The NTSB has formally asked the FAA to require child restraints on commercial flights since 1990. The FAA still permits lap-held infants under age two on Part 121 flights, according to the U.S. Government Publishing Office. A-95-51, the broadest mandate, spent seven years on the Most Wanted List before being closed as “Closed—Unacceptable Action.” The narrower A-10-122 remains “Open—Unacceptable Response.”
Thirty-five years is long enough for a safety recommendation to become an administrative ghost. The NTSB first asked the FAA in 1990 to require restraints for every child on a commercial flight. What happened next is less a stalled negotiation than a quiet reclassification project.
Look at the NTSB’s own recommendation file and the story changes from “the FAA said no” to something more interesting: A-90-78 was closed as unacceptable and superseded in 1995. Its successor, A-95-51, spent seven years on the Most Wanted List before being removed — with no public board vote or written reason — and later closed as unacceptable. A 2010 request narrowed to Part 91 operations remains open with an unacceptable response.
The lap-child permission is older than the NTSB’s campaign. It entered federal rules when the FAA was created and still sits in 14 CFR §121.311. This is the story of how a safety recommendation can stay technically alive while losing administrative force.
What the recommendation record actually shows
The NTSB does not have rulemaking power. It issues recommendations with alphanumeric identifiers, and the FAA chooses how to respond. The file on child restraints shows how those identifiers get a second life through status changes.
A-90-78 arrived in 1990 asking for restraints during takeoff, landing, and turbulence for all occupants. In 1995, the NTSB marked it “Closed—Unacceptable Action” and superseded — meaning the Board gave up active follow-up, but not because the problem was fixed. A-95-51, issued the same year, broadened the ask to Parts 91, 135, and 121. It then spent May 1999 to September 2006 on the Most Wanted List.
In 2010, A-10-122 narrowed to Part 91 operations, where the FAA’s usual diversion argument about ticket prices largely doesn’t apply. That recommendation remains “Open—Unacceptable Response” in NTSB’s CAROL database. A fifth entry, A-21-040 from 2021, shows the lineage is still active.
| Recommendation | Issue date | What NTSB asked for | FAA response / current status | What the classification means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-90-78 | 1990 | Require restraints for all occupants, including infants, during takeoff, landing, turbulence. | Closed—Unacceptable Action in 1995; superseded by later recommendations including A-95-51. | NTSB ended active follow-up but labeled FAA response unacceptable; safety problem persisted. |
| A-90-79 | 1990 | Improve guidance and policies for child restraints and protection of young passengers. | Closed and superseded by later child-restraint recommendations; specific closure date unverified. | Folded into later, broader child-restraint efforts rather than implemented directly. |
| A-95-51 | 1995 | Revise Parts 91, 135, 121 to require all occupants restrained; children restrained appropriately for size. | On Most Wanted List May 1999–September 2006; now Closed—Unacceptable Action. | Top-priority designation; later closure records FAA’s ultimate response as inadequate. |
| A-10-122 | 2010 | Require child restraints in Part 91 operations where diversion argument doesn’t apply. | Open—Unacceptable Response in CAROL; no acceptable FAA action recorded. | Formally open, but NTSB finds FAA’s responses not acceptable; disagreement ongoing. |
| A-21-040 | 2021 | Renew call for mandatory child restraints in certain operations, building on earlier recommendations. | Active in CAROL; no Closed—Acceptable Action classification. | Recommendation lineage continues into 2020s; issue still unresolved. |
| Source: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) | ||||
What the FAA’s diversion model leaves out
The FAA’s stated reason for refusing a mandate is economic, not a disagreement over crash physics. If families had to buy a seat for every child under two, the argument goes, some would drive instead — and highways are statistically more lethal per mile than airline cabins. The agency has repeated this in its responses to NTSB recommendations.
In 2004, National Transportation Safety Board staff examined the diversion models. Their analysis concluded the estimates rested on statistical and economic assumptions, not on observed year-by-year diversion data. No specific dollar-per-ticket increase was attached to a child-seat mandate in the sections reviewed. That absence matters: the FAA’s core defense has never been tested against real-world behavior.
Airlines love to bury this in fare rules. Ask any gate agent and they’ll tell you a different story — but not one grounded in year-by-year data. There are also no public voluntary CRS usage rates, so the FAA’s outreach approach can’t be measured either.
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:
How the lap-child exception survives in the 2024 rulebook
The legal foundation survives because §121.311 works in two steps. The 2024 Code of Federal Regulations says any person who has reached their second birthday must occupy an approved seat with a safety belt during taxi, takeoff, and landing. Only then does the rule add that a child under two may be held by such an adult, without a separate restraint.
That two-step structure is the long-lived legal foundation. It means a lap-held infant is legal on every U.S. Part 121 flight, while the agency with crash-investigation expertise has asked for a mandate since 1990.
The physics gap shows up in NTSB accounts. On United Airlines Flight 826 in 1997, severe turbulence over the Pacific tore a lap-held infant from the caregiver’s arms and seriously injured the child. Caregivers in other incidents have also been physically unable to hold on.
What this means if you’re booking with an infant
If you’re flying domestically on a large U.S. airline, an under-two child can ride on your lap with no purchased seat. That is the legal default, not a safety endorsement.
You can buy a seat and bring an approved child restraint system (CRS). The device must bear the red-letter “THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT” label, or be an FAA-accepted harness such as CARES. Booster seats and most vest-type devices are not approved for taxi, takeoff, and landing.
Federal law imposes no obligation on airlines to give infants a free seat. On many international routes, carriers charge an infant fare, often a percentage of the adult ticket plus taxes. The safety choice has a price, and the airline is not required to tell you that a secured restraint is safer.
Questions? Answers.
Is it safe to fly with a lap infant?
The NTSB has documented cases of lap-held infants being seriously injured. On United Airlines Flight 826 in 1997, a lap-held infant was torn from a caregiver’s arms during severe turbulence. The FAA still permits lap infants, but the NTSB has recommended mandatory restraints since 1990.
What are the requirements for a lap child on a plane?
For Part 121 flights, a child under age two may be held on an adult’s lap and is not required to occupy a separate seat or use a restraint. Anyone aged two or older must be in an approved seat with a safety belt. An approved CRS can be used if the child has a ticketed seat and the device meets labeling rules.
Can my 2 year old fly free on my lap?
No. A child who has reached their second birthday must occupy an approved seat with a safety belt during taxi, takeoff, and landing. The lap-held exception applies only to children under two.
Can my 2.5 year old sit on my lap on a plane?
No. A child aged 2.5 is older than two, so they must occupy their own approved seat with a safety belt during taxi, takeoff, and landing. Only children under two may be held on an adult’s lap.
