MINUTES

ETM / Annex 16 Telcon

May 26, 2009

Attendees:

Steve Arrowsmith

Will Dodds 

Jim Elwood

Erika Herms

Werner Hoermann

Curtis Holsclaw

Dave Lister

Bryan Manning

Ed McQueen 

Dom Sepulveda

1. Comments/questions if any regarding CTG London Meeting WPs

  

Comments were to be posted by May 20th. The Group, by means of silence,
did not report any comments or questions regarding WP05 and WP06.

2. EASA proposals on “Application Process for Exemptions to NOx
Production Cut-off Requirements”.

Werner walked the group through, line by line, the EASA draft proposal
“ETM generic application process for exemptions to NOx emissions
production cut-off standards”. The proposal, in outline format, was in
five parts:

Scope

Application

Review Process

Approval

Registration and Communication

This draft outline was presented with a request to review the approach,
categories and preliminary questions which need to be addressed and
answered as development proceeds. Although many of the questions and
issues concerning Process would be affected by Criteria, it was
suggested that initial discussion be focused on this outline alone and
questions relative to Criteria be held until the suggested Criteria in
Agenda item 3 be reviewed the FAA/EPA.

Ed informed the group that the FAA Certification Office was reviewing
the FAA Certification Process and he would get back to the group as soon
as information became available.

A number of questions and concerns were voiced which will require future
consideration:

Would this outline be something to be included in the ETM to provide
detailed guidance on some generic process for Certification Officers? An
immediate observation to the question was however the guidance material
was handled in the ETM there would need to be a link from the Annex to
the ETM.

The situation with spare and replacement engines is confused both in
definition (are replacement engines spares?) and in sorting out how they
can be handled within the regulatory framework. 

Discussion of spares led to a lengthy discussion about the proposal to
identify exempt engines by name plate and in some fashion in the ICAO
Data Bank. 

How are we going to bring in other, non WG3 authorities before we go to
far down the road, e.g., Russia, China, Japan, India, Brazil? Experience
with gaining cooperation from some of these countries has not been good.

 

3. FAA / EPA suggested “Criteria for Annex 16 and ETM Text for
Exemptions for Production Cut-Off”.

The group assessed the FAA/EPA proposed Criteria as submitted for
discussion. The discussion followed the same questions and concerns
listed above and needn’t be repeated.

ACTION: Steve is looking for feedback to EASA in the next couple of
weeks to keep to a reasonable schedule given the WG3 and SG time table.
Ed and Bryan are in agreement and targeting the WG3 meeting in
September. 

4. Appendix 3 Attachment A – Specification for HC Analyzer.

Discussion continues about concerns with the FID temperature difference
between SAE ARP 1256C and the Annex. E-31 has taken this under
advisement and anticipates making changes in the next revision of 1256 a
process which is currently underway under the sponsorship of Dave
Christie, vice chair of E-31. Werner, Jim Elwood and Dave have been in
contact and, in the expectation of changes to 1256, are considering new
text for the ETM which would provide for an acceptable range of FID
temperatures (say 160 °C to 210 °C) with some appropriate stability
limits (say ± 10 °C). The inclusion of stability limits remains under
discussion. E-31, in the current version of ARP 1256C, removed the
requirement for specific stability limits, which were in the original
version and which are in the Annex, reasoning that the effect is small
and will be controlled via the span drift requirements. While this is
true in an operational sense, i.e., it is unlikely to be an observable
problem, it is technically incorrect. Span drift and the changes in
output due to variations in FID temperature are independent variables
and should be recognized as such. Replacement of stability limits
eliminates confusion. Additionally, setting stability limits would
provide clarification to what is meant by Set (and maintain) the
temperature of the FID and add would provide for consistency with the
analyzer specifications of commercially available Total Hydrocarbon
Analyzers. 

Action: Werner, Jim and Dave to continue the discussion of the need for
stability limits, agree to a temperature range consistent with modern
hydrocarbon analyzers current practice and the intent of the Standard
and draft new ETM text for group review.

5. Appendix 3 Attachment B – Specification for CO and CO2 Analyzers

No comments yet on the draft. Jim commented that the E-31 effort to
revise ARP1256C would include reviewing the specifications for all of
the analytical instruments including CO and CO2 and NOx.

6. New Business

No discussion because of time limitations but Ed has some questions
about the proposed ETM text for Chapter 3 on SST and will bring them up
later.

Next telcon scheduled for July 21 

 .

