A child under 2 may fly on an adult’s lap on U.S. commercial flights. The Federal Aviation Administration permits that and does not require a child restraint system.
The National Transportation Safety Board has asked the FAA to change that rule for more than 30 years. Its recommendations came in 1990, 1993, 1995, and 2010. The FAA has kept restraint use voluntary.
It is legal to carry a baby onto a U.S. commercial jet, hand them to a parent, and fasten one seat belt around neither of them. That is not a loophole in a forgotten manual; it is current FAA policy, and it has survived more than thirty years of formal objections from the National Transportation Safety Board.
The NTSB investigates accidents and issues safety recommendations. The FAA writes the rules. The gap between those two jobs is the entire story of whether a lap-held infant is safe.
The 1993 pair at the center of this piece — A-93-106 and A-93-107 — are real, and their operative text is verified.
What the FAA allows — and what it doesn’t require
On a U.S. carrier, a child under 2 can travel on an adult’s lap. No separate seat, no restraint, no fare for the child. The FAA’s own guidance goes further: for a child under 2, an approved car seat in the child’s own seat is the safest option.
Yet the agency stops short of requiring one. During taxi, takeoff, landing, and surface movement, lap-held restraint devices, parent-attached harnesses, and booster-type restraints are generally prohibited unless specifically FAA-approved. The CARES device — approved by the FAA for children weighing 22 to 44 pounds — is the main approved alternative to a full car seat.
The 1993 hinge: two recommendations, two gaps
Two recommendations dated 1993 are the historical hinge. A-93-106 asked the FAA to amend 14 CFR Parts 91, 121, and 135 so that two or more people could no longer share a safety belt designed for one person.
A-93-107 asked for a general-aviation pilot education campaign on child-restraint benefits and the danger of putting two occupants in one belt. Neither text is in dispute; the NTSB’s own letter records them.
What the public record does not record is the accidents behind them. The retrieved material does not verify the identities, dates, or case numbers of the two accidents associated with A-93-106 and A-93-107. That’s a hard limitation, and it matters.
A recommendation can survive for years as a floating directive, detached from the crash that produced it.
For the 1993 pair, the FAA’s November 17, 1993 response to A-93-106 said Parts 121 and 135 did not allow one seat belt to restrain more than one person. The FAA’s full response to A-93-107 is not in the retrieved material, and neither recommendation has a confirmed final disposition. It is also unconfirmed that A-95-51 — the 1995 recommendation that followed — formally superseded the 1993 pair.
What the record does show is that A-95-51 superseded A-90-078, the 1990 recommendation, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. The two smaller 1993 requests simply remain in the docket, less documented than the larger mandate they preceded.
Flight deals
most people never see
Our AI monitors 150+ airlines for pricing anomalies that traditional search engines miss. Air Traveler Club members save $650 per trip per person on average: see how it works.
Each deal saves 40–80% vs. regular fares:
A documented DC-9 case the NTSB keeps returning to
One case the NTSB does document is not from 1993. In 1994, a Douglas DC-9-31 crashed while executing a missed approach. A 9-month-old riding on a parent’s lap suffered fatal impact injuries.
The Board found the mother lost her secure hold and concluded that an aircraft-approved child restraint would likely have saved the child. The detail is not hypothetical: the child was small enough that a parent would naturally believe a firm grip was enough.
It wasn’t. Holding an infant is legal, and the NTSB has never said otherwise. What it has said, repeatedly, is that legality is not the same as protection.
Five recommendations, three decades, one answer
Start in 1990. The National Transportation Safety Board told the FAA to require all occupants to be restrained during takeoff, landing, and turbulence — and to require children below 40 pounds and 40 inches to use an approved child restraint.
The pattern is easier to see as a list than as a story. Five NTSB recommendations are verified in the record. Each asked the FAA to do something different, and each produced either an unacceptable closure or an incomplete paper trail.
| Recommendation | Year issued | What it asked the FAA to do | FAA response or outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-90-078 | 1990 | Require all occupants restrained during takeoff, landing, turbulence; infants under 40 lbs/40 in use approved CRS. | Superseded by A-95-51, according to the NTSB; A-95-51 later closed—Unacceptable Action. |
| A-93-106 | 1993 | Amend 14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 135 to ban sharing a one-person safety belt. | FAA said Nov. 17, 1993, Parts 121/135 bar one belt for two people; final status unverified. |
| A-93-107 | 1993 | Educate general-aviation pilots on CRS benefits and one-person belt risks. | Confirmed recommendation text; full FAA response and final disposition not retrieved. |
| A-95-051 | 1995 | Require all occupants restrained during critical flight phases; infants restrained by size. | Closed—Unacceptable Action Dec. 13, 2006; FAA kept voluntary CRS use. |
| A-10-123 | 2010 | Require every child under 2 in separate seat with CRS during critical phases. | Closed—Unacceptable Action Nov. 4, 2013; FAA did not adopt a mandate. |
| Source: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) | |||
The table’s most important line is not the oldest one. Both the blanket restraint mandate and the 2010 recommendation for separate seats were closed as Unacceptable Action, years apart, and the FAA adopted neither.
The record doesn’t show a single recommendation converting into a final rule. That is the gap: the NTSB can keep asking, but the FAA can keep saying no, and “no” closes the file.
Why the NTSB can recommend and the FAA can still say no
A recommendation does not become a rule on its own. The FAA takes each one, may publish guidance or propose a rule, collects public comment, and then decides whether to make it final. That is how a recommendation can be closed without a rule ever appearing.
In theory, that is accountability. In practice, the NTSB can recommend for decades and the FAA can choose not to act — and the file still gets closed as unacceptable.
The practical result for travelers is that FAA guidance can say “use a car seat” while the legal rule says “you don’t have to.” Both statements are true at the same time. That is not a contradiction inside the agency; it is the design.
What this means for you
None of this changes how you book a flight tomorrow. You won’t be turned away for not buying a seat. What the record adds is context: the option stays legal because the FAA has never required a seat, not because the safety question was settled.
If a mandate ever did arrive, the cost would be immediate — a second seat fare and a new set of equipment to pack. That hasn’t happened, so for now the rule is a permission, not an assurance.
Key terms
- CARES device
- The CARES device is an FAA-approved harness that secures a child in an airline seat without a car seat. It is designed for children weighing 22 to 44 pounds, and it is the main approved alternative to a full car seat on U.S. flights. For families deciding whether to buy a second seat, it is the lighter option the FAA has approved, though it covers a specific weight range rather than every child under 2.
- 14 CFR
- Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations is the body of federal rules that governs aviation in the United States. Its Parts 91, 121, and 135 set the operating rules for general aviation and for the airline operations that carry passengers. A-93-106 named all three parts at once, which is why the 1993 request would have reached both airline passengers and general-aviation pilots.
- Child restraint system (CRS)
- A child restraint system is an FAA-approved seat or harness that secures a child in their own seat rather than on an adult’s lap. The FAA does not require CRS use on commercial airplanes, though its guidance points to an approved CRS as the safest setup. That gap is the subject of this article: the safety case for a CRS is settled, but the legal requirement for one has never followed.
- General aviation
- General aviation covers civil flying outside scheduled airline service — private pilots, charters, flight training, and similar operations. It is regulated separately from the airline rules that govern passenger carriers. In this article’s record, that split matters: A-93-107 aimed its education campaign at general-aviation pilots, while its companion recommendation targeted the airline operating rules.
Questions? Answers.
Is it safe to have a lap infant on a plane?
On U.S. commercial flights a child under 2 may legally ride on an adult’s lap, but the NTSB and FAA guidance treat an approved car seat as safer. The FAA does not require a child restraint system. A documented 1994 DC-9-31 crash killed a lap-held 9-month-old the NTSB said a child restraint would likely have saved.
Can my 2.5 year old fly on my lap?
No. The lap-child option applies only to children under 2. A 2.5-year-old must occupy a seat, and the FAA strongly recommends an approved child restraint or device.
Does the FAA require a car seat for a child under 2 on a plane?
No. The FAA does not require any child restraint system on commercial airplanes. A child under 2 may fly on an adult’s lap, though the FAA and AAP say an approved car seat is the safest option.
What is the CARES device and which children is it designed for?
The CARES device is an FAA-approved harness for children weighing 22 to 44 pounds. It is one of the few approved alternatives to a car seat, and most other lap-held or parent-attached devices are prohibited during taxi, takeoff, and landing.
