Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation A-90-079
Details
Synopsis: ON JULY 19, 1989, A MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC-10-10, OPERATED BY UNITED AIRLINES AS FLIGHT 232, EN ROUTE FROM DENVER, COLORADO, TO CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, EXPERIENCED AN IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCY FOLLOWING THE FRAGMENTATION AND SEPARATION OF THE NO. 2 ENGINE FAN DISK. THE AIRPLANE CRASHED DURING AN ATTEMPTED EMERGENCY LANDING ON RUNWAY 22 AT SIOUX GATEWAY AIRPORT, SIOUX CITY, IOWA. DURING THE GROUND IMPACT SEQUENCE, THE AIRPLANE SEPARATED INTO SECTIONS AND PORTIONS BURNED. THE CENTER SECTION OF THE AIRPLANE, WHICH CONTAINED MOST OF THE PASSENGERS, CAME TO REST INVERTED IN A CORNFIELD ADJACENT TO RUNWAY 17 AND 3,700 FEET FROM THE INITIAL IMPACT ON RUNWAY 22. OF THE 296 PERSON ON BOARD THE AIRPLANE, 110 PASSENGERS AND 1 FLIGHT ATTENDANT WERE FATALLY INJURED. AUTOPSIES REVEALED THAT 35 PASSENGERS DIED OF SMOKE INHALATION, INCLUDING 24 WITHOUT TRAUMATIC BLUNT FORCE INJURIES. THE OTHERS WHO WERE FATALLY INJURED DIED OF MULTIPLE INJURIES FROM BLUNT FORCE IMPACT. OF THE REMAIN ING 185 PERSONS ON BOARD, 47 SUSTAINED SERIOUS INJURIES, 125 SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES, AND 13 WERE NOT INJURED.
Recommendation: THE NTSB RECOMMENDS THAT THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: CONDUCT RESEARCH TO DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF AIRCRAFT SEATBELTS TO RESTRAIN CHILDREN TOO LARGE TO USE CHILD SAFETY SEATS AND TO DEVELOP SOME SUITABLE MEANS OF PROVIDING ADEQUATE RESTRAINT FOR SUCH CHILDREN.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Acceptable Action
Mode: Aviation
Location: SIOUX CITY, IA, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #:
Accident Reports:
Report #:
Accident Date: 7/19/1989
Issue Date: 5/30/1990
Date Closed: 5/15/1995
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: FAA (Closed - Acceptable Action)
Keyword(s): Child Restraint Systems

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 8/4/1998
Response: Notation 7019: The National Transportation Safety Board has reviewed your Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), "Child Restraint Systems," which was published in 63 FR 8323 on February 18, 1998. The ANPRM requests comments on crash performance and ease-of-use information about existing and new automotive child restraint systems (CRS), when used in aircraft, as well as the development of any other new or improved CRS designed exclusively for aircraft use. The ANPRM also seeks information about the technical practicality and cost feasibility of requiring small children and infants to be restrained in CRS in aircraft. The ANPRM is in response to the February 12, 1997, report to President Clinton by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. The report stated, "The [Federal Aviation Administration] FAA should revise its regulations to require that all occupants be restrained during takeoff: landing, and turbulent conditions, and that all infants and small children below the weight of40 pounds and under the height of 40 inches be restrained in an appropriate child restraint system, such as child safety seats, appropriate to their height and weight." In 1979, the Safety Board issued its first safety recommendation regarding CRS aboard aircraft. At that time, the Board recommended that the FAA expedite research with a view toward early rulemaking on a means to most effectively restrain infants and small children during in-flight upsets and survivable crash landings (A-79-63). Since then the Safety Board has issued five additional recommendations on this subject. In 1983, the Safety Board recommended that the FAA accept CRS approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) until the FAA and the NHTSA developed CRS standards acceptable for both automotive and aircraft use (A-83-1). In 1990, the Safety Board recommended that the FAA require that all aircraft occupants be restrained (A-90-78) and that the FAA conduct research to determine at what age/size children can be properly restrained by aircraft lap belts (A-90-79). Safety Recommendation A-90-78 was classified "Closed-Unacceptable/Superseded" on May 26, 1995, and A-90-79 was classified "Closed-Acceptable Action" on May 15, 1995. In its April 4, 1995, accident report on the crash of a DC-9 in Charlotte, North Carolina, the Safety Board noted its disappointment with the FAA's actions regarding the required use of CRS on air carrier flights. The report noted the probable introduction of ISOFIX (standard CRS attachments that will be incorporated into the design of automobiles) and expressed Safety Board concerns about possible future problems for parents who might not have the appropriate CRS for aircraft use. Accordingly, the Safety Board issued a recommendation asking the FAA to develop standards for forward-facing, integrated CRS for use in aircraft (A-95-50). Safety Recommendation A-95-50 was classified "Open-Acceptable Response" on July 26, 1996. The Safety Board continues to believe that all occupants, including young children should be restrained. Not requiring restraint use for infants and children Jess than 2 years old is inconsistent with recent policy by several airlines that seated occupants should be restrained at all times during a flight to ensure their safety. The Safety Board also continues to believe that the FAA should develop standards for integrated CRS for aircraft. The Safety Board is aware that the NHTSA has issued a proposed revision to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 to consider a method of securing CRS in automobiles. This change would require motor vehicles to have a dedicated anchorage system for CRS separate from the seatbelt system. These changes would make it impossible to use a CRS with an airline Jap belt and further reinforce the need to develop standards for integrated CRS for aircraft. The Safety Board appreciates the opportunity to comment on this ANPRM.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 8/4/1998
Response: Notation 7019: The National Transportation Safety Board has reviewed your Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), "Child Restraint Systems," which was published in 63 FR 8323 on February 18, 1998. The ANPRM requests comments on crash performance and ease-of-use information about existing and new automotive child restraint systems (CRS), when used in aircraft, as well as the development of any other new or improved CRS designed exclusively for aircraft use. The ANPRM also seeks information about the technical practicality and cost feasibility of requiring small children and infants to be restrained in CRS in aircraft. The ANPRM is in response to the February 12, 1997, report to President Clinton by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. The report stated, "The [Federal Aviation Administration] FAA should revise its regulations to require that all occupants be restrained during takeoff: landing, and turbulent conditions, and that all infants and small children below the weight of40 pounds and under the height of 40 inches be restrained in an appropriate child restraint system, such as child safety seats, appropriate to their height and weight." In 1979, the Safety Board issued its first safety recommendation regarding CRS aboard aircraft. At that time, the Board recommended that the FAA expedite research with a view toward early rulemaking on a means to most effectively restrain infants and small children during in-flight upsets and survivable crash landings (A-79-63). Since then the Safety Board has issued five additional recommendations on this subject. In 1983, the Safety Board recommended that the FAA accept CRS approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) until the FAA and the NHTSA developed CRS standards acceptable for both automotive and aircraft use (A-83-1). In 1990, the Safety Board recommended that the FAA require that all aircraft occupants be restrained (A-90-78) and that the FAA conduct research to determine at what age/size children can be properly restrained by aircraft lap belts (A-90-79). Safety Recommendation A-90-78 was classified "Closed-Unacceptable/Superseded" on May 26, 1995, and A-90-79 was classified "Closed-Acceptable Action" on May 15, 1995. In its April 4, 1995, accident report on the crash of a DC-9 in Charlotte, North Carolina, the Safety Board noted its disappointment with the FAA's actions regarding the required use of CRS on air carrier flights. The report noted the probable introduction of ISOFIX (standard CRS attachments that will be incorporated into the design of automobiles) and expressed Safety Board concerns about possible future problems for parents who might not have the appropriate CRS for aircraft use. Accordingly, the Safety Board issued a recommendation asking the FAA to develop standards for forward-facing, integrated CRS for use in aircraft (A-95-50). Safety Recommendation A-95-50 was classified "Open-Acceptable Response" on July 26, 1996. The Safety Board continues to believe that all occupants, including young children should be restrained. Not requiring restraint use for infants and children Jess than 2 years old is inconsistent with recent policy by several airlines that seated occupants should be restrained at all times during a flight to ensure their safety. The Safety Board also continues to believe that the FAA should develop standards for integrated CRS for aircraft. The Safety Board is aware that the NHTSA has issued a proposed revision to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 to consider a method of securing CRS in automobiles. This change would require motor vehicles to have a dedicated anchorage system for CRS separate from the seatbelt system. These changes would make it impossible to use a CRS with an airline Jap belt and further reinforce the need to develop standards for integrated CRS for aircraft. The Safety Board appreciates the opportunity to comment on this ANPRM.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 8/4/1998
Response: Notation 7019: The National Transportation Safety Board has reviewed your Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), "Child Restraint Systems," which was published in 63 FR 8323 on February 18, 1998. The ANPRM requests comments on crash performance and ease-of-use information about existing and new automotive child restraint systems (CRS), when used in aircraft, as well as the development of any other new or improved CRS designed exclusively for aircraft use. The ANPRM also seeks information about the technical practicality and cost feasibility of requiring small children and infants to be restrained in CRS in aircraft. The ANPRM is in response to the February 12, 1997, report to President Clinton by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. The report stated, "The [Federal Aviation Administration] FAA should revise its regulations to require that all occupants be restrained during takeoff: landing, and turbulent conditions, and that all infants and small children below the weight of40 pounds and under the height of 40 inches be restrained in an appropriate child restraint system, such as child safety seats, appropriate to their height and weight." In 1979, the Safety Board issued its first safety recommendation regarding CRS aboard aircraft. At that time, the Board recommended that the FAA expedite research with a view toward early rulemaking on a means to most effectively restrain infants and small children during in-flight upsets and survivable crash landings (A-79-63). Since then the Safety Board has issued five additional recommendations on this subject. In 1983, the Safety Board recommended that the FAA accept CRS approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) until the FAA and the NHTSA developed CRS standards acceptable for both automotive and aircraft use (A-83-1). In 1990, the Safety Board recommended that the FAA require that all aircraft occupants be restrained (A-90-78) and that the FAA conduct research to determine at what age/size children can be properly restrained by aircraft lap belts (A-90-79). Safety Recommendation A-90-78 was classified "Closed-Unacceptable/Superseded" on May 26, 1995, and A-90-79 was classified "Closed-Acceptable Action" on May 15, 1995. In its April 4, 1995, accident report on the crash of a DC-9 in Charlotte, North Carolina, the Safety Board noted its disappointment with the FAA's actions regarding the required use of CRS on air carrier flights. The report noted the probable introduction of ISOFIX (standard CRS attachments that will be incorporated into the design of automobiles) and expressed Safety Board concerns about possible future problems for parents who might not have the appropriate CRS for aircraft use. Accordingly, the Safety Board issued a recommendation asking the FAA to develop standards for forward-facing, integrated CRS for use in aircraft (A-95-50). Safety Recommendation A-95-50 was classified "Open-Acceptable Response" on July 26, 1996. The Safety Board continues to believe that all occupants, including young children should be restrained. Not requiring restraint use for infants and children Jess than 2 years old is inconsistent with recent policy by several airlines that seated occupants should be restrained at all times during a flight to ensure their safety. The Safety Board also continues to believe that the FAA should develop standards for integrated CRS for aircraft. The Safety Board is aware that the NHTSA has issued a proposed revision to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 to consider a method of securing CRS in automobiles. This change would require motor vehicles to have a dedicated anchorage system for CRS separate from the seatbelt system. These changes would make it impossible to use a CRS with an airline Jap belt and further reinforce the need to develop standards for integrated CRS for aircraft. The Safety Board appreciates the opportunity to comment on this ANPRM.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 8/4/1998
Response: Notation 7019: The National Transportation Safety Board has reviewed your Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), "Child Restraint Systems," which was published in 63 FR 8323 on February 18, 1998. The ANPRM requests comments on crash performance and ease-of-use information about existing and new automotive child restraint systems (CRS), when used in aircraft, as well as the development of any other new or improved CRS designed exclusively for aircraft use. The ANPRM also seeks information about the technical practicality and cost feasibility of requiring small children and infants to be restrained in CRS in aircraft. The ANPRM is in response to the February 12, 1997, report to President Clinton by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. The report stated, "The [Federal Aviation Administration] FAA should revise its regulations to require that all occupants be restrained during takeoff: landing, and turbulent conditions, and that all infants and small children below the weight of40 pounds and under the height of 40 inches be restrained in an appropriate child restraint system, such as child safety seats, appropriate to their height and weight." In 1979, the Safety Board issued its first safety recommendation regarding CRS aboard aircraft. At that time, the Board recommended that the FAA expedite research with a view toward early rulemaking on a means to most effectively restrain infants and small children during in-flight upsets and survivable crash landings (A-79-63). Since then the Safety Board has issued five additional recommendations on this subject. In 1983, the Safety Board recommended that the FAA accept CRS approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) until the FAA and the NHTSA developed CRS standards acceptable for both automotive and aircraft use (A-83-1). In 1990, the Safety Board recommended that the FAA require that all aircraft occupants be restrained (A-90-78) and that the FAA conduct research to determine at what age/size children can be properly restrained by aircraft lap belts (A-90-79). Safety Recommendation A-90-78 was classified "Closed-Unacceptable/Superseded" on May 26, 1995, and A-90-79 was classified "Closed-Acceptable Action" on May 15, 1995. In its April 4, 1995, accident report on the crash of a DC-9 in Charlotte, North Carolina, the Safety Board noted its disappointment with the FAA's actions regarding the required use of CRS on air carrier flights. The report noted the probable introduction of ISOFIX (standard CRS attachments that will be incorporated into the design of automobiles) and expressed Safety Board concerns about possible future problems for parents who might not have the appropriate CRS for aircraft use. Accordingly, the Safety Board issued a recommendation asking the FAA to develop standards for forward-facing, integrated CRS for use in aircraft (A-95-50). Safety Recommendation A-95-50 was classified "Open-Acceptable Response" on July 26, 1996. The Safety Board continues to believe that all occupants, including young children should be restrained. Not requiring restraint use for infants and children Jess than 2 years old is inconsistent with recent policy by several airlines that seated occupants should be restrained at all times during a flight to ensure their safety. The Safety Board also continues to believe that the FAA should develop standards for integrated CRS for aircraft. The Safety Board is aware that the NHTSA has issued a proposed revision to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 to consider a method of securing CRS in automobiles. This change would require motor vehicles to have a dedicated anchorage system for CRS separate from the seatbelt system. These changes would make it impossible to use a CRS with an airline Jap belt and further reinforce the need to develop standards for integrated CRS for aircraft. The Safety Board appreciates the opportunity to comment on this ANPRM.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/15/1995
Response: (CLOSED IN GREENSHEET) THE BOARD IS SATISFIED WITH THE FAA'S ACTION REGARDING THE STUDY OF CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS; THUS, A-90-79 IS CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION." ALSO, BECAUSE CAMI FOUND THAT NORMAL LAP BELTS CAN PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE RESTRAINTS FOR 3-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN, THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE 40 POUNDS, 40 INCHES STANDARD USED IN A-90-78 HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE CAMI REPORT. SINCE THE FAA HAS NOT TAKEN STEPS TO REQUIRE THAT ALL OCCUPANTS BE RESTRAINED DURING TAKEOFF, THE BOARD NOW CLASSIFIES A-90-78 AS "CLOSED--UNACCEPTABLE ACTION/SUPERSEDED" BY A-95-50 & A-95-051.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/15/1995
Response: (CLOSED IN GREENSHEET) THE BOARD IS SATISFIED WITH THE FAA'S ACTION REGARDING THE STUDY OF CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS; THUS, A-90-79 IS CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION." ALSO, BECAUSE CAMI FOUND THAT NORMAL LAP BELTS CAN PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE RESTRAINTS FOR 3-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN, THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE 40 POUNDS, 40 INCHES STANDARD USED IN A-90-78 HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE CAMI REPORT. SINCE THE FAA HAS NOT TAKEN STEPS TO REQUIRE THAT ALL OCCUPANTS BE RESTRAINED DURING TAKEOFF, THE BOARD NOW CLASSIFIES A-90-78 AS "CLOSED--UNACCEPTABLE ACTION/SUPERSEDED" BY A-95-50 & A-95-051.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/15/1995
Response: (CLOSED IN GREENSHEET) THE BOARD IS SATISFIED WITH THE FAA'S ACTION REGARDING THE STUDY OF CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS; THUS, A-90-79 IS CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION." ALSO, BECAUSE CAMI FOUND THAT NORMAL LAP BELTS CAN PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE RESTRAINTS FOR 3-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN, THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE 40 POUNDS, 40 INCHES STANDARD USED IN A-90-78 HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE CAMI REPORT. SINCE THE FAA HAS NOT TAKEN STEPS TO REQUIRE THAT ALL OCCUPANTS BE RESTRAINED DURING TAKEOFF, THE BOARD NOW CLASSIFIES A-90-78 AS "CLOSED--UNACCEPTABLE ACTION/SUPERSEDED" BY A-95-50 & A-95-051.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/15/1995
Response: (CLOSED IN GREENSHEET) THE BOARD IS SATISFIED WITH THE FAA'S ACTION REGARDING THE STUDY OF CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS; THUS, A-90-79 IS CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION." ALSO, BECAUSE CAMI FOUND THAT NORMAL LAP BELTS CAN PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE RESTRAINTS FOR 3-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN, THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE 40 POUNDS, 40 INCHES STANDARD USED IN A-90-78 HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE CAMI REPORT. SINCE THE FAA HAS NOT TAKEN STEPS TO REQUIRE THAT ALL OCCUPANTS BE RESTRAINED DURING TAKEOFF, THE BOARD NOW CLASSIFIES A-90-78 AS "CLOSED--UNACCEPTABLE ACTION/SUPERSEDED" BY A-95-50 & A-95-051.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 7/12/1993
Response: IN APRIL 1993 THE CIVIL AEROMEDICAL INSTITUTE CONDUCTED DYNAMIC IMPACT TESTS WITH 35-POUND, 3-YEAR-OLD ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES RESTRAINED BY THE SEATBELT IN A PASSENGER SEAT. UNDER THE HORIZONTAL TEST CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN 14 CFR 25.562, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF OCCUPANT ROLL-OVER OR SUBMARINING ABOUT THE SEATBELTS. NO HEAD CONTACT OCCURRED WITH THE FORWARD ROW SEAT AT 31-INCH SEAT PITCH. THE ATD'S HEAD DID STRIKE THE FRONT OF THE SEAT IN WHICH IT WAS SITTING & THE MEASURED HEAD IMPACT ACCELERATIONS WERE SIGNIFICANT. HOWEVER, TEST RESULTS INDICATED THAT ANY RESULTANT HEAD INJURY WOULD BE WITHIN THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED IN 14 CFR 25.562. OTHER TESTS WERE CONDUCTED WITH A 27-MONTH-OLD ATD RESTRAINED BY SEATBELTS. AGAIN, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF SUBMARINING OR ROLL-OVER OF THE ATD DURING THE 16G IMPACT. AN EXPERIMENTAL PRESSURE-SENSING ABSOMINAL INSERT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 27-MONTH-OLD ATD. THE RECORDED PRESSURE RESPONSE DID NOT INDICATE THAT THE SEATBELT LOADS WERE DIRECTED THROUGH THE ABDOMEN OF THE ATD. ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO INJURY CRITERIA ESTABLISHED FOR ABDOMINAL LOADS, BIOMECHANICAL STUDIES OF ABDOMINAL IMPACTS SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE INJURIES WERE RELATED TO PRESSURE LOADING. THE PRESSURES RECORDED FROM THE TEST WITH SEATBELTS WERE LOWER THAN THOSE ACQUIRED WITH OTHER RESTRAINT DEVICES (I.E., BOOSTER SEATS & BELLY BELTS). BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE CAMI TESTS, THE FAA BELIEVES THAT SEATBELTS PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION TO CHILDREN IN THE 27-MONTH/26-POUND TO 3-YEAR/35-POUND RANGE WHEN EXPOSED TO THE IMPACT CONDITION OF 14 CFR 25.562. ALTHOUGH THE TESTS WERE NOT CONDUCTED USING A LARGER ATD AS REQUESTED IN THIS RECOMMENDATION, THE FAA BELIEVES THAT THE RESULTS OF THE CAMI TESTS USING THE 3-YEAR/35-POUND ATD INDICATE THAT CHILDREN WHO WEIGH MORE WILL BE PROVIDE THE SAME MINIMUM LEVEL OF PROTECTION. IN FACT, CHILDREN WHO WEIGH MORE THAN 40 POUNDS WILL HAVE BETTER FIT AND ADJUSTMENT CAPABILITY IN THE SEATBELTS THAN SMALLER CHILDREN.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 7/12/1993
Response: IN APRIL 1993 THE CIVIL AEROMEDICAL INSTITUTE CONDUCTED DYNAMIC IMPACT TESTS WITH 35-POUND, 3-YEAR-OLD ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES RESTRAINED BY THE SEATBELT IN A PASSENGER SEAT. UNDER THE HORIZONTAL TEST CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN 14 CFR 25.562, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF OCCUPANT ROLL-OVER OR SUBMARINING ABOUT THE SEATBELTS. NO HEAD CONTACT OCCURRED WITH THE FORWARD ROW SEAT AT 31-INCH SEAT PITCH. THE ATD'S HEAD DID STRIKE THE FRONT OF THE SEAT IN WHICH IT WAS SITTING & THE MEASURED HEAD IMPACT ACCELERATIONS WERE SIGNIFICANT. HOWEVER, TEST RESULTS INDICATED THAT ANY RESULTANT HEAD INJURY WOULD BE WITHIN THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED IN 14 CFR 25.562. OTHER TESTS WERE CONDUCTED WITH A 27-MONTH-OLD ATD RESTRAINED BY SEATBELTS. AGAIN, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF SUBMARINING OR ROLL-OVER OF THE ATD DURING THE 16G IMPACT. AN EXPERIMENTAL PRESSURE-SENSING ABSOMINAL INSERT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 27-MONTH-OLD ATD. THE RECORDED PRESSURE RESPONSE DID NOT INDICATE THAT THE SEATBELT LOADS WERE DIRECTED THROUGH THE ABDOMEN OF THE ATD. ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO INJURY CRITERIA ESTABLISHED FOR ABDOMINAL LOADS, BIOMECHANICAL STUDIES OF ABDOMINAL IMPACTS SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE INJURIES WERE RELATED TO PRESSURE LOADING. THE PRESSURES RECORDED FROM THE TEST WITH SEATBELTS WERE LOWER THAN THOSE ACQUIRED WITH OTHER RESTRAINT DEVICES (I.E., BOOSTER SEATS & BELLY BELTS). BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE CAMI TESTS, THE FAA BELIEVES THAT SEATBELTS PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION TO CHILDREN IN THE 27-MONTH/26-POUND TO 3-YEAR/35-POUND RANGE WHEN EXPOSED TO THE IMPACT CONDITION OF 14 CFR 25.562. ALTHOUGH THE TESTS WERE NOT CONDUCTED USING A LARGER ATD AS REQUESTED IN THIS RECOMMENDATION, THE FAA BELIEVES THAT THE RESULTS OF THE CAMI TESTS USING THE 3-YEAR/35-POUND ATD INDICATE THAT CHILDREN WHO WEIGH MORE WILL BE PROVIDE THE SAME MINIMUM LEVEL OF PROTECTION. IN FACT, CHILDREN WHO WEIGH MORE THAN 40 POUNDS WILL HAVE BETTER FIT AND ADJUSTMENT CAPABILITY IN THE SEATBELTS THAN SMALLER CHILDREN.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 7/12/1993
Response: IN APRIL 1993 THE CIVIL AEROMEDICAL INSTITUTE CONDUCTED DYNAMIC IMPACT TESTS WITH 35-POUND, 3-YEAR-OLD ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES RESTRAINED BY THE SEATBELT IN A PASSENGER SEAT. UNDER THE HORIZONTAL TEST CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN 14 CFR 25.562, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF OCCUPANT ROLL-OVER OR SUBMARINING ABOUT THE SEATBELTS. NO HEAD CONTACT OCCURRED WITH THE FORWARD ROW SEAT AT 31-INCH SEAT PITCH. THE ATD'S HEAD DID STRIKE THE FRONT OF THE SEAT IN WHICH IT WAS SITTING & THE MEASURED HEAD IMPACT ACCELERATIONS WERE SIGNIFICANT. HOWEVER, TEST RESULTS INDICATED THAT ANY RESULTANT HEAD INJURY WOULD BE WITHIN THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED IN 14 CFR 25.562. OTHER TESTS WERE CONDUCTED WITH A 27-MONTH-OLD ATD RESTRAINED BY SEATBELTS. AGAIN, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF SUBMARINING OR ROLL-OVER OF THE ATD DURING THE 16G IMPACT. AN EXPERIMENTAL PRESSURE-SENSING ABSOMINAL INSERT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 27-MONTH-OLD ATD. THE RECORDED PRESSURE RESPONSE DID NOT INDICATE THAT THE SEATBELT LOADS WERE DIRECTED THROUGH THE ABDOMEN OF THE ATD. ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO INJURY CRITERIA ESTABLISHED FOR ABDOMINAL LOADS, BIOMECHANICAL STUDIES OF ABDOMINAL IMPACTS SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE INJURIES WERE RELATED TO PRESSURE LOADING. THE PRESSURES RECORDED FROM THE TEST WITH SEATBELTS WERE LOWER THAN THOSE ACQUIRED WITH OTHER RESTRAINT DEVICES (I.E., BOOSTER SEATS & BELLY BELTS). BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE CAMI TESTS, THE FAA BELIEVES THAT SEATBELTS PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION TO CHILDREN IN THE 27-MONTH/26-POUND TO 3-YEAR/35-POUND RANGE WHEN EXPOSED TO THE IMPACT CONDITION OF 14 CFR 25.562. ALTHOUGH THE TESTS WERE NOT CONDUCTED USING A LARGER ATD AS REQUESTED IN THIS RECOMMENDATION, THE FAA BELIEVES THAT THE RESULTS OF THE CAMI TESTS USING THE 3-YEAR/35-POUND ATD INDICATE THAT CHILDREN WHO WEIGH MORE WILL BE PROVIDE THE SAME MINIMUM LEVEL OF PROTECTION. IN FACT, CHILDREN WHO WEIGH MORE THAN 40 POUNDS WILL HAVE BETTER FIT AND ADJUSTMENT CAPABILITY IN THE SEATBELTS THAN SMALLER CHILDREN.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 7/12/1993
Response: IN APRIL 1993 THE CIVIL AEROMEDICAL INSTITUTE CONDUCTED DYNAMIC IMPACT TESTS WITH 35-POUND, 3-YEAR-OLD ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES RESTRAINED BY THE SEATBELT IN A PASSENGER SEAT. UNDER THE HORIZONTAL TEST CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN 14 CFR 25.562, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF OCCUPANT ROLL-OVER OR SUBMARINING ABOUT THE SEATBELTS. NO HEAD CONTACT OCCURRED WITH THE FORWARD ROW SEAT AT 31-INCH SEAT PITCH. THE ATD'S HEAD DID STRIKE THE FRONT OF THE SEAT IN WHICH IT WAS SITTING & THE MEASURED HEAD IMPACT ACCELERATIONS WERE SIGNIFICANT. HOWEVER, TEST RESULTS INDICATED THAT ANY RESULTANT HEAD INJURY WOULD BE WITHIN THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED IN 14 CFR 25.562. OTHER TESTS WERE CONDUCTED WITH A 27-MONTH-OLD ATD RESTRAINED BY SEATBELTS. AGAIN, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF SUBMARINING OR ROLL-OVER OF THE ATD DURING THE 16G IMPACT. AN EXPERIMENTAL PRESSURE-SENSING ABSOMINAL INSERT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 27-MONTH-OLD ATD. THE RECORDED PRESSURE RESPONSE DID NOT INDICATE THAT THE SEATBELT LOADS WERE DIRECTED THROUGH THE ABDOMEN OF THE ATD. ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO INJURY CRITERIA ESTABLISHED FOR ABDOMINAL LOADS, BIOMECHANICAL STUDIES OF ABDOMINAL IMPACTS SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE INJURIES WERE RELATED TO PRESSURE LOADING. THE PRESSURES RECORDED FROM THE TEST WITH SEATBELTS WERE LOWER THAN THOSE ACQUIRED WITH OTHER RESTRAINT DEVICES (I.E., BOOSTER SEATS & BELLY BELTS). BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE CAMI TESTS, THE FAA BELIEVES THAT SEATBELTS PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION TO CHILDREN IN THE 27-MONTH/26-POUND TO 3-YEAR/35-POUND RANGE WHEN EXPOSED TO THE IMPACT CONDITION OF 14 CFR 25.562. ALTHOUGH THE TESTS WERE NOT CONDUCTED USING A LARGER ATD AS REQUESTED IN THIS RECOMMENDATION, THE FAA BELIEVES THAT THE RESULTS OF THE CAMI TESTS USING THE 3-YEAR/35-POUND ATD INDICATE THAT CHILDREN WHO WEIGH MORE WILL BE PROVIDE THE SAME MINIMUM LEVEL OF PROTECTION. IN FACT, CHILDREN WHO WEIGH MORE THAN 40 POUNDS WILL HAVE BETTER FIT AND ADJUSTMENT CAPABILITY IN THE SEATBELTS THAN SMALLER CHILDREN.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/8/1992
Response: The Safety Board notes that the FAA has reviewed its findings of past research and has concluded that the adult lap belt provides adequate restraint for "a child close to 1 year of age," provided that the child has attained muscular and skeletal development and weight distribution that enables him/her to walk. The FAA has also concluded that a special restraint is not needed for an ambulatory child who has a height of at least 30 inches. The Safety Board notes that these conclusions represent a change to an earlier finding that was contained in the FAA's Office of Aviation Medicine Report (AM 69-22), entitled "Determination of Centers of Gravity of Infants." The report concluded: "Not until the child reaches his fifth or sixth year has the c.g. [center of gravity] dropped sufficiently and the pelvis developed enough in size to allow the seatbelt to be used as a safe and effective restraint device." In view of the FAA's recent finding, the Safety Board would appreciate learning of published research that supports this finding that an adult seatbelt can effectively and safely restrain, without injury, children of about 1 year of age under the conditions specified in TSO C-100a and the crash impact and in-flight turbulence inertia forces specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations. The Safety Board remains concerned about the ability of adult seatbelts to safely restrain small children. The angle that a seatbelt makes as it passes over the iliac crests of the pelvic girdle and the distance between the left and right seatbelt attachments are designed to accommodate a diverse anthropometric population of adult males and females. Because small children do not have fully developed pelvic girdles, seatbelts typically are mispositioned over their upper thighs or over their abdomens and there is excess lateral space between the child and the seatbelt attachments. The child can easily move laterally inside the seatbelt during side loads or be thrown out of the seatbelt during longitudinal and vertical loads. Depending upon the position and tightness of a seatbelt, the rebound characteristics of seat cushions during dynamic crash forces or during cyclic positive and negative forces in turbulence impose multiaxis loads upon soft abdominal organs rather than upon the iliac crests. The potential for serious injuries is further increased when the seatbelt release buckle is positioned over the abdomen. Loosely adjusted and, thus, mispositioned seatbelts can afford adults some degree of security and some protection from serious injury during unexpected in-flight turbulence. Unfortunately, during turbulence a loosely worn seatbelt cannot afford a child the same degree of security because the seatbelt can cause serious internal injuries and allow the child to slip out from under the seatbelt. Finally, the Safety Board believes that it is unreasonable to expect small children to be able to maintain, without almost constant supervision, the proper position and tightness of seatbelts. The Safety Board has learned that the Society of Automotive Engineers' Ad Hoc Committee on Child Restraint has yet to fully examine the topic of the use of adult lap belts to restrain children. The FAA conclusion that "an adult lap belt provides adequate restraint for an ambulatory child who has attained a height of a least 30 inches" is not supported by the Safety Board's study of the performance of lap belts in frontal vehicle crashes that was published on July 28, 1986. [Safety Study Performance of Lap Belts in 26 Frontal Crashes, NTSB/SS-86/03.] Twenty children whose ages ranged from 2 years to 6 years and whose heights ranged from 36 1/2 inches to 52 inches were involved in some of these accidents. The lack of upper torso restraints and mispositioned lap belts caused injuries that ranged from minor to fatal. These findings further reinforce the Safety Board's concerns that adult seatbelts cannot afford effective and safe restraint of children who have outgrown child safety seats. The Safety Board urges the FAA to reconsider its response to this recommendation. Pending receipt of the published research that supports the FAA position, this recommendation is now classified as "Open--Unacceptable Response."

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/8/1992
Response: The Safety Board notes that the FAA has reviewed its findings of past research and has concluded that the adult lap belt provides adequate restraint for "a child close to 1 year of age," provided that the child has attained muscular and skeletal development and weight distribution that enables him/her to walk. The FAA has also concluded that a special restraint is not needed for an ambulatory child who has a height of at least 30 inches. The Safety Board notes that these conclusions represent a change to an earlier finding that was contained in the FAA's Office of Aviation Medicine Report (AM 69-22), entitled "Determination of Centers of Gravity of Infants." The report concluded: "Not until the child reaches his fifth or sixth year has the c.g. [center of gravity] dropped sufficiently and the pelvis developed enough in size to allow the seatbelt to be used as a safe and effective restraint device." In view of the FAA's recent finding, the Safety Board would appreciate learning of published research that supports this finding that an adult seatbelt can effectively and safely restrain, without injury, children of about 1 year of age under the conditions specified in TSO C-100a and the crash impact and in-flight turbulence inertia forces specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations. The Safety Board remains concerned about the ability of adult seatbelts to safely restrain small children. The angle that a seatbelt makes as it passes over the iliac crests of the pelvic girdle and the distance between the left and right seatbelt attachments are designed to accommodate a diverse anthropometric population of adult males and females. Because small children do not have fully developed pelvic girdles, seatbelts typically are mispositioned over their upper thighs or over their abdomens and there is excess lateral space between the child and the seatbelt attachments. The child can easily move laterally inside the seatbelt during side loads or be thrown out of the seatbelt during longitudinal and vertical loads. Depending upon the position and tightness of a seatbelt, the rebound characteristics of seat cushions during dynamic crash forces or during cyclic positive and negative forces in turbulence impose multiaxis loads upon soft abdominal organs rather than upon the iliac crests. The potential for serious injuries is further increased when the seatbelt release buckle is positioned over the abdomen. Loosely adjusted and, thus, mispositioned seatbelts can afford adults some degree of security and some protection from serious injury during unexpected in-flight turbulence. Unfortunately, during turbulence a loosely worn seatbelt cannot afford a child the same degree of security because the seatbelt can cause serious internal injuries and allow the child to slip out from under the seatbelt. Finally, the Safety Board believes that it is unreasonable to expect small children to be able to maintain, without almost constant supervision, the proper position and tightness of seatbelts. The Safety Board has learned that the Society of Automotive Engineers' Ad Hoc Committee on Child Restraint has yet to fully examine the topic of the use of adult lap belts to restrain children. The FAA conclusion that "an adult lap belt provides adequate restraint for an ambulatory child who has attained a height of a least 30 inches" is not supported by the Safety Board's study of the performance of lap belts in frontal vehicle crashes that was published on July 28, 1986. [Safety Study Performance of Lap Belts in 26 Frontal Crashes, NTSB/SS-86/03.] Twenty children whose ages ranged from 2 years to 6 years and whose heights ranged from 36 1/2 inches to 52 inches were involved in some of these accidents. The lack of upper torso restraints and mispositioned lap belts caused injuries that ranged from minor to fatal. These findings further reinforce the Safety Board's concerns that adult seatbelts cannot afford effective and safe restraint of children who have outgrown child safety seats. The Safety Board urges the FAA to reconsider its response to this recommendation. Pending receipt of the published research that supports the FAA position, this recommendation is now classified as "Open--Unacceptable Response."

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/8/1992
Response: The Safety Board notes that the FAA has reviewed its findings of past research and has concluded that the adult lap belt provides adequate restraint for "a child close to 1 year of age," provided that the child has attained muscular and skeletal development and weight distribution that enables him/her to walk. The FAA has also concluded that a special restraint is not needed for an ambulatory child who has a height of at least 30 inches. The Safety Board notes that these conclusions represent a change to an earlier finding that was contained in the FAA's Office of Aviation Medicine Report (AM 69-22), entitled "Determination of Centers of Gravity of Infants." The report concluded: "Not until the child reaches his fifth or sixth year has the c.g. [center of gravity] dropped sufficiently and the pelvis developed enough in size to allow the seatbelt to be used as a safe and effective restraint device." In view of the FAA's recent finding, the Safety Board would appreciate learning of published research that supports this finding that an adult seatbelt can effectively and safely restrain, without injury, children of about 1 year of age under the conditions specified in TSO C-100a and the crash impact and in-flight turbulence inertia forces specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations. The Safety Board remains concerned about the ability of adult seatbelts to safely restrain small children. The angle that a seatbelt makes as it passes over the iliac crests of the pelvic girdle and the distance between the left and right seatbelt attachments are designed to accommodate a diverse anthropometric population of adult males and females. Because small children do not have fully developed pelvic girdles, seatbelts typically are mispositioned over their upper thighs or over their abdomens and there is excess lateral space between the child and the seatbelt attachments. The child can easily move laterally inside the seatbelt during side loads or be thrown out of the seatbelt during longitudinal and vertical loads. Depending upon the position and tightness of a seatbelt, the rebound characteristics of seat cushions during dynamic crash forces or during cyclic positive and negative forces in turbulence impose multiaxis loads upon soft abdominal organs rather than upon the iliac crests. The potential for serious injuries is further increased when the seatbelt release buckle is positioned over the abdomen. Loosely adjusted and, thus, mispositioned seatbelts can afford adults some degree of security and some protection from serious injury during unexpected in-flight turbulence. Unfortunately, during turbulence a loosely worn seatbelt cannot afford a child the same degree of security because the seatbelt can cause serious internal injuries and allow the child to slip out from under the seatbelt. Finally, the Safety Board believes that it is unreasonable to expect small children to be able to maintain, without almost constant supervision, the proper position and tightness of seatbelts. The Safety Board has learned that the Society of Automotive Engineers' Ad Hoc Committee on Child Restraint has yet to fully examine the topic of the use of adult lap belts to restrain children. The FAA conclusion that "an adult lap belt provides adequate restraint for an ambulatory child who has attained a height of a least 30 inches" is not supported by the Safety Board's study of the performance of lap belts in frontal vehicle crashes that was published on July 28, 1986. [Safety Study Performance of Lap Belts in 26 Frontal Crashes, NTSB/SS-86/03.] Twenty children whose ages ranged from 2 years to 6 years and whose heights ranged from 36 1/2 inches to 52 inches were involved in some of these accidents. The lack of upper torso restraints and mispositioned lap belts caused injuries that ranged from minor to fatal. These findings further reinforce the Safety Board's concerns that adult seatbelts cannot afford effective and safe restraint of children who have outgrown child safety seats. The Safety Board urges the FAA to reconsider its response to this recommendation. Pending receipt of the published research that supports the FAA position, this recommendation is now classified as "Open--Unacceptable Response."

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/8/1992
Response: The Safety Board notes that the FAA has reviewed its findings of past research and has concluded that the adult lap belt provides adequate restraint for "a child close to 1 year of age," provided that the child has attained muscular and skeletal development and weight distribution that enables him/her to walk. The FAA has also concluded that a special restraint is not needed for an ambulatory child who has a height of at least 30 inches. The Safety Board notes that these conclusions represent a change to an earlier finding that was contained in the FAA's Office of Aviation Medicine Report (AM 69-22), entitled "Determination of Centers of Gravity of Infants." The report concluded: "Not until the child reaches his fifth or sixth year has the c.g. [center of gravity] dropped sufficiently and the pelvis developed enough in size to allow the seatbelt to be used as a safe and effective restraint device." In view of the FAA's recent finding, the Safety Board would appreciate learning of published research that supports this finding that an adult seatbelt can effectively and safely restrain, without injury, children of about 1 year of age under the conditions specified in TSO C-100a and the crash impact and in-flight turbulence inertia forces specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations. The Safety Board remains concerned about the ability of adult seatbelts to safely restrain small children. The angle that a seatbelt makes as it passes over the iliac crests of the pelvic girdle and the distance between the left and right seatbelt attachments are designed to accommodate a diverse anthropometric population of adult males and females. Because small children do not have fully developed pelvic girdles, seatbelts typically are mispositioned over their upper thighs or over their abdomens and there is excess lateral space between the child and the seatbelt attachments. The child can easily move laterally inside the seatbelt during side loads or be thrown out of the seatbelt during longitudinal and vertical loads. Depending upon the position and tightness of a seatbelt, the rebound characteristics of seat cushions during dynamic crash forces or during cyclic positive and negative forces in turbulence impose multiaxis loads upon soft abdominal organs rather than upon the iliac crests. The potential for serious injuries is further increased when the seatbelt release buckle is positioned over the abdomen. Loosely adjusted and, thus, mispositioned seatbelts can afford adults some degree of security and some protection from serious injury during unexpected in-flight turbulence. Unfortunately, during turbulence a loosely worn seatbelt cannot afford a child the same degree of security because the seatbelt can cause serious internal injuries and allow the child to slip out from under the seatbelt. Finally, the Safety Board believes that it is unreasonable to expect small children to be able to maintain, without almost constant supervision, the proper position and tightness of seatbelts. The Safety Board has learned that the Society of Automotive Engineers' Ad Hoc Committee on Child Restraint has yet to fully examine the topic of the use of adult lap belts to restrain children. The FAA conclusion that "an adult lap belt provides adequate restraint for an ambulatory child who has attained a height of a least 30 inches" is not supported by the Safety Board's study of the performance of lap belts in frontal vehicle crashes that was published on July 28, 1986. [Safety Study Performance of Lap Belts in 26 Frontal Crashes, NTSB/SS-86/03.] Twenty children whose ages ranged from 2 years to 6 years and whose heights ranged from 36 1/2 inches to 52 inches were involved in some of these accidents. The lack of upper torso restraints and mispositioned lap belts caused injuries that ranged from minor to fatal. These findings further reinforce the Safety Board's concerns that adult seatbelts cannot afford effective and safe restraint of children who have outgrown child safety seats. The Safety Board urges the FAA to reconsider its response to this recommendation. Pending receipt of the published research that supports the FAA position, this recommendation is now classified as "Open--Unacceptable Response."

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 6/7/1991
Response: THE FAA HAS CONDUCTED CONSIDERABLE CHILD RESTRAINT RESEARCH AND TESTING AND HAS REVIEWED ITS PAST RESEARCH FINDINGS, CONFERRED WITH OTHER EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, AND BELIEVES THAT AN ADULT LAP BELT PROVIDES ADEQUATE RESTRAINT FOR AN AMBULATORY CHILD WHO HAS ATTAINED A HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 30 INCHES. PREVIOUS STUDIES HAVE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT AN ADULT LAP BELT IS ADEQUATE FOR A CHILD CLOSE TO 1 YEAR OF AGE, PROVIDED THAT CHILD HAS ATTAINED MUSCULAR AND SKELETAL DEVELOPMENT AND WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION (I.E., NO LONGER "TOP HEAVY") TO ENABLE HIM/HER TO WALK.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 6/7/1991
Response: THE FAA HAS CONDUCTED CONSIDERABLE CHILD RESTRAINT RESEARCH AND TESTING AND HAS REVIEWED ITS PAST RESEARCH FINDINGS, CONFERRED WITH OTHER EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, AND BELIEVES THAT AN ADULT LAP BELT PROVIDES ADEQUATE RESTRAINT FOR AN AMBULATORY CHILD WHO HAS ATTAINED A HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 30 INCHES. PREVIOUS STUDIES HAVE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT AN ADULT LAP BELT IS ADEQUATE FOR A CHILD CLOSE TO 1 YEAR OF AGE, PROVIDED THAT CHILD HAS ATTAINED MUSCULAR AND SKELETAL DEVELOPMENT AND WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION (I.E., NO LONGER "TOP HEAVY") TO ENABLE HIM/HER TO WALK.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 6/7/1991
Response: THE FAA HAS CONDUCTED CONSIDERABLE CHILD RESTRAINT RESEARCH AND TESTING AND HAS REVIEWED ITS PAST RESEARCH FINDINGS, CONFERRED WITH OTHER EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, AND BELIEVES THAT AN ADULT LAP BELT PROVIDES ADEQUATE RESTRAINT FOR AN AMBULATORY CHILD WHO HAS ATTAINED A HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 30 INCHES. PREVIOUS STUDIES HAVE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT AN ADULT LAP BELT IS ADEQUATE FOR A CHILD CLOSE TO 1 YEAR OF AGE, PROVIDED THAT CHILD HAS ATTAINED MUSCULAR AND SKELETAL DEVELOPMENT AND WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION (I.E., NO LONGER "TOP HEAVY") TO ENABLE HIM/HER TO WALK.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 6/7/1991
Response: THE FAA HAS CONDUCTED CONSIDERABLE CHILD RESTRAINT RESEARCH AND TESTING AND HAS REVIEWED ITS PAST RESEARCH FINDINGS, CONFERRED WITH OTHER EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, AND BELIEVES THAT AN ADULT LAP BELT PROVIDES ADEQUATE RESTRAINT FOR AN AMBULATORY CHILD WHO HAS ATTAINED A HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 30 INCHES. PREVIOUS STUDIES HAVE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT AN ADULT LAP BELT IS ADEQUATE FOR A CHILD CLOSE TO 1 YEAR OF AGE, PROVIDED THAT CHILD HAS ATTAINED MUSCULAR AND SKELETAL DEVELOPMENT AND WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION (I.E., NO LONGER "TOP HEAVY") TO ENABLE HIM/HER TO WALK.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 1/28/1991
Response: The FAA response describes an FAA/Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) committee which is to discuss child restraint issues. According to a Safety Board staff representative who attended the March 27, 1990, meeting of the committee, it is not addressing the specific issue raised by Safety Recommendation A-90-79: child size or the child-seat capability in terms of child size and weight limits. Rather, the SAE describes this as "a yet-to-be-determined FAA age or size limit." Although the committee plans to refer the issue to the ATA Cabin Operations Panel, to our knowledge the issue has not been accepted as a topic for discussion. Therefore, Safety Recommendation A-90-79 is classified as "Open-- Unacceptable Response."

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 1/28/1991
Response: The FAA response describes an FAA/Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) committee which is to discuss child restraint issues. According to a Safety Board staff representative who attended the March 27, 1990, meeting of the committee, it is not addressing the specific issue raised by Safety Recommendation A-90-79: child size or the child-seat capability in terms of child size and weight limits. Rather, the SAE describes this as "a yet-to-be-determined FAA age or size limit." Although the committee plans to refer the issue to the ATA Cabin Operations Panel, to our knowledge the issue has not been accepted as a topic for discussion. Therefore, Safety Recommendation A-90-79 is classified as "Open-- Unacceptable Response."

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 1/28/1991
Response: The FAA response describes an FAA/Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) committee which is to discuss child restraint issues. According to a Safety Board staff representative who attended the March 27, 1990, meeting of the committee, it is not addressing the specific issue raised by Safety Recommendation A-90-79: child size or the child-seat capability in terms of child size and weight limits. Rather, the SAE describes this as "a yet-to-be-determined FAA age or size limit." Although the committee plans to refer the issue to the ATA Cabin Operations Panel, to our knowledge the issue has not been accepted as a topic for discussion. Therefore, Safety Recommendation A-90-79 is classified as "Open-- Unacceptable Response."

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 1/28/1991
Response: The FAA response describes an FAA/Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) committee which is to discuss child restraint issues. According to a Safety Board staff representative who attended the March 27, 1990, meeting of the committee, it is not addressing the specific issue raised by Safety Recommendation A-90-79: child size or the child-seat capability in terms of child size and weight limits. Rather, the SAE describes this as "a yet-to-be-determined FAA age or size limit." Although the committee plans to refer the issue to the ATA Cabin Operations Panel, to our knowledge the issue has not been accepted as a topic for discussion. Therefore, Safety Recommendation A-90-79 is classified as "Open-- Unacceptable Response."

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 11/1/1990
Response: From the accident report of United Airlines flight 232 McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 at the Sioux Gateway Airport in Sioux City, Iowa on July 19, 1989. The Board adopted this report on 11/1/1990. These recommendations, A-90-78 and -79, were classified as “Closed—Superseded” by other recommendations issued on June 18, 1990: A-90-78 and A-90-79.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 11/1/1990
Response: From the accident report of United Airlines flight 232 McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 at the Sioux Gateway Airport in Sioux City, Iowa on July 19, 1989. The Board adopted this report on 11/1/1990. These recommendations, A-90-78 and -79, were classified as “Closed—Superseded” by other recommendations issued on June 18, 1990: A-90-78 and A-90-79.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 11/1/1990
Response: From the accident report of United Airlines flight 232 McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 at the Sioux Gateway Airport in Sioux City, Iowa on July 19, 1989. The Board adopted this report on 11/1/1990. These recommendations, A-90-78 and -79, were classified as “Closed—Superseded” by other recommendations issued on June 18, 1990: A-90-78 and A-90-79.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 11/1/1990
Response: From the accident report of United Airlines flight 232 McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 at the Sioux Gateway Airport in Sioux City, Iowa on July 19, 1989. The Board adopted this report on 11/1/1990. These recommendations, A-90-78 and -79, were classified as “Closed—Superseded” by other recommendations issued on June 18, 1990: A-90-78 and A-90-79.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 8/6/1990
Response: THE AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION IS SPONSORING A FAA/SAE COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS CHILD RESTRAINT ISSUES. THE FAA HAS ALSO RECEIVED NUMEROUS IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND INVENTIONS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC SINCE SIOUX CITY. I WILL APPRISE THE BOARD...

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 8/6/1990
Response: THE AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION IS SPONSORING A FAA/SAE COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS CHILD RESTRAINT ISSUES. THE FAA HAS ALSO RECEIVED NUMEROUS IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND INVENTIONS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC SINCE SIOUX CITY. I WILL APPRISE THE BOARD...

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 8/6/1990
Response: THE AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION IS SPONSORING A FAA/SAE COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS CHILD RESTRAINT ISSUES. THE FAA HAS ALSO RECEIVED NUMEROUS IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND INVENTIONS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC SINCE SIOUX CITY. I WILL APPRISE THE BOARD...

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 8/6/1990
Response: THE AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION IS SPONSORING A FAA/SAE COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS CHILD RESTRAINT ISSUES. THE FAA HAS ALSO RECEIVED NUMEROUS IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND INVENTIONS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC SINCE SIOUX CITY. I WILL APPRISE THE BOARD...