This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 009171 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EB/TRA (BYERLY) AND EUR/WE 
 
FAA FOR DLAVIN, API-1 LMULLIKIN/AMOORE, AIA-300 JBALLOUGH, 
MDANIELS, AFS-50 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAIR ECON FR
SUBJECT: CIVAIR: DGAC RESPONSE TO U.S. CARRIER OPERATIONS IN 
FRENCH TERRITORIES 
 
REF: A) STATE 270779 
 
     B) MERTEN-WALKLET TELCONS, EMAILS 9 DEC 04 AND SUBS. 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  While remaining firm in their request to 
eight U.S. carriers, operating under FAR 135 (commuter and 
on-demand operations) in French Caribbean territories to 
supply documentation supporting their requests for 
"revalidation of any non-scheduled flight authorizations," 
French aviation officials have expressed their willingness 
to work with the U.S. carriers to try to avoid any 
interruption in service.  Indeed they have already reviewed 
and issued licenses to at least one of the carriers that had 
quickly moved to pull together the required paperwork. 
Nevertheless, the officials insist that U.S. carriers 
operating in the area make a good faith effort in producing 
the requested documentation.  END SUMMARY. 
 
BACKGROUND 
----------- 
¶2.  (SBU) On 7 December, Econ Chief was contacted by 
representatives of Air Culebra, who alerted him to 
"ridiculous" demands which were being put on the carrier by 
representatives of the DGAC (French Civil Aviation 
Authority).  According to a letter to the operators from 
DGAC regional office for the French Antilles and French 
Guyana, "following numerous incidents and accidents 
involving FAR 135 operators, the French Civil Aviation 
Authority (DGAC) has decided to set up an a priori control 
of these operators...compliance with ICAO Annex 6 part 1 
will be checked before issuing or revalidating any non- 
scheduled flight authorization." 
 
¶3.  (SBU) The Air Culebra rep said his carrier and other 
"FAR 135 operators" were being singled out for these demands 
in response to the FAA's refusal to re-license a French 
carrier based in St. Barthelemy earlier in 2004.  The Air 
Culebra rep subsequently sent a copy of the communication he 
had received from DGAC rep Franck Chong-Wa, based in Pointe- 
a-Pitre, Martinique, and telephoned on 8 December (and 
several times thereafter) to press for Embassy intervention 
with DGAC.  On 9 December, Econ Chief discussed the issue 
with Embassy Paris FAA representative who in turn started a 
dialogue with appropriate organizations within the FAA 
Washington D.C. and regional offices.  Econ Chief counseled 
the Air Culebra reps to contact the FAA regional office in 
Atlanta, which has responsibility for the FAR 135 operators 
in the Caribbean, and make their concerns known.  He also 
worked with Embassy Paris FAA rep to confirm that the DGAC's 
demands were consistent with the U.S.-France aviation 
agreement and to see whether French officials would agree to 
try to avoid an interruption in service. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) In response to the series of calls from Air 
Culebra and to refs. A and B, Embassy FAA rep contacted 
Maxime Coffin, DGAC, Head of Service, Technical Regulations, 
Safety Oversight, and Crew Training and Luc Lapene, DGAC, 
Deputy Head of Multilateral Affairs.  As a result of several 
exchanges with the DGAC officials, Embassy FAA rep learned 
from Coffin that Jean Marc Sansovini, DGAC, Regional 
Director of the French Antilles and Guyana, (based in 
Martinique) was aware of the Air Culebra case.  Coffin 
reported that Sansovini promised to do whatever he could to 
try to ensure that the companies would not be "penalized" by 
being forced to interrupt their service.  Nevertheless, 
Coffin added, the companies concerned needed to demonstrate 
that they were attempting to comply with the DGAC's requests 
for information.  The DGAC indicated that another 135 
carrier in receipt of the DGAC letter had already submitted 
their documentation with a review time of approximately one 
month.  DGAC could not provide a specific timetable for 
DGAC's investigation for each operator, but again emphasized 
that they would conduct their review in such a manner so as 
to not penalize the operator's service. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) On 23 and 27 December, Econ Chief telephoned Air 
Culebra's offices to speak with the rep that had insisted on 
Embassy intervention.  On both occasions there was no 
response and Econ Chief left a message requesting that an 
Air Culebra official call back to confirm that they were 
working to pull together the documents requested by the 
DGAC.  On 28 December, Air Culebra rep contacted the Econ 
Chief's office and stated that they had sent a letter to the 
DGAC requesting an extension of two weeks for full submittal 
of the requested documentation.  He said the airline had 
compiled all the required paperwork with the exception of 
the ICAO compliance letter.  He said it would be impossible 
for them to get that letter prepared before the first week 
of January 2005. 
 
COMMENT: 
------- 
¶6.  (SBU) In April 2004, the FAA requested the DGAC provide 
a review of the aviation safety oversight provided in the 
Departments of Guadeloupe and French Polynesia to determine 
whether it met minimum international standards established 
by ICAO.  A 14 September meeting in Paris resulted in a 
successful resolution to the request for a specific review 
of the DGAC's safety oversight in the DOMs and TOMs 
(Departements d'Outre Mer and Territoires d'Outre Mer). 
However, during this meeting the subject of N registered 
aircraft operating under FAR 135 in the French Territories 
was also discussed.  The DGAC noted that these aircraft 
appear to operate primarily in the French territories and 
rarely return back to the United States.  In effect, these 
operations could constitute seventh freedom passenger 
services which are not provided for in the U.S.- France open 
skies agreement.  DGAC reps expressed concern about the lack 
of oversight of these operators since they were "U.S.-based" 
FAR 135 operators.   At this meeting FAA emphasized that 
DGAC had the authority over these operators in their 
territory, just as the FAA has authority of foreign 
operators when they are in the U.S. or U.S. territories. 
The recent request by DGAC for information to revalidate the 
nonscheduled flight authorizations appears to be a direct 
result of the discussions which occurred in September. 
WOLFF