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).