123. Letter From the Assistant Administrator for International Aviation Affairs, Federal Aviation Agency (Cary) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Loy)1

Dear Frank:

As you know, there are periodic meetings of the French-Anglo-U.S.-Supersonic Transport (FAUSST) Group; the latest, FAUSST III, has just concluded in London.2 Actually, there are no formal agenda for these meetings, but merely topics to be discussed. These topics fall [Page 225] within the terms of reference of the Group and are enclosed for your information.3

Our Assistant Administrator for Europe-Africa-Middle East recently held informal discussions with both the French and British, who originated the discussions, on the desirability of inviting the USSR to participate in future FAUSST meetings. The French and British believe this might be desirable because:

The Soviets are probably already getting all of our joint regulatory proposals.
We may learn more of their thinking.
They will be operating their SST in Western European airspace.
They seem to have a genuine interest in improving the airworthiness of their designs.

Both French and British representatives indicated that while they favor inclusion of the Russians, at least to a limited degree, they have not discussed the proposal with the Soviets and have no idea of Russian reaction.

We know relatively little about USSR development in the SST field, and it is possible that if the Soviets participated objectively, we might not only learn something of their development, but they might also contribute something of value to the mutual effort. If it is eventually agreed that the Soviets are to be invited to participate in the meetings, it will, of course, have to be under controlled conditions. They should be active participants and not just observers as they presently are at various ICAO meetings.

Our representatives just returned from FAUSST III are available for discussions if you wish. Inasmuch as the proposal presented by the French and British raises policy issues beyond the authority of this Agency to decide, we would appreciate your reaction to this proposal before any further action is taken.


  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964–66, AV 3. Confidential. A handwritten note on the source text reads, “RMIR Files. Letter drafted in reply by AL—Amstutz 2–17–66.”
  2. The third tripartite session was held December 6–14 in London. A record of the discussion is airgram A–1400 from London, December 16. (Ibid., AV 12–7)
  3. Not printed.