VZCZCXRO6713
OO RUEHRG
DE RUEHBR #0288/01 0701711
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 111711Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY BRASILIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3752
RHMFIUU/FAA NATIONAL HQ WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEAYVF/FAA MIAMI ARTCC MIAMI FL
RUEHRI/AMCONSUL RIO DE JANEIRO 7397
RUEHSO/AMCONSUL SAO PAULO 3685
RUEHRG/AMCONSUL RECIFE 9205

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRASILIA 000288 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
FAA FOR LYNNE OSMUS AND PEGGY GILLIGAN 
STATE FOR EEB/TRA JOHN BYERLY AND DAN MOORE, WHA/BSC, WHA/EPSC 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAIR ECON BR
SUBJECT: Message from Ambassador Clifford Sobel to Acting FAA 
Administrator Lynne Osmus 
 
BRAZIL: FAA Flight Standards Consultations 
 
REF: A) STATE 20084 B) STATE 21635 
 
¶1. (SBU) I strongly recommend that FAA HQ Flight Standards Office 
work cooperatively with ANAC to select technical consultation dates 
to take place after the May ICAO inspection rather than March 16-17 
as currently proposed.  Insisting that consultations happen March 
16-17 or not at all risks undercutting our success in achieving 
broader safety and security objectives with ANAC, with whom Mission, 
FAA and TSA have been striving, successfully until the current issue 
arose, to build a constructive and cooperative relationship. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Post received the formal request for March 16-17 
consultations on March 4 (ref A) and instructions to deliver March 9 
(ref B), which post did immediately.  While Mission FAA 
representative informally confirmed January 21 with the working 
level of ANAC that relevant participants for consultations would be 
in town March 16-17, no formal request was made at that time and it 
was only on March 4 that FAA rep confirmed with ANAC working level 
that the formal request had arrived at the Embassy for delivery.  At 
that point, ANAC working level alerted ANAC senior management, who 
misunderstood the nature of the request (consultations rather than a 
formal assessment) and strongly objected to the short notice.  The 
head of ANAC, Solange Vieira, called me personally March 5, 
extremely upset, to object to the way FAA was requesting 
consultations and the lack of information provided before the formal 
request was sent at the last minute.  EEB confirmed that post should 
hold sending the diplomatic note formally requesting consultations 
until the FAA clarification letter ANAC requested was received. 
That letter (ref B) was received OOB March 9 and delivered that day 
to ANAC, whereupon the original diplomatic note was also sent.  That 
is, ANAC was formally informed of the consultation request 7 days 
before the FAA team proposes to arrive in country (and even if 
Mission had not, as confirmed by Washington, waited for the 
clarification letter, a maximum of 12 days notice of the formal 
consultations request was provided).  The FAA Flight Standards 
Office is insisting that the consultation dates can not be moved due 
to ANAC "agreeing" at the working level, based on the informal 
discussions in January.  In other words, ANAC senior management 
received formal notification of the consultation request less than 
two weeks before the team plans to arrive, while FAA itself knew, 
and has been able to prepare, at least 7 weeks before that (being 9 
weeks before arrival).  FAA has not provided an agenda describing 
topics to be discussed. 
 
¶3. (SBU) GOB is mindful of safety issues and is not objecting to 
consultations or declining consultations.  GOB is requesting 
scheduling these consultations for May, after their ICAO inspection, 
rather than March.  Mission and FAA rep have been working 
intensively to develop a productive relationship with this new civil 
aviation agency.  We have made more progress on important safety and 
security objectives with ANAC in the past year than seen for many 
years previously.  We have been particularly focused, with success 
almost in sight, on achieving agreement for TSA airport inspections 
in-country, an extremely sensitive sovereignty issue for Brazil that 
has required much careful negotiation with ANAC.  ANAC had been 
eager to partner with us in this area and had finally agreed to 
allow TSA inspections, pending External Affairs Ministry approval. 
 
 
¶4. (SBU) Since ANAC Director Vieira's call to me last Thursday, ANAC 
is now no longer returning our FAA representative's calls or 
e-mails.  Instead, ANAC teed up the External Affairs Ministry to 
call my DCM March 10 to object to the March 16-17 date and to 
request dates after the May ICAO inspection.  This is the same 
External Affairs section that must approve TSA inspections. 
Demanding that ANAC either accept consultations on March 16-17 or 
else FAA will initiate a formal IASA assessment is not a productive 
way to work with an important partner in achieving critical safety 
and security objectives.  Jeopardizing big-picture cooperation with 
ANAC through a completely inflexible position is counter-productive 
and risks progress we have made and need to continue to make in 
achieving our aviation safety and security goals. 
 
¶5. (SBU) My Embassy and I strongly support achieving USG safety aims 
in Brazil.  However, as there has been no IASA assessment of Brazil 
since 2001, we cannot explain why technical consultations must now 
take place March 16-17 or else not at all before a formal assessment 
audit is launched.  The difference of two months in a process that 
has not happened in eight years, and where the GOB is already 
preparing for an ICAO audit, is not clear to us and the risk of 
damaging relations is significant.  I therefore urge you to show 
two-months flexibility in finding workable dates for both sides for 
 
BRASILIA 00000288  002 OF 002 
 
 
the technical consultations. I will hold in abeyance the question of 
country clearance for the FAA team pending resolution of this 
issue. 
 
KUBISKE