Allow Babywearing Carriers on Planes

允许在飞机上使用婴儿背带

Jeff Kaufman | September 8th, 2026 Jeff Kaufman | 2026年9月8日

The FAA has one of my favorite examples of thoughtful rulemaking. They haven’t banned flying with a baby on your lap, because the extra cost would mean many parents would drive instead. Since driving is far less safe than flying, a ban would lead to more deaths. I’d love to see more of this “all things considered” thinking around bans. 美国联邦航空管理局（FAA）有一项我非常欣赏的深思熟虑的法规。他们没有禁止抱着婴儿乘机，因为如果强制要求购买额外座位，许多父母会转而选择开车。由于开车远不如飞行安全，禁止抱着婴儿乘机反而会导致更多的死亡。我希望看到更多这种“综合考虑”的决策思维应用在各类禁令中。

In fact, one specific place where I’d like to see this thinking applied is adjacent to this rule: babywearing carriers on planes. When our babies were little, carriers were massively helpful in flying. The baby likes it, and your arms are free. But for takeoff and landing, the FAA requires you to take your baby out of the carrier and hold them in your arms. 事实上，我希望这种思维能应用的一个具体领域正是与此相关的规定：飞机上的婴儿背带。当我们的孩子还小时，背带在飞行中非常有帮助。婴儿喜欢待在里面，而你的双手也能得到解放。但在起飞和降落时，FAA 要求你必须将婴儿从背带中取出并抱在怀里。

The rule is that if an under-two is going to ride on a lap, they must not “occupy or use any restraining device,” (14 CFR 121.311.b.1) and FAA guidance to parents is clear: “Baby carriers …are not allowed to be used during ground movement, take-off, or landing.” 根据规定，如果两岁以下的儿童坐在成人腿上，他们不得“占用或使用任何约束装置”（14 CFR 121.311.b.1），FAA 给家长的指导也很明确：“婴儿背带……不得在地面移动、起飞或降落期间使用。”

This goes back to 1995, and if you look at the notice of proposed rulemaking it says: This notice proposes to withdraw FAA approval for the use of booster seats and vest- and harness-type child restraint systems in aircraft during takeoff, landing, and movement on the surface. … The FAA believes that, during an aircraft crash, the banned devices may put children in a potentially worse situation than the allowable alternatives. 这一规定可以追溯到 1995 年。如果你查看当时的拟议规则制定通知，上面写道：本通知提议撤销 FAA 对在飞机起飞、降落和地面移动期间使用增高座椅以及背心式和背带式儿童约束系统的批准……FAA 认为，在飞机坠毁时，这些被禁设备可能会使儿童处于比允许使用的替代方案更糟糕的境地。

This is based on their 1994 study, where the FAA compared child restraint options. They looked at “booster seats, forward facing carriers, aft facing carriers, a harness device, a belly belt, and passenger seat lap belts.” The “carriers” here are car seats; they didn’t test babywearing carriers. I don’t think that’s a major flaw in the study, however, since I do expect babywearing carriers would have performed poorly. [1] 这基于他们 1994 年的一项研究，当时 FAA 对比了多种儿童约束方案。他们考察了“增高座椅、前向式座椅、后向式座椅、背带装置、腹部安全带和乘客座椅安全带”。这里的“座椅”指的是汽车安全座椅；他们并没有测试婴儿背带。不过，我不认为这是该研究的主要缺陷，因为我确实预料到婴儿背带在测试中的表现会很差。[1]

The real problem is that they didn’t test the most common alternative, holding the baby in your lap. So “may put children in a potentially worse situation than the allowable alternatives” seems clearly wrong to me. 真正的问题在于，他们没有测试最常见的替代方案——即把婴儿抱在怀里。因此，“可能使儿童处于比允许使用的替代方案更糟糕的境地”这一结论在我看来显然是错误的。

In the 1996 final rule [2] they discuss why they’re making a different decision than the UK (CAA) and Europe (JAA, predates EASA), and they avoid the obvious comparison. They say belly belts can be dangerous, acknowledge that lap-holding has risks, predict parents will buy a second seat, and then also say they don’t want to require a second seat because people will drive. 在 1996 年的最终规则 [2] 中，他们讨论了为何做出与英国（CAA）和欧洲（JAA，EASA 的前身）不同的决定，并回避了显而易见的对比。他们称腹部安全带可能很危险，承认抱着孩子有风险，预测父母会购买第二个座位，但随后又表示他们不想强制要求购买第二个座位，因为人们会选择开车。

This isn’t completely nuts, since it’s possible that allowing belly belts would have caused some parents to choose them over a second seat. It’s pretty unlikely for the effects to balance out in just this way, however, and I don’t see any indication that they tried to do this balancing. 这并非完全不可理喻，因为允许使用腹部安全带确实可能导致一些父母选择它而非购买第二个座位。然而，各种影响因素恰好以这种方式达到平衡的可能性很小，而且我没有看到任何迹象表明他们尝试过进行这种权衡。

I expect that, if fairly evaluated, modern babywearing carriers would prove much safer than arms during turbulence, crashes, and evacuations. And I think this is likely enough that if we’re not going to do these tests we should default to not banning carriers. 我预计，如果进行公平评估，现代婴儿背带在遇到颠簸、坠机和紧急撤离时，会比单纯用手臂抱着安全得多。我认为这种可能性很大，如果我们不打算进行这些测试，那么我们应该默认不禁止使用背带。

In 2024 there was a bill proposing to do something like this (Rep Bill Posey’s HR 8972), but it went to the aviation subcommittee and died without a vote. I don’t think the harm of the current rule is very large in the scheme of things: flying is very safe, even for unrestrained lap infants. Most of the harm is probably the inconvenience of waking happily sleeping babies. Still, it bugs me as a clear example of incoherent rulemaking. The FAA sensibly considered substitution behavior in deciding not to ban lap infants, but failed to balance it here. 2024 年曾有一项法案提议解决这个问题（众议员 Bill Posey 提出的 HR 8972），但它被提交给航空小组委员会后，未经投票就夭折了。我认为从大局来看，现行规则的危害并不大：飞行非常安全，即使对于没有约束的怀抱婴儿也是如此。大部分危害可能仅仅是吵醒了熟睡的婴儿带来的不便。尽管如此，作为一个规则制定不连贯的典型例子，这依然让我感到困扰。FAA 在决定不禁止怀抱婴儿时明智地考虑了替代行为，但在这里却未能做到平衡。

---

[1] The closest thing to a carrier they tested was a ‘belly belt’: “This belt is designed to be buckled around the child’s abdomen and is secured to an adult’s abdomen with the adult’s safety belt by routing the safety belt through a small loop of webbing sewn on the belly belt.” They did not perform well: “In the test, these systems allowed the anthropomorphic test dummy to make severe contact with the back of the seat in the row in front of the test dummy. The child also may be crushed by the forward bending motion of the adult to whom the child is attached.” [1] 他们测试的最接近背带的装置是“腹部安全带”：“这种带子设计为系在儿童腹部，并通过将成人的安全带穿过缝在腹部带上的小织带环，将其固定在成人的腹部。”它们的表现并不好：“在测试中，这些系统导致人体模型与前排座椅靠背发生了剧烈碰撞。儿童还可能被与其相连的成人向前弯曲的动作挤压。”

[2] Here’s the section, if the PDF is hard to load or read: CAA and JAA state that they permit the belly belt on the grounds that it provides a measure of protection to children and/or other passengers versus lap holding a child. FAA Response: The FAA would like to emphasize that belly belts are not permitted under current regulations. Even if belly belts do provide some measure or protection, the CAMI study found that belly belts allowed the test dummy to make severe contact with the back of the seat in the row in front of the test dummy and that a child may be crushed by the forward bending motion of the adult to whom the child is attached. Consideration of revising this current prohibition is beyond the scope of the notice. [2] 如果 PDF 难以加载或阅读，以下是相关部分：CAA 和 JAA 表示，他们允许使用腹部安全带，理由是与怀抱儿童相比，它为儿童和/或其他乘客提供了一定程度的保护。FAA 回应：FAA 想要强调，根据现行法规，腹部安全带是不被允许的。即使腹部安全带确实提供了一定程度的保护，CAMI 的研究发现，腹部安全带会导致测试假人与前排座椅靠背发生剧烈碰撞，且儿童可能会被与其相连的成人向前弯曲的动作挤压。考虑修订这一现行禁令超出了本通知的范围。