The chair noted that the drawings had been provided by Humanetics after the 5th meeting as agreed; the drawings were made available in a zip file on the website of this group (document GTR9-5-31). Action item A-3-11 therefore can be closed.

The chair explained that the process to review the drawing packages should be started in the meeting. He introduced document GTR9-6-04 that was prepared together with the chair of the Informal Group on GTR No 7 – Phase 2 as guidelines for the preparation of addenda to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 (M.R.1) to assure that future amendments of any UN GTR/UN Regulation provide the necessary level of detail e.g. for the test tools used in a UN GTR/UN Regulation.

On request of Mr. Martin he explained that of course not all details of a test tool can be given on the drawing, such as the production processes used or detailed material specifications. A first description of the necessary requirements is given in above mentioned guidelines. Also, Mr. Martin wondered whether a solid model (3D model) will be made publically available. The chair responded that this has not yet been discussed and may need advice of GRSP and WP.29 (action item A-6-01). Mr. Martin explained that NHTSA is considering such details to assure that
complicated test tools as dummies or the FlexPLI can be produced by all interested parties in a guaranteed quality.

The chair also explained the schedule how a check of the consistency of the drawing could be done (document GTR9-6-05). He wondered whether attendees agree to this schedule. Mr. Zander stated that he agrees to this and has already prepared a more detailed proposal on the check of consistency of the drawings, so-called “deep dive” (document GTR9-6-09). BASt clearly supports that checks are done using at least two legform impactors and maybe randomly with other legs. Then, it must be guaranteed afterwards that the design remains frozen on that build level which is represented by the drawings and that further legs have the same performance. However, BASt can just offer to check one leg in detail. Mr. Zander then presented document GTR9-6-09 in detail. He explained that BASt/BGS Boehme & Gehring will perform the work on behalf of BASt.

Mr. Gay offered that his company could support the activities if a second leg was available.

Mr. Schmitt inquired as to the details of the required work. He explained that in fact each tool would need a quality check and that at the moment just consistency checks of the drawings can be done. However, to do a proper assessment clearly more than one impactor would be needed. Mr. Burleigh added that currently SN-01 is awaiting a revision and the E-leg cannot be used for Humanetics internal purposes. Dr. Konsou wondered whether these details indeed are necessary and Mr. Stammen explained that from the US perspective it is: NHTSA is checking in such cases for each dummy whether or not it is consistent with the drawings. Mr. Stammen also wondered whether a list of master legs and master leg build level legs would be available for these purposes. Mr. Burleigh replied that the information on the build level can be given to each owner of a FlexPLI.

Dr. Ries suggested that after the checks of a legform against the drawings also the certification tests should be done. Mr. Zander confirmed that certification tests at the end of a legform check would be wise since BASt noted that the performance of a leg may vary after being disassembled and reassembled. BASt will consider this and other parties should also do so.

After some further discussion it was finally confirmed by the chair that as a first step a 100% check of one legform as offered by BASt will be done according to the proposed schedule.

Afterwards, it can be decided whether or not a necessity is seen to also double-check a second leg for consistency. This was agreed by the attendees (action item A-6-02).

Document GTR9-6-22 was presented then by Mr. Takahashi. He explained that in first checks JASIC found the drawings to contain some unnecessary information but to also miss some information. JASIC will further review the drawings. Mr. Gay presented document GTR9-6-23 and explained that Cellbond also found some information to be missing, e.g. more detailed material specifications for alloy or nylon parts, or to be imperfect. Also, some drawings seem to be missing.

On request of Mr. Burleigh the chair clarified that the idea is to deliver the information on the activities or the results respectively via the secretary to Humanetics for feedback. By now, BASt, Cellbond, Concept (for the manual), JASIC and OICA offered to participate in those activities, other parties are of course welcome to support this (action item A-6-03).

Mr. Burleigh introduced the updated manual – revision E of early 2013 – of the FlexPLI (document GTR9-6-06). He highlighted several changes that were made compared to the earlier version of the manual. Mr. Burleigh stated that he would welcome comments and he will consider them accordingly. The chair proposed to allow the attendees some time to check the manual and to then prepare a next version. Mr. Gay was wondering whether all the drawings mentioned in the manual will be available since Cellbond is missing some of them in the drawing package. Mr. Burleigh promised to double-check this and to make missing information available.

After some discussion it was then finally agreed that Mr. Burleigh (or Humanetics respectively) will deliver a further update of the manual in due time before the FlexPLI planned amendment in Geneva (action item A-6-04).

The chair explained the objective to have a draft addendum for the M.R.1 ready for the 7th meeting of this group.

Also, it was noted that with the discussion above the action items A-5-01, A-5-02, A-5-04 can be closed.