the Design Standards and, for specific aircraft Types, the TC load requirements often are a little higher, especially with the download in long fuselage machines.
The seat either is integral to the airframe (ie part of, or well bolted to) or is mounted to aluminium extruded track sections which are bolted/screwed to the floor. The former usually is not a separation problem under load. However, with the latter, the integrity of the connection relies VERY heavily on the floor NOT deforming to any extent under crash loads. This, to say the least, is fanciful.
From a history of many hundreds of static load tests in a past life, my observations are that just about any floor (ie track) deformation WILL result in the seat departing the track in a real world crash. The typical buttons used usually are high strength, heat treated steel alloy and, in themselves, are fine. However, as soon as the track deforms, the button goes into an asymmetric loading distribution (ie one side takes the lion's share of the load) and either it or the track lip fails asymmetrically - the higher loaded side bends/breaks, a leg/button mounting assembly deforms, the button slips out of the track ... and away the whole thing goes ....
If the seat can be persuaded to stay in place, the main crash load capability will be at least 9G with the attachments having to sustain a minimum of 12G - both having to be sustained for at least 3 seconds. The strength is not the problem - rather the concern is the structural stability under real world pulse loading.
A beloved by DCA/CASA CAR 35 (actually I think he had retired before the CARs came in .. so ANR 40) engineer by the name of Rudy Paspa (wonderful pianist and raconteur) designed and patented a very neat elliptical button which replaced the standard round animal and locked into the seat track. Performance was much better than the standard button but the feature never took off .. possibly that was, in some small part, due to Rudy's highly individual personality. He was a real character was our Rudy.
When the Industry finally had to accept that crashworthiness was not helped by these old Design Standards, the current dynamic standards (modelled on similar automotive standards) came into vogue. Apart from providing better seats (if less comfortable), one of the requirements was for the dynamic sled tests to look at track mounting deformation. The result is that one is far better served during a crash by the newer seats.
The automotive standards are in the middle of the present loading requirements in that a car installation is a little stronger than, say, an airliner, but quite less so than, say, a helicopter. This is not to say that the present standards are dramatically stronger than the older as they relate to a realistic impact pulse rather than a notional static application. However, the seats are far better due to attachment stability, head strike, spinal loading requirements and so on .. ie the emphasis now is on rational survivability rather than notional strength requirements.
they are really only there to stop you from hitting your head against the roof in turbulence.
Old Akro is talking about the older static designs here - they actually work a bit better than that but are still inferior to present auto standards.
The bolt is prescribed as a 7/16 inch (yes inch not metric) compared that with the typical 1/4 inch aircraft bolt.
What is fair to say is that the older static aircraft standards are a bit average in a typical severe crash while the newer dynamic standards are far superior .. and roughly similar to automotive standards.
Of interest to survivability is the present Standard's requirement to provide quantifiable head and spine protection. It is always a matter of great sadness to me that a good friend has spent the best part of the last 40 years in a wheelchair as the result of a (stronger than required) static standard seat's failing in a crash ... a current Standard seat might just have spared him that burden.
If you peel back the carpet or side trim and have a look at how the bracket is attached to the airframe
One of the things which most folk don't seem to appreciate (and which Old Akro - who obviously does know - is highlighting for us here) is that there is a range of seating standards in the marketplace.
For aircraft, excluding ancient standards such as the 6G static of the early DC3 days, in general we will see two main groups of standards in the fleet -
(a) static load design seats. The generic minimum loads were specified in the Design Standards and, for specific aircraft Types, the TC load requirements often are a little higher, especially with the download in long fuselage machines.
The seat either is integral to the airframe (ie part of, or well bolted to) or is mounted to aluminium extruded track sections which are bolted/screwed to the floor. The former usually is not a separation problem under load. However, with the latter, the integrity of the connection relies VERY heavily on the floor NOT deforming to any extent under crash loads. This, to say the least, is fanciful.
From a history of many hundreds of static load tests in a past life, my observations are that just about any floor (ie track) deformation WILL result in the seat departing the track in a real world crash. The typical buttons used usually are high strength, heat treated steel alloy and, in themselves, are fine. However, as soon as the track deforms, the button goes into an asymmetric loading distribution (ie one side takes the lion's share of the load) and either it or the track lip fails asymmetrically - the higher loaded side bends/breaks, a leg/button mounting assembly deforms, the button slips out of the track ... and away the whole thing goes ....
If the seat can be persuaded to stay in place, the main crash load capability will be at least 9G with the attachments having to sustain a minimum of 12G - both having to be sustained for at least 3 seconds. The strength is not the problem - rather the concern is the structural stability under real world pulse loading.
A beloved by DCA/CASA CAR 35 (actually I think he had retired before the CARs came in .. so ANR 40) engineer by the name of Rudy Paspa (wonderful pianist and raconteur) designed and patented a very neat elliptical button which replaced the standard round animal and locked into the seat track. Performance was much better than the standard button but the feature never took off .. possibly that was, in some small part, due to Rudy's highly individual personality. He was a real character was our Rudy.
When the Industry finally had to accept that crashworthiness was not helped by these old Design Standards, the current dynamic standards (modelled on similar automotive standards) came into vogue. Apart from providing better seats (if less comfortable), one of the requirements was for the dynamic sled tests to look at track mounting deformation. The result is that one is far better served during a crash by the newer seats.
The automotive standards are in the middle of the present loading requirements in that a car installation is a little stronger than, say, an airliner, but quite less so than, say, a helicopter. This is not to say that the present standards are dramatically stronger than the older as they relate to a realistic impact pulse rather than a notional static application. However, the seats are far better due to attachment stability, head strike, spinal loading requirements and so on .. ie the emphasis now is on rational survivability rather than notional strength requirements.
they are really only there to stop you from hitting your head against the roof in turbulence.
Old Akro is talking about the older static designs here - they actually work a bit better than that but are still inferior to present auto standards.
The bolt is prescribed as a 7/16 inch (yes inch not metric) compared that with the typical 1/4 inch aircraft bolt.
What is fair to say is that the older static aircraft standards are a bit average in a typical severe crash while the newer dynamic standards are far superior .. and roughly similar to automotive standards.
Of interest to survivability is the present Standard's requirement to provide quantifiable head and spine protection. It is always a matter of great sadness to me that a good friend has spent the best part of the last 40 years in a wheelchair as the result of a (stronger than required) static standard seat's failing in a crash ... a current Standard seat might just have spared him that burden.
Moderator
A photo or two and I might offer comment. The load down the belt is not all that difficult to react .. the greater concern is seat structure stability and rigidity.
A bit like a couple of seats I once spotted (which I had signed off on originally) which had been modified in like (totally inappropriate) manner.
I eventually got CASA (or whatever the title was that week) to raise an AD to fix the problem. I had asked for the AD to be against the equipment but, no, Canberra insisted on making it against the aircraft Types for which the seats were certificated ... unfortunately, the particular aircraft in both cases was inadvertently left off the AD ... the mx org concerned rang me up with a chuckle to let me know when the AD came out and they had a read.
At that stage, I just gave up ... figuring that I could argue frustration at the Coronial.
A bit like a couple of seats I once spotted (which I had signed off on originally) which had been modified in like (totally inappropriate) manner.
I eventually got CASA (or whatever the title was that week) to raise an AD to fix the problem. I had asked for the AD to be against the equipment but, no, Canberra insisted on making it against the aircraft Types for which the seats were certificated ... unfortunately, the particular aircraft in both cases was inadvertently left off the AD ... the mx org concerned rang me up with a chuckle to let me know when the AD came out and they had a read.
At that stage, I just gave up ... figuring that I could argue frustration at the Coronial.
Infant seats in experimental aircraft
Lots of this conversation is concerned with airline seats...
Has anybody successfully modified an experimental aircraft to bolt or tie-down a baby capsule instead of strapping them into a seat spot?
Has anybody successfully modified an experimental aircraft to bolt or tie-down a baby capsule instead of strapping them into a seat spot?
In my airline, the major reason for refusing car seats is that it is very hard to get them to the correct width, especially in low cost carrier seats. From memory, the car seats need to be narrower than 17" to fit in the seat, and most are wider than that.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiments of john_tullamarine regarding this imbroglio.
Modern GA aircraft seating is a world removed from the older design safety specifications to which quite a percentage of the ageing GA fleet belongs. same applies to the Air Transport fleet as regards standards, but it is generally more modern, younger aircraft in that pool.
Infant and child seating has been an area almost completely ignored by the National Airworthiness Authorities and is only now getting serious scrutiny. It was just too hard, and as a consequence we had almost insane solutions such as belly straps. they are positively dangerous and no infant of mine would ever be put in one under any circumstances. Like jt I also have been involved in seat design and testing and there is far more to this topic than could be even slightly addressed in this post.
Remember that a 'restraint system' in a modern aircraft is not just the belt, but also includes the seat - structure and cushions as well. crashworthiness is not just a buzz word, it is a part of the design criteria of modern (post 1990's) aircraft design.
Automotive child and infant restraints are by far the best option. 'Approved' ones are best of course, however it should be noted that whilst part 23 mandates 3 point harness as a minimum, which many child seats are compatible with, part 25 aircraft are usually lap only and it is extremely difficult to make an infant, or child seat work safely in this situation, ergo, 'approved types. dimensional compatibility is an additional consideration.
Bevan666 stated that he installed a car capsule type infant restraint in his aircraft, which included the necessary strap attachment to an appropriate airframe location. This showed a sensible and practical, and fundamentally safe way of meeting this issue, but this is often not practical in many aircraft and consideration should be given to using an appropriate aircraft to start with. Aircraft like the Airvan, whose seats have a reputation of discomfort for some pilots, has seats that have been specifically designed to provide restraint characteristics for a very wide anthropomorphic range, down to children, and these seats work well with a 'booster' seat as well. A baby capsule type of restraint would only work in this aircraft if installed in the rear RH seat and the capsule strap attached to a baggage restraint point in the parcel shelf area, so even this modern system has limitations. Not every one wants needs or can afford and airvan just to carry the kids around, so other options should be reviewed with an eye to safety as a prime consideration.
Empacher48, I am astounded that you consider $600 too much to protect one of your own children, although I hope this is not really what you meant, and i don't know how many kids you have. I do acknowledge that the Amsafe the CARES belts are a million miles better than a belly belt, especially where only a lap belt is available, bolshie FA's aside. With regard to light aircraft some other solutions may be to use a more suitable aircraft type, get a CAR35 designed solution, or seriously consider the option of not taking the kids unless they can be afforded at least the same standard of protection as the adults on board.
Shagpile: Experimental is a very broad category and one of the tenets is that there is a notified awareness that such aircraft do not meet 'normal' design and/or airworthiness standards and that one flies in such at their own risk, an option that you are not giving a child. Nothwithstanding that, many Experimental aircraft are the same as , similar to, or have design conventions based on 'traditional wisdom' and are generally reasonably engineered, however none of them, as far as i am aware, meets the same standards as FAR 23-561 and 562 which modern certified aircraft are required to comply with (although brand new versions of older, grandfathered, designs like the Cessna 100 and piston 200 series aircraft do not meet these safety standards). Many amateur built aircraft often have a four point harness and whilst this can sometimes be properly adjusted to accommodate the physical size of a child, many cannot. In these circumstances bolstereing with pillows, or leaving the belt loose is criminally neglectful of the safety of the child. I have seen this done and raised my concerns before. Next time I see it will be a REP to CASA. In an accident it would be almost certainly fatal. This is a child FFS! One should take more care, not less, than a grown, aware, consenting adult. Even if you fly really 'gently' a 50Kt shallow impact will be curtains, and that's about as gentle an impact as is possible.
HD
I need to catch up with Mark myself again soon. I used to work with him in this type of thing.
Modern GA aircraft seating is a world removed from the older design safety specifications to which quite a percentage of the ageing GA fleet belongs. same applies to the Air Transport fleet as regards standards, but it is generally more modern, younger aircraft in that pool.
Infant and child seating has been an area almost completely ignored by the National Airworthiness Authorities and is only now getting serious scrutiny. It was just too hard, and as a consequence we had almost insane solutions such as belly straps. they are positively dangerous and no infant of mine would ever be put in one under any circumstances. Like jt I also have been involved in seat design and testing and there is far more to this topic than could be even slightly addressed in this post.
Remember that a 'restraint system' in a modern aircraft is not just the belt, but also includes the seat - structure and cushions as well. crashworthiness is not just a buzz word, it is a part of the design criteria of modern (post 1990's) aircraft design.
Automotive child and infant restraints are by far the best option. 'Approved' ones are best of course, however it should be noted that whilst part 23 mandates 3 point harness as a minimum, which many child seats are compatible with, part 25 aircraft are usually lap only and it is extremely difficult to make an infant, or child seat work safely in this situation, ergo, 'approved types. dimensional compatibility is an additional consideration.
Bevan666 stated that he installed a car capsule type infant restraint in his aircraft, which included the necessary strap attachment to an appropriate airframe location. This showed a sensible and practical, and fundamentally safe way of meeting this issue, but this is often not practical in many aircraft and consideration should be given to using an appropriate aircraft to start with. Aircraft like the Airvan, whose seats have a reputation of discomfort for some pilots, has seats that have been specifically designed to provide restraint characteristics for a very wide anthropomorphic range, down to children, and these seats work well with a 'booster' seat as well. A baby capsule type of restraint would only work in this aircraft if installed in the rear RH seat and the capsule strap attached to a baggage restraint point in the parcel shelf area, so even this modern system has limitations. Not every one wants needs or can afford and airvan just to carry the kids around, so other options should be reviewed with an eye to safety as a prime consideration.
Empacher48, I am astounded that you consider $600 too much to protect one of your own children, although I hope this is not really what you meant, and i don't know how many kids you have. I do acknowledge that the Amsafe the CARES belts are a million miles better than a belly belt, especially where only a lap belt is available, bolshie FA's aside. With regard to light aircraft some other solutions may be to use a more suitable aircraft type, get a CAR35 designed solution, or seriously consider the option of not taking the kids unless they can be afforded at least the same standard of protection as the adults on board.
Shagpile: Experimental is a very broad category and one of the tenets is that there is a notified awareness that such aircraft do not meet 'normal' design and/or airworthiness standards and that one flies in such at their own risk, an option that you are not giving a child. Nothwithstanding that, many Experimental aircraft are the same as , similar to, or have design conventions based on 'traditional wisdom' and are generally reasonably engineered, however none of them, as far as i am aware, meets the same standards as FAR 23-561 and 562 which modern certified aircraft are required to comply with (although brand new versions of older, grandfathered, designs like the Cessna 100 and piston 200 series aircraft do not meet these safety standards). Many amateur built aircraft often have a four point harness and whilst this can sometimes be properly adjusted to accommodate the physical size of a child, many cannot. In these circumstances bolstereing with pillows, or leaving the belt loose is criminally neglectful of the safety of the child. I have seen this done and raised my concerns before. Next time I see it will be a REP to CASA. In an accident it would be almost certainly fatal. This is a child FFS! One should take more care, not less, than a grown, aware, consenting adult. Even if you fly really 'gently' a 50Kt shallow impact will be curtains, and that's about as gentle an impact as is possible.
HD
I need to catch up with Mark myself again soon. I used to work with him in this type of thing.