I think we need to understand that the regulations and standards that we use to certify aircraft.... There are very many of them; they're very complex and in many cases they're very subjective. It is very common for a validating authority to come along and ask a question. We dig into an issue, we get an answer and we don't quite understand it. We are not necessarily, at that point, finding fault or discovering something that was wrong.
Our aim is to seek an understanding and, in some cases when we do not understand, we reveal a difference of interpretation, perhaps to one of the existing rules or the advisory material that supports those rules. We have to make a decision. I make a decision each and every time, on every aircraft we approve, whether that disagreement on interpretation constitutes a safety concern or whether it is simply a different approach to the same problem.
What do we do if it's that? We take it outside the project, and we say that we don't want to keep arguing about the interpretation of this problem in the future when we validate the next aircraft. Therefore, in other fora we will come together, we will send our collective technical experts to various meetings to try to harmonize the approach and agree on a common approach so we don't effectively trip over these things again.