• 

 

Report of the Federal Aviation Administration to the 

United States Congress pursuant to 49 U.S. Code 44501(c)

2011 NARP 

May 2011 

The National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) is a report of the Federal Aviation Administration to the United 

States Congress pursuant to 49 United States Code 44501(c). The NARP is available on the Internet at http:// 

www.faa.gov/go/narp. 
 

 

 

C ontents

Executive Summary - ii 

Preface - iv 

Chapter 1 • NatioNal airspaC e system 

Mission - 2 

Vision - 2 

National Goals - 3 

Planning Documents - 4 

Research and Development -7 

Chapter 2 • researC h a N d developmeN t Goals 

Fast, Flexible, and Efficient - 14 

Clean and Quiet - 22 

High Quality Teams and Individuals - 32 

Human-Centered Design - 38 

Human Protection - 46 

Safe Aerospace Vehicles - 54 

Separation Assurance - 62 

Situational Awareness - 66 

System Knowledge - 72 

World Leadership - 78 

Chapter 3 • aliGNmeN t with NextGe N 

NextGen Solution Sets - 86 

FAA NextGen R&D Portfolio - 87 

Chapter 4 • researC h BusiNess ma N a GemeN t 

Sponsors - 94 

Programs - 94 

Budget - 101 

Partnerships - 106 

Evaluation - 111 

Acronyms and Abbreviations - 114 

appeNd iCe s (separate volume) 

A. Program Descriptions 

B. Partnership Activities 

C. Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

D. NARP Chapter 2 Milestone Status 

E. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s i
 

 

E x E cutiv E ummary 

Aviation is a vital resource for the United States. It provides opportunities for business, jobs, economic 

development, law enforcement, emergency response, personal travel, and leisure. It attracts investment to 

local communities and opens up new domestic and international markets and supply chains. As a result, 

the United States needs a system that leads the global aviation community – a system that responds quickly 

to changing and expanding transportation needs. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) supports this 

system through the introduction of new technologies and procedures, innovative policies, and advanced 

management practices. 

The National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) is the FAA’s performance-based plan to ensure that its research 

and development (R&D) investments are well managed, deliver results, and are sufficient to address national 

priorities. The NARP integrates the FAA R&D programs into a portfolio that addresses the near-, mid-, and 

far-term research needs of the aviation community. It uses R&D goals and performance targets to bridge 

requirements from the FAA’s five-year strategic Flight Plan to the future Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen), and it identifies how the FAA can use its research strengths to meet these needs. This 

approach enables the FAA to address the current challenges of operating the safest, most efficient air 

transportation system in the world while building a foundation for the future system in an environmentally 

sound manner. 

The NARP includes ten R&D goals with corresponding 

R&D targets for 2016 that represent a mid-point between 

the initial R&D plan established in 2006 and the future 

system envisioned for 2025. The R&D targets for 2016 are 

ambitious, and they challenge and encourage researchers to 

innovate, take risks, and seek non-traditional solutions. 

This year, the NARP provides the FAA’s record of 

accomplishment, five years of results from 2006 to 2010. 

It shows that the FAA did what it said it would do as 

responsible stewards of tax dollars by following a plan, 

reporting achievements, and delivering results. Next year, 

the NARP will present a five-year budget plan, ending 

in 2017, extending past the R&D targets for 2016, in 

continued pursuit of the R&D goals. In preparation for 

next year, the NARP examines the challenges in meeting 

the R&D targets by 2016, identifies further research needs, 

and establishes a basis for extending our sights beyond the 

current R&D targets. 

In fiscal year 2012, the FAA plans to invest a total of 

$386,035,000 in R&D. The R&D investment spans multiple 

appropriations for the FAA, including $190,000,000 

in Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D); 

$150,785,000 in Facilities and Equipment (F&E); 

$44,250,000 in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP); 

and $1,000,000 in Operations (Ops). 

S 

ii Executive Summary 
Executive Summary iii 
 

 

iv 

The 2011 NARP shows how the FAA R&D programs are achieving the milestones that originally appeared in 

the 2006 NARP. This year, the NARP reflects on progress toward the larger, more difficult R&D performance 

targets for 2016, explaining the continued importance and relevance of the R&D targets, identifying the 

knowledge gained to date from pursuing the R&D targets, and defining the challenges in meeting the R&D 

targets by 2016. Examining current progress toward the R&D targets and challenges that remain forms the 

basis for developing out-year milestones beyond 2016 in continued pursuit of the R&D goals into 2025. 

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the National Airspace System (NAS) mission, vision, and goals used to define 

the FAA R&D needs. It presents the relationship between the near-, mid-, and far-term planning documents 

of the FAA and the JPDO and explains how the FAA R&D goals support these plans and their research 

requirements, from the day-to-day safety, capacity, efficiency, and environmental issues of the NAS to the 

future NextGen. 

Chapter 2 provides a master schedule and includes a high-level plan for each of the ten R&D goals. The plan 

aligns R&D programs under each R&D goal and integrates them to achieve the R&D performance target for 2016. 

Milestones identify the responsibilities of each program and provide measures of interim progress toward the 

P reface

Title 49 of the U.S. Code section 44501(c) requires the Administrator of the FAA to submit the NARP to 

Congress annually with the President’s Budget. The Plan includes both applied research and development as 

defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11*

 and involves research activities funded 

in four appropriation accounts: RE&D, F&E, AIP, and Ops. 

The NARP is an integrated, performance-based R&D plan for the FAA with programs that go beyond air 

traffic operations, including unique strengths in aircraft safety, airports, commercial space transportation, 

environment and energy, and human factors. The NARP shows how these unique strengths support the near-, 

mid-, and far-term research needs of the aviation community. It aligns the FAA R&D portfolio with the goals, 

objectives, and performance targets in both the Flight Plan and the Joint Planning and Development Office 

(JPDO) NextGen Integrated Plan† . It defines ten R&D goals with performance targets and interim milestones, 

creating a multi-year plan, integrating program efforts, and measuring progress toward the goals. 

R&D target. This year, the chapter identifies progress to date and challenges that remain in achieving the R&D 

targets by 2016. 

* OMB Circular A-11, “Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget,” July 21, 2010, section 84, page 8 

(www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars). 

† Joint Planning and Development Office, Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan, December 2004 

(www.jpdo.gov). 

Preface 
v

Chapter 3 identifies the FAA R&D programs that support NextGen and shows how the programs map to the 

solution sets and operational improvements of the NextGen Implementation Plan. The FAA R&D programs 

that support NextGen are a subset of the R&D portfolio and budget presented in Chapter 2. 

Chapter 4 provides summaries of the R&D programs; the five-year budget plan; partnership activities with other 

government agencies, academia, and industry; and methods used to evaluate the programs. It presents the 

programs and budget according to the President’s budget submission for fiscal year (FY) 2012. 

All appendices are included in a separate volume from the main body of the 2011 NARP. Appendix A provides 

a detailed description and justification for each R&D program, including the requested budget, planned 

accomplishments, description of activities, performance linkages, and criteria for success. 

Appendix B provides detailed information on FAA partnerships with government, academic, and industry 

organizations. It lists information for FY 2010, including active agreements with other government agencies, 

cooperative R&D agreements, patents, and grants. This appendix supports the partnership section in Chapter 4. 

Appendix C provides the recommendations of the Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory 

Committee (REDAC), listed according to the reports produced by the committee in FY 2010. The FAA response 

to each recommendation is included. This appendix supports the evaluation section in Chapter 4. 

Appendix D shows the status of all Chapter 2 milestones in the 2011 NARP. The appendix lists any changes in 

the milestones aligned with the ten R&D goals in Chapter 2 to provide the reader complete transparency and 

maintain continuity with previous editions of the NARP. 

Appendix E provides a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the 2011 NARP appendices. 

A companion document to the 2011 NARP, the R&D 

Annual Review, is a report by the FAA to the United 

States Congress pursuant to 49 United States Code 

44501(c)(3). It describes research completed during 

FY 2010, including the dissemination of research 

results and a description of any new technologies 

developed. It aligns the accomplishments with the ten 

R&D goals presented in Chapter 2 of the NARP and 

the programs described in Appendix A. 

Preface 
...... ,,,,. ,,, ..... 

c hapter o N e 
Aviation is a vital resource for the United States because of its strategic, economic, and social importance. 

The aviation industry provides opportunities for business, jobs, economic development, law enforcement, 

emergency response, personal travel, and recreation. It attracts investment in local communities and opens 

new domestic and international markets and supply chains. 

To maximize these opportunities, the United States must not only maintain, but also continue to improve upon 

its airspace system so that it remains responsive to its rapidly changing and expanding transportation needs 

while ensuring the highest level of safety. Increased mobility, higher productivity, reduced environmental 

impact, and greater efficiency are possible through the introduction of new technologies and procedures, 

innovative policies, and advanced management practices. Collaborative, needs-driven R&D is central to this 

process, because it enables the United States to be a world leader in its ability to move people and goods by air 

safely, securely, quickly, affordably, efficiently, and in an environmentally sound manner. 
M ission

The FAA’s mission is to provide the safest and most efficient aerospace system in the world. The NAS provides 

a service: it moves anyone and anything (e.g., people, goods, aerospace vehicles) through the atmosphere 

between points on the earth’s surface and between the Earth and space. It does this for a wide range of users 

(e.g., passengers, shippers, general aviation) and purposes (e.g., business and personal travel, law enforcement, 

defense, emergency response, surveillance, research). 

The system is global, operates day and night, in peacetime and wartime, and in all but the most severe 

weather conditions. It consists of three major elements: aerospace vehicles (e.g., commercial, military, and 

unmanned aircraft, general aviation, space launch and re-entry vehicles, rotorcraft, gliders, hot air balloons); 

infrastructure (e.g., airports and airfields, air traffic management systems, space launch and re-entry sites); 

and people (e.g., aircrews, air traffic controllers, system technicians, ground personnel). Because the role and 

interactions of all of these elements determine the nature and performance of the system, it is important to 

consider all elements simultaneously in designing, developing, and operating the system. 

The design, development, maintenance, and operation of the NAS relies on the efforts of various federal, state, 

and local government organizations; industry; labor unions; academia; and other domestic and international 

organizations. The public also plays a key role by paying taxes and fees that contribute to regulation of the 

aviation industry; development, maintenance, and operation of the air traffic management (ATM) system; and 

airport security and other public aviation services. 

V ision

In November 2003, the Secretary of Transportation set forth a vision to transform the nation’s air 

transportation system into one that is substantially more capable of ensuring America maintains its 

leadership in global aviation. That vision, created by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Department of 

Transportation (DOT), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Commerce (DOC), FAA, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the President’s Office of Science and Technology 

Policy (OSTP), is “A transformed aviation system that allows all communities to participate in the global 

marketplace, provides services tailored to individual customer needs, and accommodates seamless civil and 

military operations.”* 

To realize this vision, the air transportation system must accommodate an increasing number and variety 

of aerospace vehicles (e.g., unmanned aircraft systems, very light jets), a broader range of air and space 

operations (e.g., point-to-point, space launch and re-entry), and a variety of business models (e.g., air taxis, 

regional jets). It will do this across all airspace, at all airports, space launch and re-entry sites, and in all 

weather conditions, while simultaneously improving system performance and ensuring safety and security. 

* Letter to the President from Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, “America at the Forefront of Aviation: Enhancing 

Economic Growth,” November 25, 2003. 

2 Chapter 1 
3 

N atio N a l G oals 

Chapter 1 

To achieve this vision, the Secretary of Transportation established a set of far-term national goals to transform 

the current aviation system into a next generation air transportation system by 2025. The 2025 system will 

contribute substantially to continued economic prosperity, national security, and a higher standard of living for 

all Americans in the 21st century. These national goals are: 

•	Enhancing economic growth and creating jobs 

•	Expanding	system	flexibility	and	delivering	capacity	to	accommodate	future	demand

•	Tailoring services to customer needs 

•	Integrating capabilities to ensure our national defense 

•	Promoting aviation safety and environmental stewardship 

•	 Retaining U.S. leadership and economic competitiveness in global aviation 

 

P lanning D ocuments 

The national goals challenged the FAA to support the far-term requirements to achieve NextGen and the 

near-term requirements to address the day-to-day safety and capacity issues of the NAS. The FAA aligns its 

existing plans to achieve this balance between near-term goals and NextGen by working with other agencies as 

part of the JPDO to plan and refine the far-term goals for NextGen and establishing an FAA office to plan the 

integration and implementation of NextGen. This section explains how the FAA and JPDO plans and goals are 

connected and how the FAA R&D portfolio supports the larger planning effort by providing research to balance 

the near-, mid-, and far-term needs of the aviation community. 

Figure 1.1 describes the relationship between the Flight Plan, NextGen Implementation Plan, NAS Enterprise 

Architecture, NAS Capital Investment Plan, NARP, and JPDO plans. The relationship includes relative 

timeframes, from today to the year 2025. 

Figure 1.1: FAA and JPDO Integrated Planning
 

4 Chapter 1 
Flight Plan 

The FAA 2009-2013 Flight Plan is the five-year 

strategic plan for the FAA that describes the Agency’s 

overall near-term performance goals and objectives, 

including increased safety and greater capacity. Since 

the FAA has the day-to-day responsibility to promote 

the safe and efficient operation of the current aviation 

system, the Flight Plan goals and objectives drive 

many Agency priorities, including research. The 

Flight Plan provides the foundation for the other FAA 

plans, includes all FAA initiatives, and focuses on the 

near-term. For more information, see http://www. 

faa.gov/about/plans_reports/. 

nextgen i m Plementation Plan 

The FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan outlines 

the Agency’s path to deliver mid-term (2012-2018) 

NextGen capabilities and their associated benefits. 

The NextGen Implementation Plan lays out the 

Agency’s vision for NextGen, identifying the goals 

set for technology and program deployment and the 

commitments made in support of that vision. The 

NextGen Implementation Plan includes all FAA 

initiatives for NextGen and focuses on the midterm. Chapter 3 of the NARP provides a summary 

of the NextGen Implementation Plan and the seven 

solutions sets of NextGen. For more information, see 

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/. 

enterPrise architecture 

The FAA Enterprise Architecture (EA) provides the 

overall architecture for the Agency in three parts: 

National Airspace System (NAS) EA, Regulatory 

EA, and Non-NASEA (information technology 

investments and business processes). The NASEA 

contains the systems and operational changes for the 

command and control of the NAS, and it provides the 

set of technical roadmaps describing how the current 

NAS will transition to NextGen, including the midterm target architecture for 2018 and the transition 

strategy to achieve that architecture. It contains 

milestones for planning purposes but it is not used 

as a tool for managing NextGen implementation. 

The NASEA addresses the transition from the 

current system to NextGen and includes near-, mid-, 

and far-term architectures for the NAS. For more 

information, see https://nasea.faa.gov/. 

Chapter 1 5 
 

NAS CApitA l iNv eStmeN t plAN 

The FAA NAS Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2012-

2016 describes the planned investments in the NAS over the next 

five-years for each budget line item in the F&E appropriation. The 

CIP is similar to the NARP in that the FAA submits both to Congress 

at the same time as the President’s Budget. The CIP includes 

only FAA F&E programs, whereas the NARP addresses the entire 

FAA R&D portfolio. Both documents present the part of the R&D 

portfolio funded by the F&E appropriation. The CIP ties directly 

to the Flight Plan goals and objectives, identifies the NextGen 

investments funded by the F&E appropriation, and provides the 

NASEA roadmaps. The CIP supports the NAS modernization effort 

depicted in the NASEA. The CIP addresses all FAA programs funded 

by the F&E appropriation and focuses on the near- to mid-term. For 

more information, see http://go.usa.gov/aXa/. 

NAtioNAl Av iAtioN Re S eARCh plAN 

The NARP provides the FAA’s R&D plan, presents the entire 

FAA R&D portfolio, including NextGen R&D programs, and 

identifies investments planned for the next five years in four FAA 

appropriation accounts. The NARP is an integrated, performancebased R&D plan with goals and performance targets that support the 

Flight Plan, NextGen Implementation Plan, and JPDO. The R&D 

goals reflect the broad spectrum of the FAA R&D portfolio, including 

aircraft safety, airports, commercial space technology, environment 

and energy, weather, and human factors. The NARP presents the 

FAA R&D portfolio and addresses the near-, mid-, and far-term 

research needs of the aviation community. For more information, 

see http://www.faa.gov/go/narp/. 

Jo iN t plANNi N g A Nd developmeN t 

offiC e plANS 

In 2003, Congress created the JPDO* to coordinate interagency 

planning related to NextGen. The JPDO supports the Office of the 

Secretary of Transportation (OST) and reports to its Senior Policy 

Committee, chaired by the Secretary of Transportation, and includes 

representatives from DoD, DOT, DHS, DOC, FAA, NASA, and OSTP. 

In 2004, working with industry and academia, the JPDO published 

the NextGen Integrated Plan, establishing the far-term system goals 

and objectives for NextGen in 2025. Subsequently, JPDO produced 

the NextGen Concept of Operations (ConOps), EA, and Integrated 

Work Plan (IWP). Current efforts focus on the policy required to 

achieve NextGen. The JPDO plans address the efforts of all NextGen 

participants, including FAA, in the far-term. For more information, 

see http://www.jpdo.gov/. 

* Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-176, 

December 12, 2003. 

6 Chapter 1 
 


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	

R esea R ch and d evelopment 

The FAA uses R&D to support policy and planning; regulation, certification, and standards development; 

and modernization of the NAS. It conducts applied research and development as defined by OMB Circular 

A-11. The definition of applied research is systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to 

determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met. The definition of development is 

systematic application of knowledge or understanding directed toward production of useful materials, devices, 

and systems or methods, including design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new processes to 

meet specific requirements.†

Mission 

The FAA R&D mission is to conduct, coordinate, and support domestic and international R&D of aviationrelated products and services that will ensure a safe, efficient, and environmentally sound global air 

transportation system. It supports a range of research activities from materials and human factors to the 

development of new products, services, and procedures. 

Vision and Values 

The FAA R&D vision is to provide the best air transportation system through the conduct of world-class, 

cutting edge research, engineering, and development. 

The FAA has defined five R&D organizational values to enable it to better manage its programs and achieve its 

far-term R&D vision. These are: 

• Goal driven - Achieve the mission. The FAA uses R&D as a primary 

enabler to accomplish its goals and objectives.
	

• World class - Be the best. The FAA delivers R&D results that are high quality, 

relevant, and improve the performance of the aviation system.
	

• Collaborative - Work together. The FAA partners with other government agencies, industry, and 

academia to capitalize on national R&D capabilities to transform the air transportation system.
	

• Innovative - Turn ideas into reality. The FAA empowers, inspires, and encourages our people 

to invent new aviation capabilities, and creating new ways of doing business to accelerate 

the introduction of R&D results into new and better aviation products and services.
	

• Customer focused - Deliver results. The FAA R&D program delivers quality 

products and services to the customer quickly and affordably.
	

By aggressively promoting these values, the FAA will generate the maximum benefit from limited R&D 

resources to help achieve the national vision of a transformed aviation system. 

† OMB Circular A-11, “Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget,” July 21, 2010, section 84, page 8 (www.whitehouse. 

gov/OMB/circulars). 

Chapter 1 7 

	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	

Goals

The FAA R&D portfolio supports both the day-to-day operations of the NAS and the development of NextGen. 

To achieve balance between the near-, mid-, and far-term, the FAA has defined ten crosscutting R&D goals to 

focus and integrate its programs. 

When developing the R&D goals, originally published in the 2006 NARP, the FAA R&D community considered 

the goals and performance targets of the Flight Plan and NextGen Integrated Plan, including how the two 

plans connect and how the strengths of the FAA R&D portfolio might help achieve the goals of these two plans. 

The FAA R&D portfolio can help transform the system by aiming for ideal performance rather than by focusing 

on incremental improvements to current capabilities that may not achieve NextGen. The R&D goals challenge 

researchers to think far-term and achieve future breakthroughs. The R&D goals are: 

• Fast, Flexible, and Efficient – a system that safely and quickly moves anyone and 

anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs
	

• Clean and Quiet – a reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms 

• High Quality Teams and Individuals – the best qualified and trained workforce in the world 

• Human-Centered Design – aerospace systems that adapt to, compensate 

for, and augment the performance of the human
	

• Human Protection – a reduction in fatalities, injuries, and adverse 

health impacts due to aerospace operations 

• Safe Aerospace Vehicles – a reduction in accidents and incidents due 

to aerospace vehicle design, structure, and subsystems
	

• Separation Assurance – a reduction in accidents and incidents due to 

aerospace vehicle operations in the air and on the ground
	

• Situational Awareness – common, accurate, and real-time information on 

aerospace operations, events, crises, obstacles, and weather 

• System Knowledge – a thorough understanding of how the aerospace system operates, the 

impact of change on system performance and risk, and how the system impacts the nation
	

• World Leadership – a globally recognized leader in aerospace technology, systems, and operations 

Table 1.1 shows the primary relationship among the Flight Plan goals, FAA R&D goals, the NextGen 

Implementation Plan solution sets, and the JPDO far-term goals identified for NextGen. Each FAA R&D goal 

aligns with a primary Flight Plan goal. 

8 Chapter 1 
 

 


 

Table 1.1: Alignment of Goals 

Integrated Plan 

International

 Leadership 

Greater Capacity Fast, Flexible, 

 and Efficient 

Increase Safety, Security, 

and Environmental Performance 

Expand Capacity 

JPDO NextGen 

Goals

FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan

and Solution Sets 

FAA R&D 

Goals

FAA Flight Plan

Goals 

Initiate Trajectory-Based Operations 

Reduce Weather Impact 

Increase Flexibility in the 

Terminal Environment 

Increase Arrivals/Departures at 

 High Density Airports 

Improve Collaborative Air Traffic 

Management 

Transform Facilities 

Clean and Quiet 

Human-Centered Design 

Human Protection 

Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

Separation Assurance 

Situational Awareness 

System Knowledge 

World Leadership 

High Quality Teams 

and Individuals 

Organizational

Excellence 

Increased Safety 

Protect the Environment 

Ensure Safety 

Secure the Nation 

Ensure our National Defense 

Retain U.S. Leadership

 in Global Aviation 

− −

−

−

Chapter 1 
 9 
R esea R ch and 

d evelopment

 G oals 

c hapte R t wo 
 

The R&D goals help align, plan, and evaluate the FAA’s R&D portfolio. This chapter presents a master 

schedule with a high-level plan for each of the ten R&D goals. 

The ten R&D goals with corresponding R&D targets were developed by considering the near-, mid-, and farterm needs of the aviation community and determining how the R&D portfolio’s research strengths could be 

used to meet those needs. The JPDO’s NextGen Integrated Plan provides performance targets for 2025 to 

increase capacity and efficiency. Applying these challenging performance targets to the Flight Plan reveals 

corresponding needs in other areas. For example, increasing capacity could generate a corresponding 

reduction in aviation safety and increases in fuel consumption, noise, emissions, and the number of air 

traffic controllers needed, resulting in operational and societal costs that might hinder capacity growth. 

By applying the FAA R&D portfolio strengths in aviation safety, environment, and human factors to these 

issues, the FAA will mitigate them, enabling the desired increase in capacity. The R&D goals and targets 

reflect how the strengths of the FAA R&D portfolio support both the Flight Plan and NextGen. 

The following pages provide the plan for each of the ten R&D goals. Each R&D goal includes an R&D target 

for the year 2016 to help measure progress toward the R&D goal. Milestones represent detailed steps 

toward each R&D target and identify the contributions of each R&D program toward the R&D target. The 

milestones measure annual progress: checkmarks identify each completed milestone with a short paragraph 

on progress that describes the significance of each milestone completed in 2010. Progress reports for each 

R&D goal evaluate current results against the plan and identify challenges that remain in reaching the R&D 

target by 2016. 

Table 2.1 provides a map of the R&D programs to the R&D goals and shows how the program’s funding 

aligns with the R&D goal. The intent of this chapter is to identify contributing programs and provide 

assignments for delivery responsibilities, so that each program focuses on a specific, limited number of R&D 

goals. 

 

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 

R&D Programs 

Fast, 

Flexible, 

and 

Efficient 

Clean and 

Quiet 

High 

Quality 

Teams and 

Individuals 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety A11.c 

Aeromedical Research A11.j 

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors A11.i 10,634 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research A11.f 

Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety A11.d 

Airport Cooperative Research - Capacity -- 1,650 

Airport Cooperative Research - Environment -- 5,000 

Airport Cooperative Research - Safety --

Airport Technology Research - Capacity -- 12,025 

Airport Technology Research - Environment -- 1,500 

Airport Technology Research - Safety --

Airspace Management Program 1A01E 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) 4A09A 15,266 1,367 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety --

Continued Airworthiness A11.e 

Environment and Energy A13.a 15,327 

Fire Research and Safety A11.a 

Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors A11.g Coordinate 

Joint Planning and Development Office A12.a 9,847 Coordinate Coordinate 

NAS Weather Requirements 1A01D 

NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors A12.c 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) 1A08A 10,000 

NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation A11.m 

NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management Systems 

and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction 1A08D 15,000 

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 1A08B 37,000 

NextGen - Operational Assessments 1A08F Coordinate 

NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling 1A08C 

NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors A12.d 

NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) 1A08H 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 1A08G 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence A12.b 10,674 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization 1A08E 3,000 

NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit A12.e 

NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics A13.b 20,523 

Operations Concept Validation 1A01C Coordinate 

Propulsion and Fuel Systems A11.b 

Runway Incursion Reduction 1A01A 

System Capacity, Planning and Improvement 1A01B 

System Planning and Resource Management A14.a 

System Safety Management A11.h 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research A11.l 

Weather Program A11.k 1,637 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility A14.b

 Total ($000) 91,098 57,350 22,001 

Table 2.1: Map of R&D Programs in 2012 to R&D Goals 

12 Chapter 2 
 
Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Goal 9 Goal 10 

Total 

($000) 

HumanCentered 

Design 

Human 

Protection 

Safe 

Aerospace 

Vehicles 

Separation 

Assurance 

Situational 

Awareness 

System 

Knowledge 

World 

Leadership 

Coordinate 2,605 A11.c 2,605 

11,617 

10,634 

1,502 

5,404 

5,000 

5,000 

5,000 

12,025 

1,500 

15,725 

3,000 

22,785 

1,000 

12,589 

15,327 

8,157 

6,162 

14,067 

1,000 

10,545 

10,000 

2,071 

15,000 

37,000 

10,000 

10,000 

9,934 

6,000 

18,000 

10,674 

3,000 

9,186 

20,523 

4,000 

3,611 

5,000 

6,000 

1,718 

10,027 

3,504 

16,366 

3,777 

11,617 Coordinate A11.j 

Coordinate Coordinate Coordinate A11.i 

1,502 A11.f 

1,621 3,783 A11.d 

1,700 1,650 --

Coordinate --

2,500 Coordinate 2,500 --

--

--

5,504 10,221 --

3,000 1A01E 

684 3,646 1,823 4A09A 

500 500 --

12,085 504 A11.e 

Coordinate A13.a 

6,852 1,305 Coordinate A11.a 

6,162 Coordinate Coordinate A11.g 

Coordinate Coordinate Coordinate 4,220 A12.a 

1,000 1A01D 

10,545 A12.c 

Coordinate Coordinate 1A08A 

2,071 A11.m 

1A08D 

1A08B 

10,000 1A08F 

10,000 1A08C 

9,934 Coordinate A12.d 

6,000 1A08H 

18,000 Coordinate 1A08G 

Coordinate A12.b 

Coordinate Coordinate 1A08E 

Coordinate 9,186 Coordinate A12.e 

Coordinate A13.b 

4,000 1A01C 

3,611 A11.b 

5,000 1A01A 

6,000 1A01B 

1,718 A14.a 

Coordinate 10,027 A11.h 

3,504 A11.l 

Coordinate 1,473 13,256 A11.k 

3,777 A14.b 

22,184 29,567 31,650 9,934 48,309 72,223 1,718 386,035 

Chapter 2 13 
 

 

 

 

14 Chapter 2 

A system t h At sAfely A nd quickly 

moves A nyone A nd A nything, 

A nywhere, A nytime on schedules 

t h At meet customer needs 

F ast , F lexible , 

and e F F icient 

R & d G oal 1 
 

R&D t a R get 

By 2016, demonstrate* that the system will have the flexibility to handle growth in demand up to three times 

current levels†

 and demonstrate that gate-to-gate transit time can be reduced by up to 30 percent. 

M etho D of vali D ation 

The approach includes developing and demonstrating NextGen capabilities according to the NextGen 

Implementation Plan and continuing ongoing efforts related to increasing airport capacity and reducing costs. 

Validation of the R&D target will include a combination of modeling, analysis, full-scale testing, and initial 

standards development. The capacity evaluation (under R&D Goal 9 - System Knowledge) supports the interim 

assessment of progress and validation of this target. 

f u n D ing R equi R e M ents - R&D g oal 1 

The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero 

funding listed support this goal with FAA staff resources only. 

Budget BLI Program Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Notes Type 

-- Airport Cooperative Research 

- Capacity AIP 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 33% of total program 

-- Airport Technology Research 

- Capacity AIP 12,025 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 100% of total program 

4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation System 

Development (CAASD) F&E 15,266 15,115 15,115 15,115 15,115 67% of R&D program in FY 2012 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development 

Office R,E&D 9,847 9,561 9,547 9,668 9,882 70% of total program 

1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic 

Management Requirements F&E 37,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 100% of total program 

A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence R,E&D 10,674 10,283 10,227 10,340 10,565 100% of total program 

1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence 

- Re-categorization F&E 3,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 100% of total program 

1A01C Operations Concept Validation F&E 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 1,637 1,531 1,500 1,505 1,534 10% of the program 

Total ($000) 91,098 73,790 73,688 73,928 74,396 

* In this goal, demonstrate means to show that the methods and metrics developed are valid and that, with the system improvements 

planned, it is possible to handle a significant increase in system capacity, where three-times is used as an upper limit (not a prediction) 

and is purposely aggressive, as R&D goals should be stretch goals. 

† The year 2004 is used as a baseline for consistency with the Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176) and 

the Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan submitted to Congress as required in that legislation. 

Chapter 2 15 
 

 

 


 


 


 


 


	


	


	


	


 


 


 


 


 


 


	


	


	


 


 


 


 


 


 


	


	


	


 


 

M ilestones

NextGe N demoNstratioN s

Develop and demonstrate NextGen
 

technologies and concepts.
 

Demonstrate super-density operations. 

(NextGen Demonstrations and 

Infrastructure Development*

) 

2009: Demonstrate the addition of convective 

Pweather (current and forecast) into Traffic 

Management Advisor routing to increase 

throughput and efficiency for large, super 

density airports. [COMPLETED] 

Demonstrate trajectory-based 

operations. (NextGen Demonstrations 

and Infrastructure Development) 

P

2008: Demonstrate improved trajectory-based 

operations in mixed-equipage, oceanic 

airspace with actual aircraft and procedures. 

[COMPLETED] 

P

2009: Demonstrate via simulation standard 

separation in a full-equipage, fully 

automated environment with no voice 

communication. [COMPLETED] 

* The NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development

program is no longer considered R&D after FY 2009. 

airport capacity

Increase airport capacity while
 

reducing costs.
 

P

2008: Increase airport capacity. (Airport 

Cooperative Research - Capacity)
	

[COMPLETED] 

2011: Develop guidebook to assist airport 

planners with airfield and airspace capacity 

evaluation. (Airport Cooperative Research 

- Capacity) 

2012: Develop new standards and guidelines 

for runway pavement design. (Airport 

Technology Research - Capacity)
	

separatioN staNdards

Reduce separation with procedures only. 

2008: Modify procedures to allow use of
	

closely spaced parallel runways for Parrival operations during non-visual

conditions. (NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence) COMPLETED

2013: Modify procedures as requested to allow use 

of closely spaced parallel runways for arrival 

operations during non-visual conditions 

(2 to 3 airports per year per Task Force 5 

recommendations and for requests from 

airports). (NextGen - Wake Turbulence) 

Develop new performance-based
 

separation standards.
 

2009: Develop and simulate separation procedures 

Pthat vary according to aircraft capability and 

pilot training. (NextGen Demonstrations 

and Infrastructure Development) 

COMPLETED

2013: Determine how best to incorporate the 

leader/follower based wake separation 

standards into the en-route and terminal 

automation platforms. (NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence - Re-categorization) 

16 Chapter 2 

 

Wake turbulence aviation We ather

Reduce weather-related delays to Demonstrate wake turbulence avoidance increase on-time arrival rate and reduce technologies and procedures. transit time. (Weather Program) 

P

2010: Determine air navigation service provider 

(ANSP) (and pilot as needed) situational 

aircraft separation display concepts 

required for implementation of the NextGen 

Trajectory-Based Operation (TBO) and 

High Density concepts. (NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence) [COMPLETED] 

2011: Refine the boundaries of the current six 

weight categories for the NAS fleet mix and 

define automation requirements to support 

those modifications. (NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence - Re-categorization) 

2011: Determine initial set of optimal aircraft flight 

characteristics and weather parameters 

for use in setting wake separation 

minimums. (NextGen - Wake Turbulence 

- Re-categorization) 

2012: Determine the NAS infrastructure 

requirements (ground and aircraft) for 

implementing the NextGen TBO and High 

Density concepts within the constraints of 

aircraft-generated wake vortices and aircraft 

collision risk. (NextGen - Wake Turbulence) 

2016: Develop the algorithms that will be used 

in the ANSP (and flight deck as needed) 

automation systems for setting dynamic 

wake separation minimum for each pair 

of aircraft. (NextGen - Wake Turbulence 

- Re-categorization) 

P

2010: Develop 0-8 hour advanced storm prediction 

algorithm. [COMPLETED] 

P

2010: Transition Rapid Refresh Weather Forecast 

Model for implementation at National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) National Centers for Environmental 

Prediction. [COMPLETED] 

2011: Demonstrate 0-8 hour advanced storm 

prediction algorithm.
 

2013: Transition 0-8 hour advanced storm 

prediction algorithm for implementation. 

2013: Transition in-flight icing Alaska forecast and 

analysis capability for implementation. 

Chapter 2 17 
Progress in FY 2010: Fast, Flexible, and eFFicient 

Increasing capacity and efficiency in the system is a cornerstone of the FAA Flight Plan and drives the need for 

NextGen. The Fast, Flexible and Efficient goal is R&D’s contribution to increasing capacity and efficiency. The 

R&D Target is, by 2016, to demonstrate that the system will have the flexibility to handle growth in demand up 

to 3 times current levels and demonstrate that gate-to-gate transit time can be reduced by up to 30 percent. 

The R&D portfolio provides research to improve capacity and efficiency, including research in the areas of 

aviation weather, wake turbulence, and airports. 

Over the past five years, the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) – Capacity Program has conducted 

research aimed at improving the ability of airports to respond to the traveling public, focusing on the ability of 

passengers to efficiently and effectively access airports and the airline services within them. The program has 

provided the planning community with information on ground access to airports to plan, design, and construct 

easier airport access methods. It also has studied the potential of implementing common-use systems at 

airports, providing information for airport and airline staff to evaluate if these systems are suitable for their 

respective airports. 

Since 1998, the Weather Program has produced numerous enhancements in the areas of data assimilation, 

model physics, and resolution, including operational implementation of the Weather Research Forecast in 

2006 as part of the North American Mesoscale model application. Receiving feedback from users is critical in 

development of capabilities that maximize capacity and efficiency. In 2009, the Weather Program produced a 

prototype advanced storm prediction capability to provide high-resolution thunderstorm 0-8 hour forecasts 

over the Northeast with an evaluation by users in a simulated operational environment. 

During the last five years, NextGen – Wake Turbulence research gathered the most extensive database of 

aircraft wake turbulence transport and decay information in the world and applied that information to develop 

concepts for safely increasing the landing and takeoff capacity at airports with parallel runways spaced closer 

than 2500 feet apart. Research results helped implement air traffic control (ATC) procedure changes for wake 

turbulence mitigation and develop prototypes of ATC decision support tools, allowing greater use of airport 

18 Chapter 2 

runways during weather conditions that require instrument operations or during periods of heavy departure 

demand. The decision support tools for the FAA terminal automation systems allow the monitoring of wake 

separations between aircraft and facilitate the operational environment of the NextGen era – including TBO, 

Required Navigation Performance (RNP) routing in High Density operations, and Flexible Terminal operations 

– to meet capacity demands for air travel in the 2018 to 2025 timeframe. 
 

 

 

 

 

Results achieved in 2010 include: 

Situational Aircraft Separation Display Concepts: 

The NextGen – Wake Turbulence Program provided concepts for situational aircraft-separation displays 

needed to define requirements for future enhancements to the FAA terminal automation platforms. The 

FAA will use these results to define ATC concepts for NextGen in the 2018 to 2025 timeframe, supporting 

implementation of the NextGen TBO and High Density concepts. (NextGen – Wake Turbulence) 

Advanced Storm Prediction Algorithm (0-8 hour): 

About 75 percent of weather delays from April-September are caused by thunderstorms (convective 

weather). In addition, $22 million in injuries, fatalities, and aircraft damage per year are the result 

of convectively-induced turbulence. The FAA is developing an advanced storm prediction algorithm 

specifically to minimize delays caused by convection. In FY 2010, development extended the prototype 

forecast over the Continental Unites States (CONUS) and incorporated feedback from users. Additional 

capabilities include forecasts of precipitation and storm height with 0-2 hour 1 kilometer (5-minute update 

rate) and 2-8 hour 3 kilometer (15-minute update rate) with forecast and verification contours. Traffic 

flow managers at the Air Traffic Control System Command Center, as well as users at Air Route Traffic 

Control Centers, Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facilities, and several airlines evaluated 

this capability. Initial feedback has indicated that this new capability provides information that may 

enhance traffic-flow-management decision-making and thus, capacity and efficiency. The program will 

complete data analysis and an evaluation report in FY 2011. Future enhancements by FY 2016 will include 

probabilistic forecasts out to 18 hours and extend the domain over oceanic regions. (Weather Program) 

Rapid Refresh Weather Forecast Model: 

In-flight icing, turbulence, convective weather, and low ceilings and visibility affect both the capacity and 

safety of the NAS on a daily basis. Timely and precise forecasts of these aviation-specific weather hazards 

require forecast models that are not only accurate and updated frequently, but also easily enhanced as 

research advancements become available. In 2010, development of the Weather Research Forecast (WRF) 

model with a 1-hour update rate was completed and transitioned to NOAA for operational implementation. 

Also known as the WRF-Rapid Refresh (RR), this version of the WRF model provides 13 kilometers 

resolution, short-range weather model forecasts out to 18 hours, as well as 1-hour background forecasts for a 

high frequency, three-dimensional objective analysis over all of North America. The FAA will use the WRFRR output as input for developing aviation weather applications that produce weather hazard forecasts. 

Future enhancements by 2016 will include probabilistic forecasts and evolving to a global rapid refresh, 

updated hourly. (Weather Program) 

Multimodal Transportation in Coastal Mega-Regions: 

The ACRP – Capacity Program developed integrated strategic actions to enhance decision-making to address 

the constrained aviation system capacity and growing travel demand in the high-density, multi-jurisdictional, 

multimodal, coastal mega-regions along the east and west coasts. Transportation agencies and operators, as 

well as public officials at the federal, state, and local levels will use the research results. (ACRP) 

Chapter 2 19 
 

 

 

 

 

Automated People Mover System at Airports: 

The ACRP – Capacity Program prepared a comprehensive guidebook for planning and implementing 

automated people mover (APM) systems at airports. The guidebook includes a Compact Disc Read Only 

Memory with interactive tools designed to assist airports to plan and implement an APM system. The scope 

of this research includes APM systems that provide transportation on airport grounds as well as access to 

remote facilities (e.g., airport parking, car rental facilities, hotels, off-airport public transportation, and 

other related activity centers). (ACRP) 

Airport Parking Strategies: 

The ACRP – Capacity Program developed a handbook that airport operators can use to assess the impacts 

on airport access due to constrained public and/or employee parking. For airports where constrained 

parking exists or is expected, the handbook provides guidance on how to quantify the impacts of potential 

changes in airport customer and employee access resulting from strategies such as changes in parking rates, 

the provision of new or improved public or private transportation services, and the introduction of remote 

parking facilities. The handbook allows airport operators to better understand, anticipate, and evaluate 

changes in airport parking strategies at airports, where constrained-parking exists or is expected. (ACRP) 

Managing Small Airports: 

The ACRP – Capacity Program developed a practical, easy-to-use guidebook for managing small airports. 

Owners, operators, managers, and policy makers of small airports will use the guidebook. The guidebook 

(1) identifies fundamental management principles, (2) identifies best practices for effective use and 

management of resources and facilities, and (3) presents the information in an attractive, convenient 

format. A major element of this research is the identification of best practices that achieve safe and efficient 

operations while maintaining compliance with regulatory requirements and federal obligations. (ACRP) 

Airport Marketing: 

The ACRP – Capacity Program developed a guidebook for small airport marketing, external 

communications, and public information. The guidebook describes effective airport marketing practices, 

provides guidance for their use, and assists airports in developing an airport marketing strategy. (ACRP) 

Performance Measurement for Airports: 

The ACRP – Capacity Program produced a practical, user-friendly guidebook that: (1) assists airport 

management in understanding the practical benefits of a performance-measurement system; (2) identifies 

methods to help airports discern how well they are meeting their customer and stakeholder expectations; (3) 

guides the development and implementation of the most appropriate performance-measurement system; 

and (4) provides examples of key performance indicators, and how to incorporate them into a system. 

Performance-measurement systems resulting from this guidebook enhance the airport’s decision-making 

process to improve service and efficiency. (ACRP) 

20 Chapter 2 
 


 21 

The Airport and Airline Relationship: 

The ACRP – Capacity Program developed a resource manual for airport and airline professionals that: (1) 

describes the current range of practices and characteristics of airport and airline relationships and their 

relative, underlying airport and airline business models; (2) identifies and briefly summarizes rates and 

charges policies and guidance; (3) identifies, compares, and contrasts airport and airline critical issues, 

objectives, and considerations inherent in airport and airline agreements or other business arrangements; 

and (4) identifies and synthesizes the trade-offs and linkages among the critical issues as they relate to 

common objectives for airport and airline negotiations. Airports have a complex relationship with the 

airlines and airport tenants particularly at larger airports. This report will provide practical guidance to 

airports when negotiating with airlines. It will help airports meet their obligations to the FAA to be selfsufficient yet ensure that airline fees are reasonable. Maintaining this cooperative relationship is important 

in this era of deregulation to ensure airlines continue to service the airport and do not affect capacity by 

pulling out of the airport on short notice to service airports with more attractive rates and charges. (ACRP) 

The magnitude of the R&D Target represents a substantial stretch goal for researchers. Although R&D 

programs conduct research that will provide important improvements in capacity and efficiency, the 

improvements provided by these efforts will not be enough to meet the target. Measuring improvements is 

difficult, and the programs are working to determine how much improvement will result from the research. 

The Wake Turbulence Program is furthest along and plans to validate an estimated 5-10 percent improvement 

in capacity by 2016. During the next five years, NextGen – Wake Turbulence research will develop additional 

wake turbulence mitigation processes to enable NextGen-era ATC operations. It will define a solution space 

that accomplishes these operations with equal or increased levels of wake encounter safety and provides 

technology solutions that increase capacity. The Weather Program is working to improve the quality of 

convective weather forecasts that support aviation strategic planning at 4 and 6 hour lead-times by reducing 

over and under forecasting by 2 percent, while also increasing the critical success index by 1 percent. 

Ultimately, to achieve measurable progress towards goals, improved weather information as a result of forecast 

improvements will need to be translated into impacts that support enhanced ATM decision-making. By 2016, 

the capacity and efficiency evaluation under Goal 9 – System Knowledge plans to validate solutions that meet 

the forecasted demand for 2025*

, that based on the current forecast, is 58 percent higher than the year 2004. 

This means that current efforts to increase capacity and efficiency will produce improvements, but not at the 

level needed to meet the R&D Target. The FAA is working to define new goals and metrics that may replace the 

R&D Target for this R&D Goal next year. 

* Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Area Forecast Summary Fiscal Years 2009-2030, March 2010 (http://www.faa.gov/ 

data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2010-2030/). 

Chapter 2 
 
 

 

22 Chapter 2 

A reduction of significA nt 

AerospAce environmentA l impActs 

in Absolute terms 

C lean 

and Q uiet 

R & d G oal 2 
 

R&D t a R get 

By 2016, demonstrate* that significant aviation noise and emissions impacts can be reduced in absolute terms 

(despite growth) in a cost-beneficial way, make progress toward achieving carbon neutral growth by 2020 from 

a 2005 baseline, and reduce uncertainties in particulate matter and non-carbon dioxide (CO2) climate impacts 

to levels that enable appropriate action. 

M etho D of vali D ation 

The approach has five parts: measure current levels of noise and emissions in the system; determine 

appropriate reduction target levels; build models to assess and predict the impact of change; develop reduction 

techniques and assess their cost-benefits; and develop environmental management systems for the NAS. 

Validation of the R&D target will include modeling, physical demonstrations, prototypes, full-scale tests, and 

software beta tests. The environmental evaluation milestones under R&D Goal 9 - System Knowledge also 

support the interim assessment of progress and validation of this target. 

f u n D ing R equi R e M ents - R&D g oal 2 

The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero 

funding listed support this goal with FAA staff resources only. 

Budget BLI Program Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Notes Type 

-- Airport Cooperative Research 

- Environment AIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 100% of total program 

Airport Technology Research 

- Environment AIP 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 100% of total program 

A13.a Environment and Energy R,E&D 15,327 14,505 14,293 14,384 14,677 100% of total program 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development 

Office R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A13.b 

NextGen - Environmental Research 

- Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics 

R,E&D 20,523 19,743 19,623 19,833 20,263 100% of total program 

1A08D 

NextGen - Environment and Energy -

Environmental Management Systems 

and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction 

F&E 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 100% of total program 

1A08F NextGen - Operational Assessments F&E 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

Total ($000) 57,350 50,748 50,416 50,717 51,440 

* In this goal, demonstrate means to show that the models and metrics developed are valid and that, with the system improvements 

planned, it is possible to reduce aviation noise and emission impacts and enhanced energy efficiency even with a significant increase 

in system capacity, where three-times is used as an upper limit (not a prediction) and is purposely aggressive, as R&D goals should be 

stretch goals. 

Chapter 2 23 
 

M ilestones 

Baseline measurement 

Measure current levels of aviation 

related noise and emissions. 

2009: Develop methodologies to quantify and 

assess the impact of Particulate Matter and 

Hazardous Air Pollutants. (Environment 

and Energy; Airport Cooperative Research -

Environment) [COMPLETED] 

2011: Establish the relationship between aviation 

engine exhaust and the gases and particulate 

matter that are deposited in the atmosphere. 

(NextGen - Environmental Research -

Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

2012: Expand noise data collection to very light 

jets and supersonic aircraft. (Environment 

and Energy) 

2012: Initiate a project to study aircraft noise 

annoyance data and sleep disturbance 

around airports. (Airport Technology 

Research – Environment) 

2013: Obtain direct measurements of hazardous 

air pollutants and particulate matter data to 

update modeling tools. (Environment 

and Energy) 

threshold levels 

Determine acceptable levels of noise and 

emissions. 

2010: Develop new standards and methodologies 

to quantify and assess the impact of aircraft 

noise and aviation emissions. (Environment 

and Energy; Airport Cooperative Research -

Environment) [COMPLETED] 

2011: Develop a new metric to quantify the 

P P

environmental impacts of new aircraft types. 

(Environment and Energy) 

2011: Complete tests and data collection to 

determine if the right metrics are being 

used to assess the impact of aircraft noise. 

(NextGen - Environmental Research -

Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

2011: Determine how aviation-generated 

particulate matter and hazardous air 

pollutants impact local health, visibility, and 

global climate. (Environment and Energy; 

NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics; Airport 

Cooperative Research - Environment) 

2011: Investigate feasibility of new standards for 

aircraft noise and emissions certification. 

(Environment and Energy) 

24 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

2014:	Complete development and field a fully

validated	suite	of	tools,	including	the	AEDT	

and	the	Aviation	Environmental	Portfolio	

Management	Tool	(APMT).		(Environment	

and	Energy,	Airport	Cooperative	Research	

-	Environment)

2014:	Assess	NAS-wide	benefits	of	environmental	

mitigation	solutions	comprised	of	new	

technologies,	alternative	fuels,	advanced	

operational	procedures,	market	measures,	

and	options	for	policy	and	noise/emissions	

standards.		(NextGen	–	Environment	and	

Energy	–	Environmental	Management	

2011:	 Enhance regional analysis capability in

aviation	environmental	analysis	tools.		

(NextGen	-	Operational	Assessments)

2013:	Update environmental assessment

models	to	incorporate	new	noise	metrics.		

(Environment	and	Energy)

noise	and	emissions	impact	at	the	local	and	

global	levels.		(Environment	and	Energy)		

[COMPLETED] 

2010:	Assess	the	impacts	of	aviation	on	regional	

air	quality,	including	the	effects	of	nitrogen	

oxide	(NOx)	emissions	from	aircraft	climb	

and	cruise.		(Environment	and	Energy)		

[COMPLETED] 

2011:	 Assess	the	level	of	certainty	of	aviation’s	

impact	on	climate	change,	with	special	

emphasis	on	the	effects	of	contrails.		

(Environment	and	Energy)

2011:	 Complete	development	of	first-generation	

P

Chapter 2 25

System	and	Advanced	Noise	and	Emission	

Prediction

Develop models to predict the impact 

and benefits of changes. 

2008:	Develop	and	distribute	the	first	generation	of	

integrated	noise	and	emission	prediction	and	

modeling	tools,	including	an	environmental	

cost	module.		(Environment	and	Energy)				

[COMPLETED] 

2010:	Develop	a	preliminary	planning	version	of	an	

Aviation	Environmental	Design	Tool	(AEDT)	

that	will	allow	integrated	assessment	of	

P

P

ground	plume	model	for	aircraft	engine	

exhaust.		(Environment	and	Energy)

Reduction)
 
 


	
	
	

Reduction techniques 

Develop noise and emission reduction 

methods. 

P

2008: Enable implementation of a new continuousdescent approach noise abatement and 

fuel burn (emissions) reduction procedure 

at low-traffic airports during nighttime 

operations and optimize aircraft routing 

to reduce fuel usage. (Environment and 

Energy) [COMPLETED] 

P

2010: Develop algorithms to optimize ground 

and airspace operations by leveraging 

communication, navigation, and surveillance 

technology in the short- to medium-term 

to optimize aircraft sequencing and timing 

on the surface and in the terminal area. 

(NextGen – Environment and Energy – 

Environmental Management System and 

Advanced Noise and Emission Reduction) 

[COMPLETED] 

P

2010: Complete detailed feasibility study, 

including economic feasibility, measure 

environmental impacts, and demonstrate 

drop-in potential for alternative fuels. 

(NextGen - Environmental Research -

Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

[COMPLETED] 

2011: Complete detailed feasibility study, including 

economic and environmental impacts and 

an assessment of potential of renewable 

alternative fuels for gas turbine engines. 

(NextGen Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

2013: Identify and pursue the development of 

engine and airframe technologies that 

will be the most effective at producing 

environmental benefits. (NextGen 

Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics)
	

26 Chapter 2 

2013: Identify and pursue the development of 

flight management system and other system 

technologies that will be the most effective 

at producing environmental benefits. 

(NextGen Environment and Energy -

Environmental Management System and 

Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction) 

2013: Complete significant demonstration of 

“drop-in” alternative turbine engine fuels. 

(NextGen Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

2013: Demonstrate optimized airport and terminal 

area operations that reduce or mitigate 

aviation impacts on noise, air quality, or 

water quality in the vicinity of the airport. 

(NextGen - Environment and Energy -

Environmental Management System and 

Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction; 

Airport Cooperative Research - Environment) 

2013: Demonstrate airframe and engine 

technologies to reduce noise and emissions. 

(NextGen Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

2014: Demonstrate optimized en route operations 

that enhance fuel efficiency and reduce 

emissions. (NextGen - Environment and 

Energy - Environmental Management 

System and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction) 

2014: Complete assessment of renewable 

alternative turbine engine fuels. (NextGen 

Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels and Metrics) 

2015: Complete transition plans for renewable 

alternative fuels. (NextGen Environmental 

Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels and 

Metrics) 

2015: Assess environmental benefits of first round 

of Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, 

and Noise (CLEEN) airframe and engine 

technologies through integrated flight 

demonstration. (NextGen Environmental 

Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics) 
 

Chapter 2 27

Environm Ental managE m Ent 

Develop environmental management 

system for the NAS 

2013:	Evaluate, refine, and apply Environmental

Management	System	(EMS)	decision	

support	tools	to	the	aviation	system.		

(NextGen	-	Environment	and	Energy	-	

Environmental	Management	System	and	

Advanced	Noise	and	Emissions	Reduction)

2015:	Refine	and	update	approaches	for	EMS	

performance	tracking.		(NextGen	-	

Environment	and	Energy	-	Environmental	

Management	System	and	Advanced	Noise	

and	Emissions	Reduction)
 

 

Progress in FY 2010: Clean and Quiet 

Both the FAA Flight Plan and NextGen Implementation Plan recognize the importance of making air 

transportation cleaner, quieter, and more energy efficient to support greater mobility while reducing aviation’s 

impact on our environment. The FAA R&D portfolio supports this R&D Goal and its R&D Target: by 2016, 

demonstrate that significant aviation noise and emissions impacts can be reduced in absolute terms (despite 

growth) in a cost-beneficial way, make progress toward achieving carbon neutral growth by 2020 from a 2005 

baseline, and reduce uncertainties in particulate matter and non-CO2 climate impacts to levels that enable 

appropriate action. 

Over the past five years, the FAA conducted research to reduce the impact of airports and aircraft operations on 

the environment, reduce aviation’s energy footprint, and advance deployment of sustainable alternative fuels. 

In addition, the FAA conducted research to measure particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants on 

airports resulting from aircraft operations. It also investigated deicing and anti-icing fluids, first trying to 

develop alternative, more environmentally-friendly fluid formulations and then studying methods that 

efficiently use, treat, and dispose of the fluids. 

Results achieved in 2010 include: 

Baseline Measurement: 

One of the accomplishments of the ACRP component of the Environmental Program was gathering data 

and developing a robust estimate of deicing chemicals used today and determining how use may vary by 

geographic location and seasonal weather characteristics. In addition, the research gathered and summarized 

information on existing regulatory requirements that directly address the potential discharge of deicing runoff 

to comply with the Clean Water Act. Full implementation of these existing programs sheds important light 

on the potential effect of related controls and environmental threats. This information will help direct future 

assessment of potential environmental impacts from airfield and aircraft deicing materials. (ACRP) 

Prediction: 

One of the accomplishments of the ACRP component of the Environmental Program was improving the 

ability to evaluate noise generated by aircraft ground operations, allowing airport staff, airport planners, 

and consultants to systematically incorporate taxiway noise modeling in their evaluations when needed. 

This capability will increase the accuracy of airport noise modeling, thus improving chances of identifying 

significant noise impacts and incompatible land-uses and addressing appropriate mitigation strategies. 

This research will enable a joint assessment of both noise and air quality, resulting in more balanced and 

comprehensive decisions in airport planning. (ACRP) 

28 Chapter 2 
Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT): 

The Environment and Energy Program enhanced AEDT’s integrated aviation noise, emissions, and fuel burn 

analysis capability and achieved major development milestones. Key improvements include new regional 

modeling capabilities that will enable environmental review of airspace redesign projects and representation 

of high fidelity weather for improved fuel burn analyses. We released two “beta” versions of AEDT to the 

Design Review Group (DRG) for testing and evaluation. The DRG feedback is helping improve and guide 

further AEDT development. These advances will enable release of the AEDT-regional model in 2011 and a 

public version in 2013 for integrated airport environmental analyses. These AEDT releases will ultimately 

replace legacy environmental analysis tools. By 2016, we will have enhanced AEDT capabilities to enable 

integration with NAS-wide models for NAS-wide environmental analyses and to support decision-making. 

(Environment and Energy) 

Assessing the Impact of Aviation: 

During FY 2010, the FAA developed preliminary estimates of the impact of cruise-altitude aircraft emissions 

on surface air quality. Generally, researchers quantify aircraft contribution to surface air quality using 

aircraft emissions between the surface and 3000 feet, known as the Landing and Takeoff (LTO) cycle. 

However, approximately 90 percent of the aircraft fuel combustion occurs at cruise altitude, leading to 

the release of NOx and sulfur oxide emissions. These emissions may also potentially affect surface air 

quality. Results from this work helped inform the U.S. position on NOx emissions stringency at the Eighth 

Meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

(ICAO/CAEP) and achieve the most ambitious standards ever implemented. The FAA continues to refine 

its analyses to reduce uncertainties and inform U.S. policy on reducing aircraft emissions and the role of 

altitude emissions. (Environment and Energy) 

Algorithms to Optimize Ground and Airspace Operations: 

In FY 2010, the FAA developed algorithms for optimized ground and en-route operations and plans to 

demonstrate these algorithms in pilot studies. In particular, researchers are demonstrating an N-control 

optimization algorithm for surface operations at Boston Logan airport, and we are exploring options to 

implement and test this algorithm in other airport settings. Researchers tested algorithms for optimized 

en-route procedure at the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City. Thus, research is valuable as aircraft 

taxiing contributes to fuel burn and emissions at airports, and growing en-route air traffic in congested areas 

is a source of additional environmental impacts. (NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental 

Management System and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction) 

Chapter 2 29 
Drop-in Potential of Alternative Fuels: 

In FY 2010, the FAA worked with other federal agencies and stakeholders to demonstrate the feasibility and 

environmental benefits of drop-in alternative fuels, fuels that may reduce emissions that contribute to air 

quality and climate change as well as provide security and price stability for commercial aviation. FAA-funded 

researchers achieved a major milestone by contributing toward the approval of Fischer-Tropsch by ASTM 

International and establishing a framework for the approval of additional fuels, completing a groundbreaking 

study of life-cycle emissions of a wide range of alternative jet fuels, and making progress quantifying other 

sustainability aspects such as land use and water use. Work continues with ASTM to qualify additional drop-in 

alternative fuels with a focus on bio-blends. This work will enable availability and deployment of sustainable 

jet fuels by 2016. (NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

Over the past five years, the Environment and Energy Program has made a number of advances, such as 

advancing sustainable alternative aviation fuels and environmentally-friendly operational procedures that will 

enable us to demonstrate net reductions of significant environmental impacts and enhanced energy efficiency 

by 2016, which is critical to enabling NextGen goals. 

We have successfully characterized aviation noise and emissions related issues and quantified associated risks 

that could potentially limit NextGen success. In particular, we have developed advanced models for integrated 

noise, emissions, and fuel burn analyses to characterize the interdependencies and tradeoffs. These tools are 

being used for NAS-wide environmental assessments and supporting decision-making through cost-benefit 

analyses. We have identified a number of mitigation solutions (e.g., advance aircraft and fuel technologies, 

environmentally and energy efficient operational procedures) and initiated efforts under NextGen funding to 

mature and implement them. NextGen funding has allowed us to initiate development of EMSs that will 

dynamically manage NextGen environmental goals and targets. We have also conducted research to support 

more stringent environmental standards and market-based measures that will supplement potential shortfalls 

in meeting NextGen environmental goals via technology and operations mitigation approaches. 

Although there has been substantial progress to date, there are still challenges that need to be addressed to 

achieve the 2016 R&D Target. Climate impacts of aviation need to be well quantified to inform tradeoffs among 

emissions and, hence, decisions to develop technologies and critical national and international policies. 

Characterization of aircraft non-volatile particulate emissions and their environmental impacts is another 

major area of continuing focus. We also need to characterize noise impacts beyond the currently defined 

“significant” level of 65 Day Night Level to allow effective mitigation of health and welfare impacts associated 

with noise exposure. We need to establish the baseline environmental performance of our current aviation 

system so that we can quantify the benefits and risks from NextGen solutions to inform implementation 

decisions. We need to demonstrate and mature additional technologies under the CLEEN program. We need 

to identify and accelerate deployment of sustainable fuels. We also need to conduct the research to enable 

NAS-wide implementation of NextGen EMS across a range of stakeholders. 

The Environment and Energy program is pursuing a comprehensive integrated R&D program. We continue to 

work to advance our scientific understanding of aviation environmental impacts and pursue a range of 

mitigation solutions that will contribute towards meeting NextGen environmental goals. We have identified 

associated risks and are working to address and reduce them. We are on track to meet the environment and 

energy R&D goals and targets. 

30 Chapter 2 
Chapter 2 31 
 

 

The besT qualified and Trained 

workforce in The world 

H i g H Q uality 

t eams and 

i ndividuals 

R & d g oal 3 

32 Chapter 2 
 

 

R&D t a R get 

By 2016, demonstrate improvement in ANSP efficiency (e.g., greater number of aircraft) and effectiveness 

(e.g., improvement of safety metrics) through automation and standardization of operations, procedures, 

and information. 

M etho D of vali D ation 

The approach includes continued, incremental pursuit of efficiency gains in the cruise phase of flight and 

pursuit of new knowledge and results that produce efficiency gains in the arrival and departure phases. 

Automation and new capabilities added through implementation of operational improvements may provide 

incremental efficiency benefits, and there are likely interactions among these capabilities; however, human 

performance modeling and human-in-the-loop testing will help verify specific benefits accrued, including the 

effects of a mixed equipage environment. The program will examine the roles of controllers and maintainers 

at increased capacity levels. It will determine how to support those roles through the allocation of functions 

between human operators and automation, enhancing safety and minimizing the potential for human error 

while increasing efficiency. This goal contributes to the integrated demonstration under R&D Goal 4 -

Human-Centered Design. 

f u n D ing R equi R e M ents - R&D g oal 3 

The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero 

funding listed support this goal with FAA staff resources only. 

Budget BLI Program Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Notes Type 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors R,E&D 10,634 10,502 10,579 10,762 11,015 100% of total program 

4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation System 

Development (CAASD) F&E 1,367 1,354 1,354 1,354 1,354 6% of R&D program in FY 2012 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development 

Office R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/ 

Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground 

Integration) 

F&E 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 100% of total program 

Total ($000) 22,001 16,856 16,933 17,116 17,369 

Chapter 2 33 
 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

M ilestones 

Increase to 130 percent * 

Demonstrate 130 percent controller 

efficiency. (Air Traffic Control/ 

Technical Operations Human Factors) 

P

2007: Demonstrate how to reduce verbal 

communication workload between the pilot 

and controller for en route operations. 

[COMPLETED] 

P

2007: Identify the performance limitations of
 

the controller in the terminal and tower
 

environments. [COMPLETED]
 

2008:	Demonstrate	efficiency	improvements	when	

Pcontrollers receive information on aircraft 

equipage, performance capabilities, and 

applicable procedures in a mixed equipage 

environment. [COMPLETED] 

P

2008: Conduct initial simulation to determine what 

weather information is required by en route 

and	tower	controllers	to	improve	efficiency.	

[COMPLETED] 

selectIon crIterI a 

Ensure ANSPs have the aptitude and 

capability required to manage air traffic 

in the future system. (NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors (Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground Integration)) 

2012: Apply program-generated human factors 

knowledge to improve aviation system 

personnel selection and training. 

2015: Develop selection procedures to transform 

the workforce into a new generation of 

service	providers	that	can	manage	traffic	

flows	in	a	highly	automated	system.

* The year 2004 was chosen as a baseline for consistency with 

the Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 

108-176) and the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

Integrated Plan submitted to Congress as required in that 

legislation. 

Demonstrate I mprovements I n 

ansp effI c Iency 

Demonstrate improvements in ANSP 

efficiency achieved by implementation of 

NextGen ground automation capabilities 

and aircraft equipage, use of data 

communications, and implementation 

of new decision support tools and 

automation. 

2010:	Define	anticipated	controller	workload	

Preductions due to implementation of data 

communications.		(NextGen	-	Air	Traffic	

Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors	(Controller	Efficiency	and	Air	

Ground Integration)) [COMPLETED] 

P

2010:	Define	initial	requirements	and	anticipated	

efficiency	benefits	for	merging	and	spacing	

decision support tools to support continuous 

descent approach in the terminal area. 

(NextGen	-	Air	Traffic	Control/Technical	

Operations Human Factors (Controller 

Efficiency	and	Air	Ground	Integration))	

[COMPLETED] 

2012: Improve computer-human interface design 

to reduce information overload and resulting 

errors.		(Air	Traffic	Control/Technical	

Operations Human Factors) 

2013: Assess the Front Line Manager Quick 

Reference Guide for effectiveness in aiding 

ATC	safety.		(Air	Traffic	Control/Technical	

Operations Human Factors) 

2013: Analyze controller roles in a strategic air 

traffic	environment	for	the	impact	on	

personnel selection and training. (NextGen 

-	Air	Traffic	Control/Technical	Operations	

Human	Factors	(Controller	Efficiency	and	

Air Ground Integration)) 

2013:	Demonstrate	collaborative	air	traffic	

management	efficiencies	enabled	by	

common	situation	awareness	between	flight	

operators and ANSP. 

34 Chapter 2 
		

Chapter 2 35

2013:	Demonstrate	increased	ANSP	efficiencies	

through new procedures that allow ANSP 

personnel to manage and introduce routing, 

airspace, and equipage mix changes in the 

dynamic	air	traffic	environment.		(NextGen	

-	Air	Traffic	Control/Technical	Operations	

Human	Factors	(Controller	Efficiency	and	

Air	Ground	Integration))

2014:	Provide	a	draft	of	a	revised	Human	Factors	

Design Standard for human factors 

application	to	ATC	system	acquisition.		

(Air	Traffic	Control/Technical	Operations	

Human	Factors)

2016: Perform an analysis of controller roles in 

terms	of	the	services	they	provide	during	

a	given	phase	of	flight	as	the	differences	

between	en	route	and	terminal	begin	to	blur.

(NextGen	-	Air	Traffic	Control/Technical	

Operations	Human	Factors	(Controller	

Efficiency	and	Air	Ground	Integration))
 


 


 


	


	


	


	


 


 


	


	


	


	


 


 


	


	


	


	

Progress in FY 2010: HigH QualitY teams and individuals 

The R&D Goal of High Quality Teams and Individuals supports the goals of greater capacity and increased 

safety in the Flight Plan and for NextGen. The R&D Target is, by 2016, demonstrate improvement in ANSP 

efficiency (e.g., greater number of aircraft) and effectiveness (e.g., improvement of safety metrics) through 

automation and standardization of operations, procedures, and information. 

The research program started in 2005 with the first iteration of the Future En Route Workstation (FEWS). A 

demonstration of FEWS followed in 2006, and the FEWS effort continued with refinements and expanded 

research into advanced workstation concepts. In 2006, the program initiated advanced controller workstation 

concepts in the tower domain. In 2007, a substantial effort in the TRACON environment for an advanced 

controller workstation began through enhancements of laboratory infrastructure followed by human factors 

concept development and high fidelity simulations. The FAA is adopting and implementing products of these 

research efforts in acquisition programs such as the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) system. 

Specific characteristics of FEWS are evident in various versions of ERAM that are in the acquisition or planning 

process. The results of tower and TRACON research similarly aided development of data communications 

(DataCom) during various acquisition phases. These results demonstrate that the human factors research 

program is focused on the concept of “research to practice” to assure that the program has a measurable and 

positive impact on operations. 

Results achieved in 2010 include: 

Defined Anticipated Controller Workload Reductions due to Implementation of
 

DataCom:
 

In 2010, researchers completed initial investigations into application of DataCom in the TRACON domain. 

Researchers introduced DataCom to the workstation as a total package that may represent the 2018
	

environment. It included area navigation (RNAV) routes and arrival procedures in the terminal area and
	

decision support tools that may be representative of NextGen improvements in the mid-term. Results show 

that DataCom can enhance controller performance (e.g., number of aircraft handled in the arrival sector) and 

reduce workload; however, the major improvement resulted from introduction of RNAV routes. These routes 

improve the utility of DataCom. When used together, RNAV routes and DataCom improve human-system 

performance substantially. DataCom potentially can improve the performance and utility of decision support 

tools by making them more accurate, which in turn decreases controller workload. (NextGen - Air Traffic
	

Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration))
	

36 Chapter 2 
Defined Initial Requirements and Anticipated Efficiency Benefits for Merging and 

Spacing Decision Support Tools to Support Continuous Descent Approach in the 

Terminal Area: 

The program completed two merging and spacing efforts in the terminal environment in 2010. The first 

used a detailed approach to address human factors requirements for optimized profile descents and 

integrated arrivals and departures. This was an important step in the analysis of proposed improvements 

to controller tasks and culminated in the development of human-system integration requirements. The 

second effort was imbedded in the FEWS simulation to evaluate the proposed use of decision support tools 

for merging and spacing. Included was conformance monitoring for adherence to routings such as the 

various types of continuous descent approaches. Researchers learned that use of such tools requires that 

conformance monitors and other alerting functions need a very low nuisance alarm rate to build a sense of 

trust in the automation. They also determined that the use of support tools would only be effective if the 

controller perceives that the tool provides a performance benefit. (NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration)) 

There is a substantial challenge to meet the 2016 target of improving controller efficiency and effectiveness. 

The program must adequately define the effective use of automation to enhance human-system performance. 

As the level of automation in the NAS increases, the human factors research program will seek to address the 

proper roles and responsibilities of air traffic controllers in a highly automated NAS as well as specific human 

factors requirements for automation that augment or replace controller tasks. Off-nominal scenarios and 

automation failures are significant areas of concern. These will require proper identification of the anomaly, 

maintenance of situation awareness, and the ability of controllers to maintain safety under degraded 

automation modes. This R&D Target is on schedule to be met by 2016. 

Chapter 2 37 
 

 

 

 

38 Chapter 2 

AerospAce systems t h At A dApt to, 

compensAte for, A nd Augment the 

perform A nce of the hum A n 

H uman -

C entered 

d esign 

r & d g oal 4 
R&D t a R get 

By 2016, demonstrate that operations (e.g., day and night, all weather), procedures, and information can be 

standard and predictable for users (e.g., pilots, controllers, airlines, passengers) at all types of airports and for 

all aircraft. 

M etho D of vali D ation 

The approach includes identifying roles and responsibilities, defining human and system performance 

requirements, applying error management strategies, and conducting an integrated demonstration across 

multiple goal areas. Validation of the R&D target will include simulations and demonstrations to confirm the 

requirements and methodologies for human performance and error management. The final demonstration 

will integrate weather-in-the-cockpit technologies, self-separation procedures, ATC productivity tools, and 

network-enabled collaborative decision-making to increase capacity, reduce delays, and promote safety. 

f u n D ing R equi R e M ents - R&D g oal 4 

The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero 

funding listed support this goal with FAA staff resources only. 

Budget BLI Program Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Notes Type 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

-- Airport Cooperative Research 

- Capacity AIP 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 34% of total program 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors R,E&D 6,162 6,070 6,107 6,209 6,354 100% of total program 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development 

Office R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration 

Human Factors R,E&D 10,545 10,117 10,043 10,144 10,363 100% of total program 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/ 

Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground 

Integration) 

F&E 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence 

- Re-categorization F&E 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the 

Cockpit R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A11.h System Safety Management R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center 

Laboratory Facility R,E&D 3,777 3,740 3,772 3,839 3,931 100% of total program 

Total ($000) 22,184 21,627 21,622 21,892 22,348 

Chapter 2 39 
 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

M ilestones 

Roles and Responsibilities 

Define the changes in roles and 

responsibilities, between pilots and 

controllers and between humans and 

automation, required to implement 

NextGen. 

2011: Develop initial mid-term analysis describing 

the relationship between human pilots 

and controllers with associated automated 

systems. (NextGen - Air Ground Integration 

Human Factors; NextGen Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration)) 

2011: Document ramp operational and safety 

techniques and how airport operators 

implement pavement maintenance programs. 

(Airport Cooperative Research - Capacity) 

2012: Complete initial research to evaluate and 

recommend procedures for negotiations 

and shared decision-making between pilots 

and controllers. (NextGen - Air Ground 

Integration Human Factors; NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and 

Air Ground Integration)) 

2016: Complete initial research to enable safe and 

effective changes to controller roles and 

responsibilities for NextGen procedures. 

(NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human 

Factors; NextGen - Air Traffic Control/ 

Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground 

Integration)) 

40 Chapter 2 

Human system integRation 

Define human and system performance 

requirements for design and operation 

of aircraft and ATC systems. 

2010: Initiate research to identify equipment 

Pcategories for legacy flight deck avionics 

to support human factors evaluations 

of use of these systems in NextGen 

flight procedures. (NextGen - Air 

Ground Integration Human Factors) 

[COMPLETED] 

2012: Initiate research to assess pilot 

performance in normal and non-normal 

NextGen procedures, including single 

pilot operations. (NextGen - Air Ground 

Integration Human Factors) 

2012: Develop human factors guidance for
 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance –
 

Broadcast (ADS-B) enabled Cockpit
 

Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) 

certification and operational approval. 

(Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors) 

2012: Provide human factors guidance for 

the design of instrument procedures. 

(Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors)
 

2013: Complete research to identify human 

factors issues and potential mitigation 

strategies for the use of legacy avionics 

in NextGen procedures. (NextGen - Air 

Ground Integration Human Factors) 

2016: Complete research to assess procedures, 

training, display, and alerting requirements 

to support development and evaluation 

of planned and unplanned transitions 

between NextGen and legacy airspace 

procedures. (NextGen - Air Ground 

Integration Human Factors) 
 

Error managE m Ent 

Develop and apply error management 

strategies, mitigate risk factors, and 

reduce automation-related errors. 

(NextGen - Air Ground Integration 

Human Factors; NextGen - Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration)) 

2012: Complete research to develop methods to 

mitigate mode errors in use of NextGen 

equipment. 

2014: Develop initial guidance on training 

methods to support detection and 

correction of human errors in near- to midterm NextGen procedures. 

2016: Complete research to identify and manage 

the risks posed by new and altered 

human error modes in the use of NextGen 

procedures and equipment. 

In tEgratE d d E monstratIons 

Conduct incremental and full-mission 

demonstrations to increase the 

likelihood of successful implementation 

of research results. (NextGen - Air 

Ground Integration Human Factors; 

William J. Hughes Technical Center 

Laboratory Facility; NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors (Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground Integration)) 

2017: Functional demonstration – demonstrate 

integrated pilot and controller functional 

capabilities. 

Chapter 2 41 

 


 

Progress in FY 2010: Human-Centered design 

The R&D Goal of Human-Centered Design supports the goal of increased safety in the Flight Plan. The R&D 

Target is, by 2016, demonstrate that operations (e.g., day and night, all weather), procedures, and information 

can be standard and predictable for users (e.g., pilots, controllers, airlines, passengers) at all types of airports 

and for all aircraft. 

Continued improvement of human-system integration is a priority due to the lightning speed of technological 

advances. In 2006, the program updated the Human Factors Certification Job Aid with Part 25 Advisory 

Circulars (ACs) and information on design of flight deck equipment, tasks and procedures, and testing 

assumptions. The job aid helps the FAA and industry minimize the likelihood of design-induced human 

performance errors. In addition, the program developed practical customized assessment tools to help FAA 

certifiers and inspectors, system designers, and operators standardize and streamline evaluations of electronic 

flight bags (EFBs). Research continued in 2007 with expansion of the Certification Job Aid to include Part 23 

flight decks. With this research complete, the tool became available to the aviation community through the 

Technology Transfer Program, and the program created a commercial website application to increase 

distribution and use. Also in 2007, the program distributed findings on simulator platform motion and its 

impact on pilot performance during specific maneuvers to the scientific community. In 2008, the program 

completed research to support an update to aerospace industry recommended practices on electronic symbols, 

used by industry to demonstrate means of compliance with FAA regulations. In 2009, researchers completed a 

study addressing non-alert symbology for Airborne Separation Assurance Systems to assist RTCA SC-186 CDTI 

Working Group in addressing non-concurrence in the preliminary Minimum Operational Performance 

Standards (MOPS) document. In addition, countermeasures to crew multi-tasking were developed and the 

Aviation Maintenance Safety Action Program Maintenance Program Development handbook was completed. 

Results achieved in 2010 include: 

Identifying Equipment Categories for Avionics in Preparation for Human Factors
 

Evaluations of NextGen:
 

The FAA initiated a study to identify requirements for participating in the NextGen environment and to 

assess the existing fleet of U.S. air carrier aircraft and flight deck avionics to determine their capabilities in 

light of NextGen requirements. Current avionic systems have performance capabilities that NextGen could 

leverage using complex operational procedures, but system designers did not necessarily include provisions 

for such complex procedures when designing the user interfaces for these systems. Present research focuses 

on human performance concerns associated with use of existing Flight Management Systems (FMSs) and 

associated flight deck displays in NextGen procedures to identify mitigations and implications for aircraft 

certification. Data collection is complete and analysis is underway. A technical report addressing human 

factors issues will follow. (NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors) 

Electronic Flight Bag Technologies and Interfaces: 

Researchers helped the FAA address human factors issues related to EFBs and supported development of 

EFB-related policies and guidance. The program conducted research to understand human factors issues 

related to implementation and integration of EFBs in normal flight operations. Two draft checklists for use 

during the review of EFB installations summarize the results. Researchers also published a technical report 

that identifies EFB issues, provides guidelines for integration of EFBs in operations, and examines EFB 

related safety reports from the public Aviation Safety Reporting System and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB). (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

42 Chapter 2 
 

Airport Map Displays: 

Researchers are working to understand what additional guidance and approval criteria are needed to 

establish minimum standards and best practices to support flight deck integration of surface moving 

maps depicting ownship position. Several advanced functions are under consideration, including display 

of surface traffic and alerts of potential runway incursions. Researchers conducted usability evaluations 

of three surface moving map software applications and identified potential human factors concerns in 

design. They provided technical support to an evaluation of the impact of a Surface Moving Map with 

ownship position on a Class 2 or Class 3 EFB. They also recorded observations to identify areas that may 

need human factors guidance to support development of MOPS for surface conflict detection and alerting. 

(Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Proactive Audit Approach to Support Safety Management System in Airline 

Maintenance and Ramp Operations (LOSA): 

Researchers are proactively studying airline maintenance and ramp operations during normal situations 

to develop Maintenance and Ramp Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA) processes. LOSA is a formal 

process where trained observers collect safety-related data on maintenance performance in a non-jeopardy 

environment. Information obtained via LOSA provides the maintenance organization a diagnostic snapshot of 

safety strengths and weaknesses. Proactive approaches, as opposed to post accident and event investigation, 

align with the principles of risk management and Safety Management System (SMS). The research team 

refined and finalized maintenance and ramp LOSA forms and procedures and assisted with creation of LOSA 

training materials. The team also completed tests of the forms and training materials with the assistance of 

industry personnel. The program will conduct a LOSA beta test with the Air Transport Association’s Human 

Factors Committee and Alaska Airlines. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Fatigue Risk Management in Aircraft Maintenance – 

Near Term and NextGen Time Frame (Maintenance Fatigue): 

Current maintenance fatigue management processes used by Transport Canada, Australian Civil Aviation 

Safety Authority, European Aviation Safety Agency, and other regulatory organizations were analyzed and 

best practices were selected and evaluated in a prototype Maintenance Fatigue Risk Management System 

(RMS). The international best practices for fatigue risk management were documented in a technical report. 

In addition to providing the framework for a U.S. RMS in maintenance fatigue, researchers developed 

prototype versions of each of the fatigue management tools proposed in the prototype system. The program 

will test the prototype systems against the fatigue research knowledge and the airline and maintenance 

operations to ensure that the systems can effectively manage maintenance fatigue. The program has also 

developed and distributed fatigue awareness materials, including a maintenance fatigue website, fatigue 

survival toolbox, hangar posters, and a maintenance fatigue newsletter. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors) 

Chapter 2 43 
 

 

 

 

Synthetic Vision for Primary and Multifunction Flight Displays: 

The objective of this project was to determine the potential effects on pilot performance of incorporating 

synthetic vision system (SVS) features into primary-flight and/or multi-function displays. Researchers 

conducted a literature survey to determine existing guidelines and standards for the design and use of 

pictorial imaging displays, including SVS, enhanced vision system (EVS), and primary flight displays. The 

survey also identified available data for both display design and human performance not captured in a 

guideline or standard. The team conducted a literature, industry, and product review, and developed a 

checklist summarizing human factors issues between SVS and EVS characteristics and pilot performance. 

They identified a number of references, documents, and guidelines that had direct or indirect bearing on 

human factors considerations involved in SVS, EVS, and primary flight displays. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/ 

System Integration Human Factors) 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast: 

This research supports the FAA in understanding human factors issues related to use of CDTI based on ADS-B 

and other aircraft surveillance applications systems. At issue is the question whether symbols for CDTI should 

be required to match symbols used for the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) and whether 

CDTI should use the same “symbol-fill” as TCAS to represent the proximity of the target in range and altitude. 

Additional questions concern the value of the proximate status indication to pilots. Researchers examined 

the proximate status indication by presenting pilots with dynamic traffic simulations with and without the 

proximate status indication. Preliminary findings indicated that the proximate status indication did not 

improve the consistency of pilot ratings of traffic threat level and did not improve the consistency of pilot 

ratings of their ability to acquire the target visually. Additionally, results suggest that pilots use the proximate 

status indication to prioritize their attention. Additional analyses are ongoing and will be presented to 

stakeholders in FY 2011. The FAA will consider the results in development of an update to the CDTI Technical 

Standard Order (TSO). (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Training for Driving Privileges on Airport Airfields: 

The ACRP – Capacity Program explored information on the requirements and training for driving 

privileges on airport airfields, and the similarities and differences between requirements at various airports 

throughout the country. The report examined information on the types of training programs available to 

airport employees based on the employee’s driving authority and access privileges. There were 175 Runway 

Incursions caused by vehicles in FY 2010. Each of these is a warning of a potential incident, collision with 

an aircraft, and loss of life. Large airports have thousands of people with driving privileges on the airport. 

Each of these individuals is required to have initial and annual recurrent driver training. The ACRP report 

will make airports aware of new techniques for driver training such as low cost driver training simulators 

that will improve the driver’s understanding of airport signs and markings based on his/her individual 

airport layout. The driver training simulators will simulate low visibility conditions that are a causal factor 

in many of the runway incursions. (ACRP) 

While research is on track to meet meet the FY 2016 target, the integration of air and ground capabilities poses 

challenges for pilots and the ANSP. Increased levels of automation and new enabling technologies that will 

likely transform the NAS in the future will bring new human factors challenges. Interoperability with baseline 

systems and refinement of procedures must accompany transitions of increasingly sophisticated automation 

and procedures to ensure efficient operations and to mitigate potential automation surprises. As the NAS 

moves toward a more automated system and roles and responsibilities change in a series of planned steps, 

intent information as well as positive information on delegation of authority must be clear and unambiguous. 

44 Chapter 2 
Chapter 2 45

changing environment requires a close examination of new types of human error modes to manage safety risk 

in the human factors domain. The FAA must develop equipment design methods, training, and procedures to 

decrease error likelihood and/or increase timely error detection (e.g., blunders on closely spaced parallel 

approaches). To achieve NextGen safety and efficiency gains, changes in roles and responsibilities will occur 

between pilots and ANSP and between both groups and the automation systems they use. The FAA must 

understand and address issues such as mode confusion, transitions, and reversions to maintain appropriate 

levels of situation awareness and workload. 

A core human factors issue is ensuring the right human operators receive the right information at the right 

time to make the right decisions. As NextGen advances, the environment will include an increased reliance on 

collaborative and distributed decision-making. The system must provide information to participants (e.g., 

pilots, ANSP, and airline operation centers) in a fashion that facilitates a shared understanding of phenomena 

(e.g., weather, wake). The system must integrate the format, content, timeliness, and presentation of that 

information with other information provided to decision makers and automated decision support tools. This 
 

46 Chapter 2 

A reduction in fAtAlities, injuries, 

A nd A dverse h eAlth impActs due to 

AerospAce oper Ations 

H uman

 P rotection 

r &D G oal 5 
 

R&D t a R get 

By 2016, demonstrate a two-thirds reduction in the rate of aerospace-related fatalities and significant injuries.* 

M etho D of vali D ation 

The approach includes preventing injuries during regular operations and protecting people in the event of a 

crash. Validation of the supporting milestones will include demonstrations, analysis, modeling, simulations, 

full-scale testing, and initial standards. Validation of the R&D target will include analysis of U.S. accident data. 

Results from R&D Goal 6 - Safe Aerospace Vehicles will contribute to the interim and final measurements 

of the reduction. The safety evaluation (under R&D Goal 9 - System Knowledge) will support the interim 

assessment of progress and validation of the R&D target. The demonstration will show that the R&D is 

sufficient to meet the targeted operational improvement. 

f u n D ing R equi R e M ents - R&D g oal 5 

The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero 

funding listed support this goal with FAA staff resources only. 

Budget BLI Program Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Notes Type 

A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A11.j Aeromedical Research R,E&D 11,617 11,420 11,477 11,662 11,933 100% of total program 

A11.d Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/ 

Digital System Safety R,E&D 1,621 1,562 1,554 1,571 1,605 30% of total program 

-- Airport Cooperative Research - Safety AIP 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 50% of total program 

-- Airport Technology Research - Safety AIP 5,504 5,548 5,548 5,548 5,548 35% of total program 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 6,852 6,718 6,744 6,848 7,006 84% of total program 

A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 1,473 1,378 1,350 1,354 1,380 9% of total program 

Total ($000) 29,567 29,126 29,171 29,482 29,972 

* This R&D Target uses the same baseline as used in the 2009 Flight Plan. 

Chapter 2 47 
		


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

 

M ilestones 

Safe evacuation 

Prevent injuries or fatalities during
 

evacuations.
 

2012:	Define	composite	fuselage	fire	safety	design	

criteria.		(Fire	Research	and	Safety)

2012:	Develop	aircraft	rescue	and	fire-fighting	

procedures	and	equipment	standards	

to	address	double-decked	large	aircraft.		

(Airport	Technology	Research	-	Safety)

2015:	Establish	validation	parameters	for	

mathematical	models	that	can	evaluate	

whether	aircraft	type	designs	meet	

requirements	for	evacuation	and	emergency	

response	capability,	in	lieu	of	actual	tests.		

(Aeromedical	Research)

turbulence 

Prevent injuries and fatalities due to 

turbulence. (Weather Program) 

2012:	Transition	mountain-wave	turbulence	

forecast	capability	for	implementation.

2015:	Transition	turbulence	forecast	capability	for	

all	flight	levels	for	implementation.

2016:	Transition	global	turbulence	forecast	
 

capability	for	implementation.
 

2017:	 Transition	convectively-induced	turbulence	

forecast	capability	for	implementation.

HazardouS weatHer 

Prevent injuries and fatalities due to
 

hazardous weather.
 

2014:	Develop	data	and	methods	for	guidance	

material	for	the	airworthiness	acceptance	

criteria	and	test	methods	for	engines	in	

simulated	high	ice	water	content	(HIWC)	

environments. (Aircraft	Icing	–	Atmospheric	

Hazards/Digital	System	Safety)

occupant reStraint 

Improve occupant restraint systems to 

reduce injuries and fatalities. 

2014:	Establish	design	criteria	for	restraint	

systems	that	protect	occupants	at	the	highest	

impact	levels	that	the	aircraft	structure	can	

sustain.		(Aeromedical	Research;	Advanced	

Materials/Structural	Safety)

48 Chapter 2 
 

 

 


 


 


 


 

Airports 

Prevent injuries and fatalities due to 

aircraft overrun. (Airport Technology 

Research - Safety) 

2011: Complete evaluation of new airport runway 

pavement groove shape to reduce risk of 

overrun due to hydroplaning. 

CAbin Air quAlity 

Reduce health risk to aircrew and 

passengers due to cabin environmental 

threats. (Aeromedical Research) 

P

2010: Validate computational models of chemical 

air contaminants, such as volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), to evaluate health and 

safety impacts on passengers and crew. 

[COMPLETED] 

2012: Accomplish experimental projects in 

support of regulations, certification, and 

operations for existing Aviation Rulemaking 

Committees by providing data and guidance 

for new or revised regulation of airliner 

cabin environment standards. 

2012: Develop and validate chemical kinetic 

models for bleed air systems for health and 

safety effects on passengers and crew. 

2014: Develop and analyze methods to detect 

and analyze aircraft cabin contamination 

including chemical-biological hazards and 

other airborne irritants. 

2014: Apply and validate advanced air sensing 

technology for VOCs in the aircraft cabin 

environment. 

2015: Develop bleed air contamination models of 

engine compressors and high temperature 

air system for effects on the health and safety 

of passengers and crew. 

CommerC i A l spACe 

Identify the requirements for safe
 

commercial space transportation
 

operations. (Commercial Space
 

Transportation Safety)
 

P

2008: Conduct a study to provide a basic 

understanding of what is necessary in an 

Informed Consent form for commercial space 

flight participants. [COMPLETED] 

Hu m A n AeromediCAl s Afety And 

H e AltH risk m A n Agement 

Identify and manage human aeromedical 

safety and health risks. 

2012: Assess role of airports and airlines in the 

spread of vector-borne diseases. (Airport 

Cooperative Research - Safety) 

2015: Incorporate aerospace medical issues in the 

development of safety strategies concerning 

pilot impairment, incapacitation, spatial 

disorientation, and other aeromedicalrelated factors that contribute to loss of 

aircraft control. (Aeromedical Research) 

2015: Develop advanced methods to extract 

aeromedical information for prognostic 

identification of human safety risks. 

(Aeromedical Research) 

2015: Develop a methodology to compile, classify, 

and assess aviation-related injuries, the 

mechanisms that resulted in these injuries 

and their relationship to autopsy findings, 

medical certification data, aircraft cabin 

configurations, and biodynamic testing: 

Aerospace Accident Injury and Autopsy Data 

System. (Aeromedical Research) 

2016: Apply and develop advances in gene 

expression, toxicology, and bioinformatics 

technology and methods to define 

human response to aerospace stressors. 

(Aeromedical Research) 

Chapter 2 49 
 

 

 


 

Progress in FY 2010: Human Protection 

Safety remains the highest priority of the Agency. The FAA Flight Plan has the primary goal to increase safety, 

achieving the lowest possible accident rate and constantly improving safety with the objective to reduce by half 

the rate of commercial air carrier fatalities. This R&D Goal supports the human protection element of 

increased safety with the R&D Target: by 2016, demonstrate a two-thirds reduction in the rate of aerospacerelated fatalities and significant injuries. 

Since 2006, aeromedical research has produced strategies to protect pilots and passengers by conducting 

medical data analysis, analyzing the effects of medications and other substances on pilots, identifying 

biomarkers to assess environmental stressors (fatigue, alcohol, hypoxia), developing medical certification 

criteria, assessing the injury potential of side-facing seats, improving airliner exit signs and passenger briefing 

materials, and demonstrating evacuation models. Fire and airport safety research has delivered new materials, 

testing procedures, and equipment that have lowered the incidence of on-board fires, mitigated the severity of 

fires, and provided passengers and crew with precious time to escape the consequences of post-crash fires. 

Results achieved in 2010 include: 

Fast Fluid Dynamics Model: 

The Airliner Cabin Environment Research (ACER) Program validated computational models of chemical air 

contaminants, such as volatile organic compounds, used to evaluate health and safety impacts on passengers 

and crew. Further study will examine the performance of these advanced models for different cabin airflow 

conditions. (Aeromedical Research) 

Aircraft Cabin Contaminants: 

The program developed methods to detect and analyze aircraft cabin contaminants including chemicalbiological and other airborne hazards. Sampling resulted in positive detection of rhinovirus, influenza A and 

influenza B, and corona virus. In addition, sampling and analysis found pathogens on aircraft, including 

bacillus anthraces, pseudomalli, salmonella, E coli, klebsiella pnumoniae, acinetobacter baumannii, 

clostridium botulinum (non-human types), mycobacterium tuberculosis, rickettsia, staphylococcus aureus, 

and streptococcus pneumoniae. Researchers measured ozone and found it to be moderate to high on 

domestic flights without ozone converters. They also found elevated ozone levels on transoceanic flights 

equipped with ozone converters. This study helps to identify contaminants that could affect crew and 

passenger health and safety and will help lead to mitigation strategies. (Aeromedical Research)
 

50 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aviation Child Restraint Certification: 

Development of Child Restraint Systems (CRSs) to meet the existing aviation performance standards, 

TSO-C100b and Society of Automotive Engineers SAE-AS5276/1, has proven challenging. The existing 

test requirements call for a combination of worst-case belt anchor location, belt tension, and seat cushion 

properties and dimensions that were typical at the time of the original specifications. These parameters may 

no longer be representative of the majority of current aircraft seats. Difficulties meeting the standards based 

on this configuration may be inadvertently hindering the availability of CRSs with improved performance. 

The FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) has evaluated the test parameters to determine if revision 

of TSO-C100b could improve the relevancy of the tests while maintaining the same level of safety. The 

parameters identified for potential revision were the lap belt anchor location, seat pan dimensions, and the 

CRS installation procedure. The review of FMVSS-213 identified some requirements applicable to Aviation 

Child Safety Devices (ACSDs) not addressed by TSO-C100b or SAE AS5276/1, and some addressed by those 

standards but in a different way. Incorporating the applicable FMVSS-213 requirements cited in this review 

into the aviation standards should provide the same safety benefits for ACSDs as intended for the automotive 

CRSs for which the requirements were developed. Using applicable automotive requirements would also allow 

ACSD users to benefit from the extensive research that went into the development of those requirements. 

DOT report (in press) Aviation Child Safety Device Performance Standards Review by DeWeese R.L., et al. 

(Aeromedical Research) 

Performance of Evacuation Slides at Altitude: 

A cooperative research program between CAMI and the aviation industry assessed the technical 

specifications for emergency evacuation slides and life vests that require operational capability at airport 

altitudes, ranging from 1,000 feet to 15,000 feet above sea level. The study’s findings confirmed the 

regulatory language concerned with human safety. (Aeromedical Research) 

Alcohol and Drug Use in Fatal Aviation Accidents: 

The study assessed alcohol and drug use in fatal aviation accidents. Data was extracted from the FAA 

forensic toxicology database for all pilots who died in an aviation accident from 2004 to 2008. The results 

of this study allow investigators to examine trends and enhance strategies to improve aviation safety. DOT 

report (in press) Substances Present in Civil Aviation Pilot Fatalities from Aviation Accidents During 2004-

2008 by Canfield D.V., et al. (Aeromedical Research) 

Illumination of Aircraft at Altitude by Laser Beams: 

The study examined the frequency of aviation-related laser incidents by altitude of occurrence. The study 

analyzed 2,492 reported events during the period from 2004 to 2008. The results will aid the development of 

educational materials and other risk management strategies. DOT report (in press) Illumination of Aircraft 

at Altitude by Laser Beams: A 5-year Study Period (2004-2008) by Nakagawara V., et al. (Aeromedical 

Research) 

Medications: Postmortem Toxicological Findings: 

The study analyzed the use of any medication reported by pilots during physical examinations in comparison 

with postmortem toxicological findings. A total of 234 cases were considered, addressing fatalities occurring 

during 2008. The results of this research will enhance accident investigation and medical certification 

decision-making processes. Abstract Comparison between Pilot Medications Reported During their 

Physical Exam and CAMI’s Postmortem Toxicological Findings by Flores, K., et al. (Aeromedical Research) 

Chapter 2 51 
 

 

 

 

 

Distribution of Oxycodone in Postmortem Fluids and Tissues: 

A study conducted by CAMI scientists evaluated the distribution of oxycodone, a heavily used and abused 

analgesic (painkiller) agent, in postmortem specimens collected from fatal aviation accidents. The study 

developed improved solid-phase extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry methods in support 

of accident investigation efforts. DOT/FAA/AM-10/11, Distribution of Oxycodone in Postmortem Fluids 

and Tissues by Botch S.R., et al. (Aeromedical Research) 

Identification of Fatigue Biomarkers: 

Researchers completed a study on the effects on gene expression due to 36 hours of sleep deprivation. This 

research effort involved collaboration with the U.S. Air Force (Brooks Air Force Base). Results identified a 

set of high-probability biomarkers for sleep deprivation that will support the development of Fatigue Risk 

Management Systems. (Aeromedical Research) 

Epoxy-Graphite Composite Aircraft: 

New epoxy-graphite composite aircraft raise fire safety concerns related to hidden in-flight fire and 

fuel tank flammability. Research developed a new flammability test method to ensure that a composite 

fuselage does not present a greater risk than a conventional aluminum fuselage during a moderately 

severe hidden in-flight fire in an inaccessible area of the cabin. The test confirmed the availability of 

composite materials that prevent the spread of flames and lower the risk of uncontrollable in-flight fire. 

(Fire Research and Safety) 

Composite Wing Fuel Tanks: 

Composite wing fuel tanks may have a greater tendency to absorb and trap heat from the sun than traditional 

aluminum tanks, increasing the risk of fuel tank explosions, while aluminum wing fuel tanks cool down 

significantly when an aircraft is airborne, causing flammable fuel vapors to condense. Research tested 

aluminum and composite fuel tanks under identical heating conditions and found that the composite wing 

tank reached much higher internal (ullage) air temperatures and fuel vapor concentrations than the aluminum 

tank. Using a wind tunnel to simulate typical flight speeds, research found that both the aluminum and 

composite wing tanks cooled down rapidly. Results showed a significant increase in flammability exposure of a 

composite fuel tank compared to a traditional aluminum tank. The FAA will publish a report describing these 

findings in early FY 2011. (Fire Research and Safety) 

Results from research in aeromedical, fire, and airport safety form the basis of advisory circulars and other FAA 

technical and regulatory documents, appear in various scientific publications, and support the conduct of aircraft 

accident investigations. Aeromedical research focuses on far-term agency needs, particularly in the fields of 

functional genomics and bioinformatics, both offering breakthrough technologies and practices essential to the 

success of safety management systems that involve human operators and the predictive assessment of risk. 

Far-term fire safety research focuses on development of environmentally friendly and ultra-fire resistant 

materials and post-crash fire-fighting equipment and technologies. The combined outputs from the programs 

supporting this goal are on track to reach the R&D Target by 2016. With increasing demands on pilots and crew 

and rapid changes in aircraft size, material, and components, research in this area will become increasingly 

important. The challenge is to sustain these research competencies for the far-term, maintaining our nation’s 

world-class status and laboratory capabilities in aerospace medicine, fire safety, and airport technology. 

52 Chapter 2 
Chapter 2 53 
 

 

54 Chapter 2 

A reduction in Accidents A nd 

incidents due to AerospAce vehicle 

design, structure, or subsystems 

S afe a ero S pace

 V ehicle S 

r &D G oal 6 
 

R&D t a R get 

By 2016, demonstrate damage and fault tolerant vehicles and systems. 

M etho D of vali D ation 

The approach includes preventing accidents due to engine failures, structural failures, and system failures; 

developing a fireproof cabin; integrating unmanned aircraft and commercial space vehicles into the NAS; 

and addressing safety problems specific to general aviation (GA) aircraft. Validation of the R&D target will 

include analysis, modeling, flight simulation, physical demonstration, prototypes, and initial standards. The 

results from this goal will contribute to the R&D target to demonstrate a two-thirds reduction in fatalities and 

significant injuries under R&D Goal 5 - Human Protection. 

f u n D ing R equi R e M ents - R&D g oal 6 

The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero 

funding listed support this goal with FAA staff resources only. 

Budget BLI Program Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Notes Type 

A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R,E&D 2,605 2,533 2,532 2,566 2,623 100% of total program 

A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure 

Prevention Research R,E&D 1,502 1,438 1,425 1,439 1,470 100% of total program 

A11.d Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/ 

Digital System Safety R,E&D 3,783 3,645 3,625 3,666 3,746 70% of total program 

A11.e Continued Airworthiness R,E&D 12,085 11,599 11,514 11,629 11,879 96% of total program 

4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation System 

Development (CAASD) F&E 684 677 677 677 677 3% of R&D program in FY 2012 

-- Commercial Space Transportation 

Safety OPS 500 500 500 500 500 50% of total program 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 1,305 1,280 1,284 1,304 1,334 16% of total program 

A11.m NextGen - Alternative Fuels for 

General Aviation R,E&D 2,071 1,984 1,968 1,987 2,030 100% of total program 

A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems R,E&D 3,611 3,474 3,452 3,489 3,565 100% of total program 

A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research R,E&D 3,504 3,373 3,353 3,390 3,463 100% of total program 

Total ($000) 31,650 30,502 30,331 30,647 31,287 

Chapter 2 55 
	 	 	 	 	


 


 

 


 


 

 


 


 

 

M ilestones 

EnginE s

Prevent engine failures. 

In-flight icing 

2014: Develop data and methods for guidance 

material for the airworthiness acceptance 

criteria and test methods for engines in 

simulated high ice water content (HIWC) 

environments. (Aircraft Icing – Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System Safety) 

Engine and component structures 

2014:	Complete	a	certification	tool* that will 

predict the risk of failure of turbine engine 

rotor disks that may contain undetected 

material and manufacturing anomalies. 

(Propulsion and Fuel Systems) 

Uncontained engine failures 

2013: Develop and verify a generalized damage 

and failure model with regularization for 

aluminum and titanium materials impacted 

during engine failure events. (Aircraft 

Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research) 

structurE s

Prevent accidents due to structural
 

failures or fire.
 

2010:	Develop	certification	methods	for	damage	

Ptolerance and fatigue of composite airframes. 

(Advanced Materials/Structural Safety) 

[COMPLETED] 

2011: Provide comprehensive guidance on lithium 

battery fire safety.		(Fire Research and Safety)

2011: Apply damage-detection technologies for 

inspecting remote and inaccessible areas 

of in-service aircraft with metal structures. 

(Continued Airworthiness) 

2013: Establish required skills and develop 

training materials for all second level 

composite structures knowledge areas 

(maintenance, inspection, structural 

engineering, and manufacturing) for 

operational safety. (Advanced Materials/ 

Structural Safety) 

systE m s

Prevent accidents due to system failures. 

Avionics 

2013: Identify safety issues and propose mitigation 

approaches when software development 

techniques and tools are used in airborne 

systems. (Aircraft Icing – Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System Safety) 

Flight controls 

2011: Complete the study in usage, design, and 

training issues for rudder control systems in 

transport aircraft. 

(Continued Airworthiness) 

* Design Assessment of Reliability With INspection 

(DARWIN®) 

56 Chapter 2 
 

	 	

 

 


 


 


 


 

 

 


 


 


 


 

 

 


 


 


 


 

Unmanned aircraft 

Integrate unmanned aircraft systems 

(UASs) into the civil airspace. 

(Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research) 

2012: Determine a set of performance 

characteristics and operational requirements 

for sense and avoid (SAA) technologies. 

2013: Analyze data and identify potential safety 

implications of system performance 

impediments of communications latency. 

2016: Conduct field evaluations of UAS technologies

in an operational environment, including 

SAA, control and communications, and 

contingency management technologies. The 

documented results will be used to develop 

certification and airworthiness standards.

General aviation 

Reduce GA accidents. 

2013: Develop technical data on rotorcraft that 

provide	guidance	for	certification	of	Health	

and	Usage	Monitoring	Systems	(HUMS)	for	

usage credits. (Continued Airworthiness) 

2016: Develop engine and fuel test methods to 

evaluate the performance, safety, durability, 

and operability of unleaded avgas. (NextGen 

– Alternative Fuels for General Aviation) 

commercial space 

Identify the requirements for safe
 

commercial space transportation
 

vehicles. (Commercial Space
 

Transportation Safety)
 

P

2010: Conduct a study to examine the operational 

environment, determine the number of 

sensors	needed,	define	the	data	recovery	

process, and provide black box survivability 

criteria for use in developing requirements 

for a black box system to be used in 

commercial space transportation systems 

(expendable launch vehicles and reusable 

launch vehicles (RLV)). [COMPLETED] 

2011: Conduct a study to provide information 

on the capability, limitations, and 

considerations for global positioning system 

(GPS) implementation in space launch and 

reentry environments, such as Space and Air 

Traffic	Control,	which	will	be	used	to	help	

determine requirements for GPS usage and 

future technologies. 

2011: Conduct a study to identify means of 

preventing	hazards	(such	as	fires	and	

explosions) involving nontraditional 

monopropellants	and	oxidizers	(specifically	

hydrogen	peroxide,	H2O2,	and	nitrous	

oxide,	N2O)	used	in	propulsion	systems	in	

commercial space applications 

2011: Conduct a study to provide guidance to the 

FAA and industry on the use of operational 

limitations and inspection requirements for 

suborbital RLVs comprised of composite 

materials. The results of this study will help 

to develop effective rules for operations 

and maintenance for use of composite 

materials, as they apply to commercial space 

transportation. 

Chapter 2 57 
 

 

Progress in FY 2010: saFe aerosPace Vehicles 

Safe aerospace vehicles are essential to reaching both the FAA Flight Plan objective to reduce in half the rate of 

commercial air carrier fatalities and the JPDO NextGen goal of a two-thirds reduction in fatalities and 

significant injuries by 2025. The R&D Target to demonstrate damage and fault tolerant vehicles and systems 

by 2016 is appropriate for both plans. 

Since 2006, FAA sponsored research has provided aircraft manufacturing, maintenance, and inspection sectors 

with handbooks, tools, prototypes, and procedures that better enable them to comply with FAA regulations. At 

the same time, the research has improved the knowledge base of FAA regulators regarding the use of new 

materials (composites, non-halon fire suppressants), new procedures (flammability tests, bonded repairs, 

guidance on aircraft icing, certification methods for damage tolerance and fatigue of composite airframes, 

guidance on operation and maintenance of composite materials for suborbital RLVs), and new technologies 

(unmanned aircraft systems). 

Results achieved in 2010 include: 

Certification Methods for Damage Tolerance and Fatigue of Composite Airframes: 

The program developed a public body of knowledge based on experiences gained over decades of design and 

operation of advanced composite structures. A working group was used to share information from the major 

manufacturers of structures made from these materials. The group held workshops in America, Europe, and 

Asia to gain insight from the experienced professionals in manufacturing, maintenance, and operations that 

have dealt with these structures during their operational deployment. In addition to the shared information, 

the research results from this program allowed updates of FAA AC 20-107 revision B and several standard 

industry references, including Composite Handbook 17. (Advanced Materials/Structural Safety) 

Fire Safety of Lithium Batteries: 

Lithium batteries, including lithium primary, lithium ion, and lithium polymer, have characteristic 

fire hazards and pose unique challenges related to their safe shipment in aircraft cargo compartments. 

Research found that aircraft Halon 1301 systems could extinguish lithium-ion battery fires and resulted in 

a recommendation that operators ship lithium ion batteries in Class C cargo compartments. More research 

on fireproof containers with venting capability is required for lithium ion battery shipment in the main cargo 

compartment of a freighter (Class E compartment), which is not required to have a halon system. Lithium 

primary batteries are a greater fire threat because this type of battery in thermal runaway consists of a metal 

fire, which halon or other common extinguishing agents cannot extinguish. Research found metal shipping 

containers recommended by ICAO to be very ineffective because a buildup of pressure causes the lids to 

deform and fail, ejecting the flammable burning batteries away from the container, which could ignite other 

cargo. Research is investigating new approaches for safely shipping lithium primary batteries. The FAA 

needs to conduct more research on lithium polymer batteries, which have far larger quantities of stored 

energy in one unit as compared to the more common metal cylinder batteries. In 2010, the FAA issued 

a Safety Alert for Operators that summarized research findings and warned operators of the dangers of 

lithium battery fires and the actions that can minimize these risks. (Fire Research and Safety) 

58 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

Black Box for Commercial Space Transportation Systems: 

A “black box” for space systems would provide key data to designers and operators after an anomaly 

and help prevent a recurrence. Researchers analyzed current FAA aviation black box data collection, 

operational, survivability and retrieval requirements and reviewed current flight data recorders used on the 

NASA shuttles. Based on their extensive experience with launch vehicles, they then developed a list of data 

parameters that would be critical in reconstructing damage or failures of space systems. Using these results, 

they mapped the derived space systems black box requirements to analogs currently used for commercial 

aviation. They found that it is possible that current aviation black boxes can be used for first generation 

commercial space transport systems (specifically RLVs with low maximum velocities and brief times in 

space) with relatively little modification. Results were presented in the paper “Black Box” for Reusable 

Launch Vehicles - Considerations and Potential Flight Test Opportunities, at the International Association 

for the Advancement of Space Safety Conference in May 2010. (Commercial Space Transportation Safety) 

Engine Containment Analysis: 

In 2010, the program developed a new material model for the LS-DYNA explicit finite element code used for 

modeling engine fragment impact in aircraft. The model will allow FAA engineers to validate proprietary 

tools, streamline the certification process, and help mitigate fatalities and injuries when these events 

occur. It is more accurate at predicting different failure modes than existing models, and the FAA/NASA/ 

Industry LS-DYNA Aerospace Quality Control Working Group that models engine impact and failure events 

supports the model. In collaboration with NASA, George Washington University, Ohio State University, 

and the LSDYNA Aerospace Users Group, the program completed development of a failure material model 

for aluminum 2024 based on plastic flow stress theory. This new model takes advantage of the exponential 

growth of computing capabilities and leverages inexpensive computer memory by programming actual 

failure data for various tests. Researchers tested the model and generated the original failure surface. 

The model is the first to predict multiple failure modes without retuning to the new failure condition. 

Development and validation of the model, with regularization for aluminum and titanium, is on track for 

completion in 2013. (Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research) 

Turbine Engine Rotor-burst Mitigation: 

Uncontained engine failure events release high-energy fragments that can impact and disable critical 

systems and reduce the airworthiness of the vehicle. When multiple systems are disabled, the potential for 

an accident increases. System redundancy, separation, and thoughtful component location in the design of 

an aircraft can make significant improvement in the ability to survive one of these high-energy events. The 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program collaborates with Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake 

to support the industry by developing a multiple-engine fragment analysis process to minimize this threat. 

The Uncontained Engine Debris Damage Model (UEDDAM) uses existing military threat analysis tools and 

supports the certification process with tailored output, matching the certification package requirements 

in AC20-128. The UEDDAM code has been improved several times though this development based on 

industry feedback. In 2010, a major revision to UEDDAM was completed (Version 4.0) that allows the use 

of modular military codes that make UEDDAM compatible with future military code revisions. (Aircraft 

Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research) 

Chapter 2 59 
 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 

New Developments in Turbine Engine Component Risk Assessment Software: 

Over the past few decades, a number of uncontained aircraft engine failures have been traced to rare 

material anomalies in the rotating components of aircraft gas turbine engines. Since the occurrence 

rates are relatively small, a probabilistic approach is used to assess the risk of fracture including the 

potential risk reduction associated with non-destructive inspections. The associated risk of fracture can 

be predicted using DARWIN®, a probabilistic fracture mechanics software code developed by Southwest 

Research Institute under FAA R&D funding. A new capability for automatic generation of life contours 

was developed in DARWIN 7.1 for application to two-dimensional finite element models. When the user 

executes this option, an anomaly of one or more user-specified sizes is automatically placed at each of the 

nodes in the finite element model. The automatic geometry model process generates a fracture model at 

each anomaly location, and then the fatigue crack growth lifetime to failure is computed for each model. 

(Propulsion and Fuel Systems) 

Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS): 

The Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS) is an effort led by the 

FAA to continue the Handbook process entitled “Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle 

Structures,” (MIL-HDBK-5). The Handbook is recognized worldwide as the most reliable source for 

verified design allowables needed for metallic materials, fasteners, and joints used in the design and 

maintenance of aircraft and space vehicles. Consistent and reliable methods are used to collect, analyze, 

and present statistically-based aircraft and aerospace material and fastener properties. Towards this goal, 

the commercial version of the MMPDS-05 was released April 2010. (Continued Airworthiness) 

UAS Technology Survey: 

Research providers completed a UAS technology survey that encompassed several key technical areas: 

regulatory study; propulsion technology; SAA technology; command, control, and communication issues; 

and emergency recovery and flight termination. Each area of study included a technology status and 

regulatory gap analysis. Draft reports are complete and are in the publication process. (Unmanned
 

Aircraft Systems Research)
 

The R&D Target to demonstrate damage and fault tolerant vehicles and systems by 2016 has already compelled 

researchers to push the boundaries of maintenance and inspection technologies for both metallic and 

composite structures and to develop new fire resistant materials and agents. Yet significant challenges remain 

as researchers explore prognostic and structural health monitoring systems, advancements in non-destructive 

inspection techniques on critical engine parts, risk assessment and risk management for small airplanes, and 

threats to composite aircraft structures while at the service gate and on the flight line. Introduction of UAS and 

commercial space vehicles into the NAS has generated two new areas of focus. One is airworthiness and 

operational standards for UAS. The other is effective rules for operation and maintenance of composite 

materials and nontraditional propellants for commercial space transportation. The key to success is 

collaboration with industry, academia, and other government agencies. The combined outputs from the 

programs supporting this goal are on track to reach the R&D Target by 2016. 

60 Chapter 2 
• 61 
 

 

 

 

62 Chapter 2 

A reduction in Accidents 

A nd incidents due to AerospAce 

vehicle oper Ations in the Air 

A nd on the ground 

S e p a r a t i o n 

a S S u r a n c e 

r &D G oal 7 
 

R&D t a R get 

By 2016, develop initial standards and procedures for self-separation. 

M etho D of vali D ation 

The approach includes conducting research and development to support the standards, procedures, training, 

and policy required to implement the NextGen operational improvements leading to self-separation. This 

goal does not develop technology but prepares for the operational use of the technology. Validation of 

the R&D target will include demonstrating that the research and development is sufficient for the initial 

policy and standards that are required to certify technology, procedures, and training needed to implement 

self-separation. 

f u n D ing R equi R e M ents - R&D g oal 7 

The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero 

BLI Program Name Budget 

Type 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Notes 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development 

Office R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human 

Factors R,E&D 9,934 9,534 9,464 9,561 9,767 100% of total program 

1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence 

- Re-categorization F&E 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

Total ($000) 9,934 9,534 9,464 9,561 9,767 

Chapter 2 63 
M ilestones 

Surface/runway operationS 

awareneSS 

Support procedures, equipage, 

training, and design to enable 

enhanced aircraft spacing for 

surface movements. (NextGen - SelfSeparation Human Factors) 

2012: Complete initial research to evaluate and 

recommend minimum display standards 

for use of enhanced and synthetic vision 

systems, as well as airport markings and 

signage, to conduct surface movements 

across a range of visibility conditions. 

2014: Evaluate and recommend minimum display 

standards and operational procedures for 

use of CDTI to support pilot awareness of 

potential ground conflicts and to support 

transition between taxi, takeoff, departure 

and arrival phases of flight. 

2016: Complete research to enable enhanced 

aircraft spacing for surface movements in 

low-visibility conditions guided by enhanced 

and synthetic vision systems, as well as 

cockpit displays of aircraft and ground 

vehicles and associated procedures. 

reduced Separation 

Support procedures, equipage, 

training, and design to enable reduced 

separation. (NextGen - Self-Separation 

Human Factors) 

2011: Complete initial research to evaluate the 

impact and potential risks associated with 

use of TCAS in NextGen procedures. 

2014: Complete research to identify likely human 

error modes and recommend mitigation 

strategies in closely spaced arrival/ 

departure routings. 

2015: Complete research and provide human 

factors guidance to reduce arrival and 

departure spacing including variable 

separation in a mixed equipage environment. 

delegated Separation 

Support procedures, equipage, training, 

and cockpit design to enable delegated 

separation. (NextGen - Self-Separation 

Human Factors) 

2011: Complete initial research to evaluate and 

recommend procedures, equipage, and 

training to safely conduct oceanic and en 

route pair-wise delegated separation. 

2015: Enable reduced and delegated separation in 

oceanic airspace and en route corridors. 

64 Chapter 2 
 

Progress in FY 2010: seParation assurance 

This R&D Goal and R&D Target support NextGen operational improvements (OIs) while maintaining the safety 

and capacity goals of the Flight Plan. The R&D Target is to develop initial standards and procedures for selfseparation by 2016. 

The NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors Program develops human factors scientific and technical 

information to implement NextGen capabilities, addressing human performance and coordination among 

pilots and ANSP, human system integration, and error management strategies. The research supports Aviation 

Safety (AVS) specialists who establish the standards and policies for NextGen operations, certify compliance 

with those standards, and assure continued operational safety once the adoption of new aircraft technologies 

generates procedure changes for flight crew and controllers. The research also supports NextGen OIs leading 

to reduced and delegated self-separation, including ADS-B enabled applications (Oceanic in-Trail Procedures 

(OTP), Interval Management (IM), and Closely Spaced Parallel Operations (CSPO)) and Equivalent Visual 

Operations (EVO), among others. 

The NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors Program, initiated in FY 2009, has defined more than two 

dozen research projects to support its objective, and research is scheduled to produce detailed R&D plans by 

the second quarter of FY 2011. These R&D plans outline the human factors efforts required for successful 

implementation of NextGen OIs for specific reduced and delegated separation applications. Key planned 

products include descriptions of research and operational experience for each of the application areas, 

technical information in specialized topic areas such as flight crew training for advanced NextGen flight deck 

automation, and identification of human factors challenges posed by the current implementation of the 

Navigation Reference System, a precursor system enabling trajectory operations under NextGen. 

AnticipAted outputs include: 

• Defining the potential impact and human factors issues due to new technologies such as enhanced 

vision, synthetic vision, and EFBs on separation activities 

• Defining human factors technical information needed to support the development of standards, 

procedures, and training by FAA Flight Standards to implement plans for reduced aircraft separation 

and recovery to classic air traffic operations due to abnormal events 

• Developing procedures and training needed to implement new roles and responsibilities for pilots and 

controllers during delegated separation operations 

• Defining human and system performance requirements for separation activities, e.g., spacing, merging, 

and passing 

• Developing and applying error management strategies and risk mitigation factors to reduce 

automation-related errors associated with enhanced separation operations 

• Developing human factors criteria for the successful use of flight deck performance monitoring and 

decision support tools as they relate to enhanced separation maneuvers such as spacing, merging, and 

passing; and determining how conformance alerts are communicated and resolved between flight deck 

and ground monitors, for example in TBO, and in RNAV/RNP approach and departure operations 

While human factors research in the important area of self-separation is still in its challenging early stages, all 

projects are on a firm track toward meeting the 2016 R&D Target. Understanding the impact of new technologies 

on human performance and the need to develop error management strategies and associated training is on 

schedule. Efforts to produce detailed research plans for the ADS-B enabled applications mentioned earlier (OTP, 

IM, CSPO) are also on schedule. Researchers will execute the plans to produce human factors technical data that 

will allow the FAA to implement the NextGen OIs, enabling reduced and delegated self-separation applications. 

Chapter 2 65 
 

Common, aC Curate, and realtime information of aerospaC e 

operations, events, Crises, 

obstaCles, and weather 

S ituational 

a warene SS 

r &D G oal 8 

66 Chapter 2 
 

R&D t a R get 

By 2016, demonstrate common, real-time awareness of ongoing air operations, events, crises, and weather in 

all phases of flight and at all types of airports by pilots and controllers. 

M etho D of vali D ation 

The approach includes supporting development of standards and procedures for weather-in-the-cockpit 

to provide the flight crew awareness of weather conditions and forecasts; demonstrating wake turbulence 

procedures and technologies to support self-separation; and improving situational awareness at airports. 

Validation of the R&D target will include pilot-in-the-loop simulations, modeling, tests, physical 

demonstrations, and development of initial standards and procedures. 

f u n D ing R equi R e M ents - R&D g oal 8 

The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero 

funding listed support this goal with FAA staff resources only. 

Budget BLI Program Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Notes Type 

-- Airport Cooperative Research - Safety AIP 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

-- Airport Technology Research - Safety AIP 10,221 10,303 10,303 10,303 10,303 65% of total program 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation System 

Development (CAASD) F&E 3,646 3,610 3,610 3,610 3,610 16% of R&D program in FY 2012 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development 

Office R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

1A01D NAS Weather Requirements F&E 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 100% of total program 

1A08H NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers 

(SNT) F&E 6,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 6,000 100% of total program 

A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the 

Cockpit R,E&D 9,186 8,845 8,795 8,891 9,084 100% of total program 

1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction F&E 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 100% of total program 

A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 13,256 12,402 12,146 12,186 12,424 81% of total program 

Total ($000) 48,309 43,159 42,853 46,990 47,420 

Chapter 2 67 

 


 


 


 


 


 

 

 

 
 


 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

 

 
 


 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

 

 
 


 

 

 

 

M ilestones 

Weather situational aWareness 

Develop common situational awareness 

for weather. 

Weather Information Improvements 

(Weather Program) 

P

2010:	Develop	CONUS	ceiling,	visibility,	and	flight	

category forecast capability. [COMPLETED] 

2012:	Demonstrate	1-3	hour	CONUS	ceiling,	
 

visibility,	and	flight	category	forecast	
 

capability. 

2013:	Transition	in-flight	icing	Alaska	forecast	for	

implementation. 

2014:	Demonstrate	1-12	hour	CONUS	ceiling,	
 

visibility,	and	flight	category	forecast	
 

capability. 

2016:	Transition	1-12	hour	CONUS	ceiling,	
 

visibility,	and	flight	category	forecast	
 

capability for implementation. 

68 

Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

(WTIC)*

 (NextGen - Weather Technology 

in the Cockpit) 

P

2010:	Assess bandwidth demand of graphical

icing	products	(Current	Icing	Product	and	

Forecast	Icing	Product)	and	graphical	

turbulence	products	(Graphical	Turbulence	

Guidance)	for	potential	delivery	via	existing	

and	planned	FAA	data	link	services.		

[COMPLETED] 

2011:	 Develop	NextGen	mid-term	concepts	of	

operation	and	user	requirements	for	the	

provision,	integration,	and	use	of	weather	

information	in	the	cockpit.

2011:	 Identify, validate, and document datalink

system	attributes	that	may	affect	use	of	

weather	in	the	cockpit.

2012:	Simulate and evaluate available cockpit
 

weather	technologies.
 

2013:	Develop	prototype	weather	modules	for	

flight	deck.

2014:	Simulate,	test,	and	evaluate	cockpit	use	of	

weather	decision	support	tools,	including	

probabilistic forecasts. 

2014:	Simulate,	test,	and	evaluate	fully-integrated	

cockpit	use	of	NextGen	operational	concepts,	

including	WTIC.

2015:	Demonstrate	the	integration	of	navigation	

information	and	flight	information,	

including	weather	information,	into	cockpit	

decision-making	and	shared	situational	

awareness	among	pilots,	dispatchers,	and	air	

traffic	controllers	supported	by	NextGen	air	

and	ground	capabilities.

* WTIC enables pilots and aircrews to engage in shared

situational	awareness	and	shared	responsibilities	with	controllers,	

dispatchers,	Flight	Service	Station	(FSS)	specialists,	and	others,	

pertaining	to	safe	and	efficient	preflight,	en	route,	and	post-flight	

aviation	safety	decisions	involving	weather.

Chapter 2 
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

airports 

Ensure safe airport operations. 

P

2010: Develop system enhancements for runway 

status lights. (Runway Incursion Reduction) 

[COMPLETED] 

P

2010: Develop advisory material to install 

new visual guidance systems. (Airport 

Technology Research - Safety) 

[COMPLETED] 

2011: Develop performance standards for avian 

radar use on airports. (Airport Technology 

Research- Safety) 

2012: Develop guidance material for airport 

planning to ensure consistency from the 

operator’s perspective from airport to 

airport. (Airport Technology Research 

- Safety) 

CommerCial spaC e 

Develop situational awareness for
 

commercial space transportation.
 

(Commercial Space Transportation
 

Safety)
 

P

2009: Conduct a study to determine the need to 

develop a temporal wind database to support 

the launch of wind-weighted, unguided, 

suborbital rockets launched from nonfederal 

launch sites. [COMPLETED] 

P

2009: Review integrated operations of reusable 

launch vehicles (RLV) from spaceports, 

joint use airport and spaceports, as well as 

the airspace surrounding those facilities 

and provide recommendations on how to 

safely integrate and conduct routine RLV 

operations. [COMPLETED] 

P

2009: Conduct a study to survey the existing 

technologies available for determining wind 

conditions from the upper troposphere to 

the stratosphere. The study will address 

possible modifications of radar wind 

profiler to obtain winds to greater altitudes 

than currently available. [COMPLETED] 

Chapter 2 69 
 

 

 

 

Progress in FY 2010: situational awareness 

Situational Awareness supports the FAA Flight Plan goals for increased safety and greater capacity and 

NextGen by having the R&D Target of demonstrating, by 2016, common, real-time awareness of ongoing air 

operations, events, crises, and weather in all phases of flight and at all types of airports by pilots and 

controllers. Programs in airports, weather, and runway incursion reduction support this goal. 

We continue to progress toward improved situational awareness. With the advent of ADS-B, the flight deck and 

the controller will have the same information and view as the pilot. As equipage comes on line, imagine a sky 

where everyone has the same situational awareness. In 2005, the R&D program conducted successful Runway 

Status Lights (RWSL) operational evaluations at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport and, today, continues to refine and 

demonstrate the system at other airports. Airport technology research has helped set new design and installation 

guidance for airport visual aids, and future FAA-developed procedures for lighting systems will rely on the these 

new standards. Improved technology and procedures also help to maintain operational activities during periods 

of low-visibility and inclement weather in the airport vicinity. Weather forecasting remains a high priority for the 

agency as bad weather in one location has the potential to impact the entire system. Research continues to 

advance icing and turbulence forecasting to bring weather information into the cockpit. 

Results achieved in 2010 include: 

National Ceiling and Visibility Forecast: 

The most deadly of GA encounters results from inadvertent flight into Instrument Meteorological Conditions 

(IMC) by a Visual Flight Rules pilot, or a poorly prepared Instrument Flight Rules pilot, causing the most 

common type of weather accident. There were 21 Visual Meteorological Conditions-into-IMC accidents in 

2008, of which 18 (86 percent) were fatal. Current Ceiling and Visibility work focuses on development of 

a probabilistic 1-10 hour forecast, updated hourly, with ceiling, visibility, and flight category known as the 

National Ceiling and Visibility Forecast (NCVf). In FY 2010, researchers developed a prototype NCVf system 

for evaluation in early FY 2011. This prototype will produce a 10-hour forecast for the Northeast CONUS. 

(Weather Program) 

Weather Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC): 

The program studied the feasibility of providing turbulence and icing data products directly to the cockpits 

of Parts 121, 135, and 91 civil aviation operators. The focus of the effort was specifically on bandwidth 

requirements and the suitability of communication systems currently fielded or planned to provide this 

data. The report detailed the initial findings of the study. The first phase of the effort investigated both the 

bandwidth available to weather services and the bandwidth required to provide those services. Researchers 

used a regional simulation methodology, modeling three regions of primary interest: the New York– 

Washington corridor, the Rocky Mountains, and Polar/Alaska. The study focused on four communications 

networks in common use (or planned for common use): ADS-B, VHF Digital Link Mode 2, Inmarsat, and 

Iridium. The first phase of this study has shown that providing in-flight turbulence and icing data is feasible 

with today’s communications technology. (NextGen – Weather Technology in the Cockpit) 

Guidebook for Wildlife Hazards in Airport Environment: 

The ACRP – Safety Program developed a guidebook that managers of GA airports can use to identify, 

understand, and mitigate wildlife hazards to aircraft in the airport environs. This guidebook provides a 

primer for addressing wildlife hazards but does not fulfill Part 139 certification requirements regarding 

wildlife. A brief reference guide and outreach materials for aircraft/wildlife hazards at GA airports 

accompany the guidebook. (ACRP) 

70 Chapter 2 
 

 

Advisory Circulars for Visual Guidance for Pilots: 

The program completed recommendations for incorporation an AC for visual guidance cues such as runway 

end lighting enhancements, improved spacing of in-pavement lighting fixtures on curves and improvements 

in airport paint marking materials to provide pilots improved cues for situational awareness. (Airport 

Technology Research - Safety) 

Runway Status Lights: 

System enhancements were complete as of March 5, 2010. The lights used (Runway Intersection Lights 

(RIL), Takeoff and Hold Lights (THL), and Runway Entrance Lights (REL)) consist of a series of inpavement red lights to warn pilots when it is unsafe to enter or cross a runway (REL), unsafe to take-off 

(THL), or unsafe to enter or cross a runway intersection (RIL). Boston is the first airport to use RIL in a 

prototype operational evaluation. Operational evaluation of RIL along with REL and THL started in July 

and will continue for three months. If the operational evaluation is successful during this timeframe, Boston 

Air Traffic may continue the operational evaluation until the future production RWSL system replaces them. 

(Runway Incursion Reduction) 

Situational awareness research is producing results. Studies have shown that RWSL provides optimal defense 

against 65 percent of the high-hazard runway conflicts without adversely affecting runway capacity or 

controller workload. Additionally, initial field evaluations showed a 70 percent reduction in runway incursions 

on a runway equipped with RWSL. Today, periodic updates to icing and turbulence data for the entire CONUS 

provide significant detail for aircraft in-flight to leverage for assistance in en route re-planning. However, the 

data formats are very large, and the bandwidth required to transmit them exceeds even the fastest links under 

study. A key challenge for the future is how to condense weather data for live transmission to the cockpit. This 

would ensure all aircraft receive required updates in a timely and efficient manner to support pilot decisionmaking during adverse weather. Future studies for the NextGen-WTIC Program will add detail to existing 

models and review aircraft equipage architectures and reception hardware to support condensing weather data 

products. The program plans to validate simulation results using real hardware, define a set of system 

requirements, and provide a system design that includes infrastructure architecture, data-types, and software 

services. By 2015, Weather Program research will include development of a forecast and nowcast capability for 

Alaska and extend the NCVf out to 30 hours. These capabilities will provide a common real-time situational 

awareness by air traffic management, pilots, and dispatch, enhancing NAS safety as well as capacity. However, 

meeting the operational needs in the air will also require that activities occurring inside the airport terminal are 

streamlined for maximum efficiency. Current research into airport passenger movement and decision-making 

will help to reduce wait times and improve not only operational schedules, but also the passenger’s travel 

experience. The combined outputs from the programs supporting this goal are on track to reach the R&D 

Target by 2016. 

Chapter 2 71 
 

 

 

 

72 Chapter 2 

A thorough understA nding of how 

the AerospAce system oper Ates, 

the impAct of c h A nge on system 

perform A nce A nd risk, A nd how the 

system impActs the n Ation 

S y S tem

 K nowledge 

R & d g oal 9 
 

R&D t a R get 

By 2016, understand economic (including implementation) and operational impact of system alternatives. 

M etho D of vali D ation 

The approach includes developing the information analysis and sharing system to support FAA and 

NextGen safety initiatives; generating guidelines to help stakeholders develop their own safety management 

systems; and modeling activities to help measure progress toward achieving safety, capacity, efficiency, 

and environmental goals. Validation of the R&D target will include analysis, modeling, prototypes, and 

demonstrations using safety, capacity, efficiency, and environmental metrics. The evaluation efforts under this 

goal support the interim assessment of progress and validation of the R&D targets under the following: R&D 

Goal 1 - Fast, Flexible, and Efficient, R&D Goal 2 - Clean and Quiet, and R&D Goal 5 - Human Protection. 

f u n D ing R equi R e M ents - R&D g oal 9 

The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero 

funding listed support this goal with FAA staff resources only. 

Budget BLI Program Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Notes Type 

A11.j Aeromedical Research R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

-- Airport Cooperative Research 

- Capacity AIP 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 33% of total program 

-- Airport Cooperative Research - Safety AIP 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 50% of total program 

1A01E Airspace Management Program F&E 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 100% of total program 

4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation System 

Development (CAASD) F&E 1,823 1,805 1,805 1,805 1,805 8% of R&D program in FY 2012 

-- Commercial Space Transportation 

Safety OPS 500 500 500 500 500 50% of total program 

A11.e Continued Airworthiness R,E&D 504 483 480 485 495 4% of total program 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development 

Office R,E&D 4,220 4,097 4,091 4,144 4,235 30% of total program 

1A08F NextGen - Operational Assessments F&E 10,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 100% of total program 

1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept 

Validation - Validation Modeling F&E 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 100% of total program 

1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management 

Transformation F&E 18,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 100% of total program 

1A01C Operations Concept Validation F&E 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 100% of total program 

1A01B System Capacity, Planning and 

Improvement F&E 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 100% of total program 

A11.h System Safety Management R,E&D 10,027 9,581 9,489 9,574 9,776 100% of total program 

Total ($000) 72,223 56,616 56,515 56,657 56,961 

Chapter 2 73 
 

 

 


 

M ilestones CapaCity and effiCienC y 

evaluation 

information analysis and 

sharing 

Develop an information management 

system to serve as the foundation 

for the analysis of data trends and 

the identification of potential safety 

hazards before accidents occur. 

(NextGen - System Safety Management 

Transformation) 

P

2009: Evaluate current information protection and 

assurance models and evaluate potential 

conflicts with privacy and consumer 

advocacy groups. [COMPLETED] 

2012: Validate the Net Enabled Operations 

(NEO) Architecture proof-of-concept for 

the sharing of aviation safety information 

among JPDO member agencies, 

participants, and stakeholders. 

2013: Complete the Aviation Safety Information 

Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) preimplementation activities, including concept 

definition, with other JPDO member 

agencies, participants, and stakeholders. 

Develop a system to increase safety of 

commercial operations. (System Safety 

Management) 

2011: Develop automated tools to monitor 

databases for potential safety issues.
 

2012: Demonstrate a working prototype of 

network-based integration of information 

extracted from diverse, distributed sources. 

Develop methods, metrics, and models to 

demonstrate that the modernized system 

can handle anticipated growth in traffic 

demand according to the Terminal Area 

Forecasts*

 for incremental years leading 

to the far-term NextGen. This evaluation 

will compare the modernized system 

with the current system using capacity 

and efficiency metrics.† 

P

2008: Demonstrate capacity increase to 130% 

of baseline levels‡ . (Operations Concept 

Validation; System Capacity, Planning and 

Improvement) [COMPLETED] 

2011: Demonstrate an increase in capacity and 

efficiency at 2018 forecasted traffic levels. 

(Operations Concept Validation; NextGen -

Operations Concept Validation - Validation 

Modeling; System Capacity, Planning and 

Improvement) 

2011: Develop a guidebook for airport operators 

and air cargo industry stakeholders that 

provides tools and techniques for measuring 

economic impacts of air cargo activities 

at the national, regional, and local level. 

(Airport Cooperative Research - Capacity) 

2013: Demonstrate an increase in capacity and 

efficiency at 2021 forecasted traffic levels. 

(Operations Concept Validation; NextGen -

Operations Concept Validation - Validation 

Modeling; System Capacity, Planning and 

Improvement) 

2016: Demonstrate an increase in capacity and 

efficiency at 2025 forecasted traffic levels. 

(Operations Concept Validation; NextGen -

Operations Concept Validation - Validation 

Modeling; System Capacity, Planning and 

Improvement) 

* Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Area Forecast Summary Fiscal Years 2009-2030, March 2010. http://www.faa.gov/ 

data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2010-2030/ 

† This supports demonstration of the R&D target under R&D Goal 1 - Fast, Flexible, and Efficient. 

‡ The year 2004 was chosen as a baseline for consistency with the Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176) 

and the Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan submitted to Congress as required in that legislation. 

74 Chapter 2 
 

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

 

 
 


	

 

 
 


	

 

 
 


	

 

Safety management S y Stem 

Produce guidelines for developing 

processes and technologies to implement 

a safety management system. 

2011: Complete study of risk-based fleet management for small-airplane continued operational 

safety. (Continued Airworthiness) 

2011: Develop proof of concept for NextGen 

including a prototype to implement on 

a trial basis with selected participants 

that involve a cross-section of air service 

providers. (NextGen - System Safety 

Management Transformation) 

2011: Develop and validate a software tool to 

quantify risk and support engineering 

decision-making related to runway safety 

area requirements. (Airport Cooperative 

Research - Safety) 

2012: Develop risk management concepts, models, 

and tools for transport category airplanes. 

(System Safety Management) 

2014: Demonstrate a National Level System Safety 

Assessment capability that will proactively 

identify emerging risk across NextGen. 

(NextGen - System Safety Management 

Transformation) 

CommerCial SpaC e 

Develop understanding of commercial 

space transportation system operations. 

(Commercial Space Transportation Safety) 

P

2010: Conduct a study with current information 

related to the state of the commercial 

suborbital transportation industry 

with a focus on market demand, safety, 

operability, and international coordination. 

[COMPLETED] 

2011: Conduct a study to evaluate the adequacy 

of current rules and polices related to 

commercial space transportation, implement 

new rules, policy, and advisory materials, 

and identify barriers to industry caused by 

unnecessary	or	conflicting	regulations.

2011: Release Commercial Space Transportation 

Research Road Map document, v1.0. 

Safety evaluation§ 

Develop methods and metrics to measure 

progress in reducing the rate of fatalities 

and significant injuries by two-thirds.¶
 

(System Safety Management)
	

P

2010: Demonstrate a one-third reduction in the rate 

of fatalities and injuries. [COMPLETED] 

2012: Demonstrate a one-half reduction in the rate 

of fatalities and injuries. 

2016: Demonstrate a two-thirds reduction in the 

rate of fatalities and injuries.** 

environmental aS SeSSment 

Develop methods, metrics, and models to 

demonstrate that significant aviation noise 

and emissions impacts can be reduced in 

absolute terms to enable the air traffic 

system to handle growth in demand up 

to three times current levels.†† (NextGen -

Operational Assessments) 

P

2009: Develop and implement NAS-wide regional 

environmental analysis capability within 

AEDT. [COMPLETED]‡‡ 

P

2010: Implement weather effects in AEDT 

environmental analyses. [COMPLETED] 

2012: Develop and implement NAS-wide cost-benefit

environmental analysis capability with APMT. 

2013: Explore options to integrate environmental 

assessment capability with NextGen NAS models. 

2016: Employ AEDT and APMT for NAS-wide 

environmental analyses. 

§ For these milestones, demonstrate means to show that the 

methods and metrics developed are valid and that, with the system 

improvements planned, it is possible to reduce the rate of fatalities 

and injuries by the stated amounts. 

¶ This supports demonstration of the R&D target under R&D Goal 

5 - Human Protection. 

** These milestones have set targets that are purposely more aggressive 

than those in the Flight Plan, as R&D goals should be stretch goals. 

†† This supports demonstration of the R&D target under R&D Goal 

2 - Clean and Quiet as it relates to the R&D target under R&D Goal 

1	-	Fast,	Flexible,	and	Efficient.

‡‡ This 2009 milestone was funded by NextGen - Environment and 

Energy - Validation Modeling; starting in FY 2010, the remaining 

milestones will be funded by NextGen - Operational Assessments. 

Chapter 2 75 
 

 

 

 

Progress in FY 2010: sYstem Knowledge 

The R&D Target for System Knowledge is to understand the economic (including implementation) and 

operational impact of system alternatives by 2016. System Knowledge is important to the FAA Flight Plan, 

supporting safety and capacity goals as well as the organizational excellence objective to make decisions based 

on reliable data to improve overall performance and customer satisfaction. Understanding the practical effect 

of new alternatives is crucial to ensuring that NextGen systems function correctly, serve the appropriate needs, 

and provide value to the U.S. taxpayers. 

Over the past five years, the operations concept validation team has conducted studies, including Big Airspace, 

Staffed NextGen Towers, and Multi-Sector Planner, to understand proposed NextGen systems and capabilities 

and to allow concepts to mature towards implementation in the NAS. These studies helped FAA understand 

the actual economic and operational effects of proposed concepts, often leading to new or revised system 

requirements that would have been unclear without the concept development and validation research. Safety 

research has shown that methods and metrics for measuring progress towards reducing the rate of fatalities 

and significant injuries are achievable. The research validated concepts through simulations, modeling, 

demonstrations, prototypes, field tests, and reviews among system experts. 

Results achieved in 2010 include: 

Capacity and Efficiency Evaluation: 

The program conducted Staffed NextGen Tower (SNT) field demonstrations in Dallas-Fort Worth to validate 

the first phase of the SNT concept, documenting operational impacts and benefits of the new Multi-Sector 

Planner position for high altitude airspace. The demonstration showed that this new automation capability 

achieves the desired benefits without the need to staff a separate planning position. The program supported 

development of the Flow Based Trajectory Management concept by conducting real-time simulations to 

develop and analyze concepts and methods for handling high altitude airspace operations, and it delivered an 

overarching concept of operations (and related scenario description) for a wide-range of NextGen systems, 

explaining how the systems interrelate in the mid-term timeframe. (Operations Concept Validation) 

Point-to-Point Commercial Space Transportation in the NAS: 

The safety regulatory provisions of commercial space transportation must continue to evolve and keep pace 

with new developments in the commercial space transportation sector, including point-to-point suborbital 

RLV operations. The report Point-to-Point Commercial Space Transportation in the NAS identifies and 

provides a critical examination of the safety related issues that existing and emerging ATM architectures 

must consider and address to provide enabling support for suborbital point-to-point operations, allowing 

them to occur safely and seamlessly in the NAS. The overall safety goal of commercial space transportation 

is to protect public health and safety. For more information, see: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/ 

headquarters_offices/ast/media/point_to_point.pdf. (Commercial Space Transportation Safety) 

Implementing Weather Effects in AEDT Environmental Analyses: 

The FAA successfully implemented high-fidelity weather data from multiple sources in the AEDT integrated 

environmental analyses tool. We have performed post-implementation validation and verification of this 

enhanced functionality. Inclusion of weather was necessary to develop better estimates of fuel burn and 

assign source location of noise and emissions based on the weather driven flight tracks. The DRG currently 

is testing this enhanced AEDT. (NextGen - Operational Assessments) 

76 Chapter 2 
 

 


	


	

Airport Surface Detection Equipment Model-X (ASDE-X) for ASIAS: 

The program designed and implemented a direct feed of ASDE-X data into ASIAS. To support integration of 

internal FAA databases, the FAA developed the ASDE-X Front End Processor (FEP) and Enhanced Repository 

System (ERS). These prototyped and validated tools use secure file transfer protocols to proactively and
	

securely collect, process, and distribute safety related air traffic information such as ASDE-X data within
	

the user community for aviation research. As part of the NextGen R&D Enclave, the ASDE-X FEP and ERS 

perform a key role by providing a comprehensive set of airport surface traffic, towered airspace traffic, and 

other system-safety logic information. The ERS continues to provide data to support analyses for capacity 

improvements and safety risk-management methodologies. (System Safety Management) 

Safety Evaluation: Reducing Fatalities: 

Research results in 2010 show that methods and metrics for measuring progress towards reducing the rate 

of fatalities and significant injuries by two-thirds in 2025 are achievable. Research focused on commercial 

aviation including both scheduled and nonscheduled flights of U.S. passenger and cargo air carriers and 

scheduled flights for regional air carriers. Researchers used NTSB databases on fatality and serious injuries 

and identified loss of control in flight, controlled flight into terrain, and runway excursion as the three major 

accidents types that contribute over 60% of total fatalities and serious injuries. Metrics (precursors or 

indicators) that measure the performance of each category of accidents are now available and will be further 

validated as soon as the 2010 NTSB safety data become available. The research focus area will expand to 

start exploring and analyzing the establishment of targets and tracking metrics for the GA sector. (System 

Safety Management) 

The challenge for capacity and efficiency validation is that not all of the data exists today to allow the projection 

of economic and operational impact of alternatives by 2016. Research, including fast-time modeling, analysis, 

and human-in-the-loop simulations over the next few years, will be critical to developing a robust body of data. 

Additionally, while research initiatives focus on specific operational improvements and concepts, it is difficult 

to conduct NAS-wide benefits modeling with a level of fidelity that covers every operational improvement and 

interdependencies between them. The challenge is to understand the overall impact based on the integration of 

alternatives. First, the operational feasibility and benefits of individual alternatives must be understood, then 

the cumulative impact must be assessed, but that impact is based on implementation increments which are not 

yet known. We have a much better understanding today of data and modeling and simulation shortfalls. The 

program will focus on conducting more integrated fast-time and real-time simulation activities starting in 2012 

to compensate for today’s data shortfalls. In addition, efforts are currently underway to identify 

implementation increments for mid-term NextGen capabilities so that the economic and operational impacts 

can be based on feasible implementation packages. Future challenges in the safety evaluation include 

identifying metrics (precursors or indicators) that have strong correlation with fatalities and serious injuries, 

used to monitor and predict potential fatalities and serious injuries. The combined efforts of the programs 

under this goal are on track to meet the R&D Target by 2016. 

Chapter 2 77 
 

78 Chapter 2 

A globAlly recognized leA der in 

AerospAce technology, systems, 

A nd oper Ations 

W orld 

l eadership 

r & d G oal 10 
 

R&D t a R get 

By 2016, demonstrate the value of working with international partners to leverage research programs and 

studies in order to improve safety and promote seamless operations worldwide. 

M etho D of vali D ation 

The approach includes managing research collaborations to increase value and leveraging research under the 

existing R&D programs to increase value. Validation of the R&D target will include developing agreements, 

reviewing past and current research collaboration, and conducting analyses. The research results listed under 

the subheading of Products are outputs of the other nine goals in this plan. The purpose of this goal is to 

help plan the use of these products in international partnering activities to produce the highest value. The 

respective goal for each product provides a method of validation for the individual research results. 

f u n D ing R equi R e M ents - R&D g oal 10 

The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero 

funding listed support this goal with FAA staff resources only. 

Budget BLI Program Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Notes Type 

-- Airport Cooperative Research 

- Environment AIP 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A13.a Environment and Energy R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/ 

Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground 

Integration) 

F&E 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human 

Factors R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management 

Transformation F&E 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the 

Cockpit R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A13.b 

NextGen - Environmental Research 

- Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics 

R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only 

A14.a System Planning and Resource 

Management R,E&D 1,718 1,602 1,567 1,570 1,601 100% of total program 

Total ($000) 1,718 1,602 1,567 1,570 1,601 

Chapter 2 79 

 


 

 


 


 

 


 


 

 

M ilestones 

Manage M ent

Manage ongoing research. (System 

Planning and Resource Management) 

P

2008: Publish the NARP, which documents the 

annual R&D budget portfolio, describes the 

activities of the RE&D Advisory Committee, 

and contains the FY 2008-2013 FAA R&D 

plan. [COMPLETED] 

P

2009: Publish the NARP, which documents the 

annual R&D budget portfolio, describes the 

activities of the RE&D Advisory Committee, 

and contains the FY 2009-2014 FAA R&D 

plan. [COMPLETED] 

P

2010: Publish the NARP, which documents the 

annual R&D budget portfolio, describes the 

activities of the RE&D Advisory Committee, 

and contains the FY 2010-2015 FAA R&D 

plan. [COMPLETED] 

2011: Publish the NARP, which documents the 

annual R&D budget portfolio, describes the 

activities of the RE&D Advisory Committee, 

and contains the FY 2011-2016 FAA R&D 

plan. 

Leverage international research 

collaboration. (System Planning and 

Resource Management) 

2010:	Determine	criteria	for	assessing	the	benefits	

Pof the international research collaboration. 

[COMPLETED] 

2011: Develop a strategic mapping for 

international research collaboration.
 

2011: Identify a process to measure quality, 

timeliness, and value of international 

research collaboration.
 

2016:	Determine final value of international

research collaboration. 

80 Chapter 2 
Products

Leverage research results.* 

P

2008: Modify procedures to allow use of closely 

spaced parallel runways for arrival 

operations during non-visual conditions. 

(Wake Turbulence) [COMPLETED] 

P

2010: Develop a preliminary planning version of an 

Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) 

that will allow integrated assessment of 

noise and emissions impact at the local and 

global levels. (Environment and Energy) 

[COMPLETED] [See Goal 2 under Progress 

for more information.] 

2011: Provide comprehensive guidance on lithium 

battery fire safety. (Fire Research and Safety) 

2011: Determine how aviation-generated 

particulate matter and hazardous air 

pollutants impact local health, visibility, and 

global climate. (Environment and Energy; 

NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics; Airport 

Cooperative Research - Environment) 

2012: Validate the NEO Architecture proof-ofconcept for the sharing of aviation safety 

information among JPDO member agencies, 

participants, and stakeholders. (NextGen -

System Safety Management Transformation) 

2014: Complete development and field a fully 

validated suite of tools, including the 

AEDT and the APMT. (Environment and 

Energy and Airport Cooperative Research 

- Environment) 

2015: Enable reduced and delegated separation 

in oceanic airspace and high density en 

route corridors. (NextGen - Self-Separation 

Human Factors) 

2015: Demonstrate the integration of navigation 

information and flight information, 

including weather information, into cockpit 

decision-making and shared situational 

awareness amongst pilots, dispatchers, and 

air traffic controllers supported by NextGen 

air and ground capabilities. (NextGen -

Weather Technology in the Cockpit) 

2016: Demonstrate significant improvements in 

air traffic controller efficiency (e.g., greater 

number of aircraft) and effectiveness 

(e.g., improvement of safety metrics) 

through automation and standardization 

of operation, procedures, and information. 

(NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors (Controller 

Efficiency and Air Ground Integration)) 

* These milestones were selected from the other nine goals to 

show international collaboration. 

Chapter 2 81 
 

 

 


	

P rogress i n FY 2010: W orld l eadershi P 

Increasing the safety and capacity of the global civil aerospace system continues to be at the forefront of the 

FAA’s strategic planning. Through its World Leadership goal, the FAA’s international partnerships and 

collaboration efforts are helping to reach the R&D Target: By 2016, demonstrate the value of working with 

international partners to leverage research programs and studies in order to improve safety and promote 

seamless operations worldwide. 

Over the past five years, the FAA has used the NARP to integrate its R&D portfolio and align its programs with 

the near- and far-term safety and capacity goals for the nation’s air transportation system. The ten R&D goals 

challenge the research and development community to think far-term and work to achieve breakthroughs to 

support the vision of the FAA. The NARP presents the specific plan to meet measurable targets and reach 

toward stretch goals, which ultimately support the FAA’s strategic goals. By reporting on the progress of the 

portfolio toward the R&D goals, the R&D Annual Review enables the FAA and the research and development 

community to review accomplishments under each R&D goal. The NARP explains and analyzes progress on 

the plan and helps identify gaps that may require additional research. The NARP and R&D Annual Review 

have helped FAA ensure research focus matches its strategic focus. 

Results achieved in 2010 include: 

R&D Portfolio: 

The program provided guidance on the FAA FY 2012 R&D portfolio in October 2010. The R&D Executive 

Board (REB) developed the proposed FY 2012 R&D portfolio between November 2009 and February 2010. 

The five REDAC subcommittees reviewed the portfolio in February 2010, and the full REDAC provided its 

final review of the FY 2012 R&D portfolio on April 21, 2010, providing comments to the FAA on May 10 

2010. (System Planning and Resource Management) 

National Aviation Research Plan: 

The program prepared the NARP, allowing FAA to submit it on time to Congress in February 2010. (System 

Planning and Resource Management) 

Evaluation Criteria for International Research Collaborations: 

The program determined criteria for assessing the benefits of the international research collaboration. 

(System Planning and Resource Management)
	

The FAA researchers have continued to advance world leadership through multiple international collaborative 

efforts. Researchers have worked in cooperation with European, Asian, and North and South American 

partners to harmonize global air traffic management, as well as communication, navigation and surveillance 

standards. Through targeted outreach efforts, including technical demonstrations and exchanges, working 

groups, cooperative research projects, and data sharing, the agency is well within reach of meeting the world 

leadership R&D Target. 

82 Chapter 2 
Chapter 2 83 
 

A lignment 

with 

n ext g en 

C h A pter t hree 
NextGen improves our national airspace system to make air travel more convenient and dependable, while 

ensuring flights are as safe, secure, and hassle-free as possible. The primary goal of NextGen is to provide new 

capabilities that make air transportation safer and more reliable, improve the capacity of the NAS, and reduce 

aviation’s impact on our environment. 

The NextGen Implementation Plan is the FAA’s primary outreach tool for communicating with stakeholders 

and aviation partners who are working with FAA to develop and deploy NextGen. The Plan provides an 

overview of NextGen, including a status report on the NextGen deployments, capabilities, and benefits 

introduced to date. The plan focuses on the mid-term system planned for 2018 and provides decision-makers 

in the aviation community with the most up-to-date information available on the operator and airport 

investments needed for NextGen benefits (Appendix A). It documents the major milestones and critical work 

that will be ongoing for the next four years in pursuit of the 2018 goals (Appendix B). 

The NextGen Implementation Plan provides the FAA’s plan for NextGen, and the FAA R&D portfolio supports 

the NextGen Implementation Plan with several NextGen R&D programs. 
 

N ext G e N S olutio N S e t S 

The NextGen Implementation Plan provides an overview of the FAA’s ongoing transition to NextGen, 

explaining the agency’s vision for NextGen now and into the mid-term, which is defined as 2012-2018. The 

plan defines the seven cross-cutting solution sets of NextGen that are summarized below. 

Initiate Trajectory-Based Operations: The TBO solution set focuses primarily on high-altitude cruise 

operations in en route airspace. The TBO solution set will provide the capabilities, decision-support tools, and 

automation to manage aircraft movement by trajectory. This shift from clearance-based to trajectory-based air 

traffic control will enable aircraft to fly negotiated flight paths necessary for full Performance Based Navigation, 

taking both operator preferences and optimal airspace system performance into consideration. 

Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports: The High Density Airports solution 

set provides capabilities that improve arrival and departure capacity for multiple airports and runways in 

high-demand airspace. The combination of precision procedures, decision support tools, enhanced surface 

management, and improved coordination and information sharing will allow for maximum usage of all runways 

and airspace at close-proximity airports. The High Density Airports solution set takes advantage of performance 

based navigation, traffic-flow management capabilities in the Collaborative Air Traffic Management (CATM) 

solution set, and builds on the capabilities of the Flexible Terminals and Airports solution set. 

Increase Flexibility in the Terminal Environment: The Flexible Terminals and Airports (FLEX) 

solution set provides capabilities necessary to increase access to and manage the separation of aircraft in the 

terminal environment at and around all airports – large and small. The FLEX solution set addresses initial 

surface management capabilities, procedures that improve access to runways in low-visibility, and new 

automation that will support and maximize the use of available data to enable surface trajectory operations. 

These capabilities will improve safety, efficiency, and overall capacity in reduced visibility. 

Improve Collaborative Air Traffic Management: The CATM solution set covers strategic and tactical 

flow management, including interactions with operators to mitigate situations when the desired use of 

capacity cannot be accommodated. The CATM solution set includes flow programs and collaboration on 

procedures that will shift demand to alternate resources (e.g. routings, altitudes, and times). The CATM 

solution set also includes the foundational information elements for managing NAS flights. These elements 

include development and management of aeronautical information, management of airspace reservation, and 

management of flight information from pre-flight to post-analysis. 

Reduce Weather Impact: The Reduce Weather Impact solution set supports the integration of a broad 

range of weather information into air traffic decision making. In the mid-term, new operational improvements 

and technologies will mitigate the effects of weather resulting in safer and more efficient and predictable dayto-day NAS operations. 

Improve Safety, Security, and Environmental Performance: Improving safety, security, and the 

environment is an inherent part of the FAA’s overall mission and is embedded in the activities of individual 

programs agency-wide. This solution set involves activities directly related to ensuring that NextGen systems 

contribute to steadily reducing risks to safety and information security while mitigating adverse effects on the 

environment and ensuring environmental protection that allows sustained aviation growth. 

Transform Facilities: The Transform Facilities (FAC) solution set focuses on capabilities that enable a network 

of integrated facilities designed to support the delivery of safer and more efficient operations system-wide. It 

enables a facilities infrastructure that supports NextGen capabilities as they are integrated into the current system 

and as they mature over time. Business continuity is built into the system and provides for a more resilient 

infrastructure, better contingency operations, and a higher degree of service. The FAC solution set includes multidiscipline laboratories and test beds to support NextGen requirements development and risk-mitigation efforts. 

86 Chapter 3 
F A A N e x t G e N R&D P o R t F o l i o 

The FAA NextGen R&D portfolio supports NextGen by working to increase capacity and efficiency, to reduce 

aviation’s impact on the environment, and to improve safety. It provides concepts and technologies to 

enable greater capacity and efficiency in air traffic operations, including new operational concepts to increase 

capacity, human factors to help define the changing roles and responsibilities of pilots and controllers, weather 

information to enhance common situational awareness, and wake turbulence separation standards to increase 

capacity. It works to reduce aviation’s impact on the environment using alternative fuels, new equipment 

and operational procedures, and more precise flight paths to make flying quieter, cleaner, and more fuelefficient and to lessen its impact on the climate and reduce the amount of noise that communities experience. 

It provides proactive safety management, allowing analysis of trends to uncover problems early on, so that 

preventive measures are put in place before any accident can occur. 

Funded by both RE&D and F&E appropriations, the FAA NextGen R&D portfolio is a subset of the FAA 

R&D portfolio, as reported in the NARP, and the FAA NextGen portfolio, as reported in the NextGen 

Implementation Plan. The FAA NextGen R&D portfolio represents 48 percent of the budget reported in the 

NARP for FY 2012, and it represents 15 percent of the FAA NextGen portfolio. The FAA R&D portfolio includes 

the entire RE&D contribution to NextGen, but only part of the F&E contribution to NextGen. 

Table 3.1 describes how the FAA NextGen R&D portfolio supports the mid- and far-term OIs in the NextGen 

Implementation Plan solution set timelines. These NextGen Implementation Plan OIs are identical to the OIs 

displayed in the NAS Enterprise Architecture’s service roadmaps, and an R&D program may support more than 

one NextGen Implementation Plan OI. 

Table 3.2 provides the FAA NextGen R&D portfolio five-year budget plan by line item and appropriation. 

NextGe N - Sy Stem DevelopmeN t 

The FAA maintains a System Development budget line (1A08) in the F&E appropriation to fund projects that 

have broad applicability across the solution sets and to NextGen overall. These projects, as described in the 

NextGen Implementation Plan, form the F&E portion of the FAA NextGen R&D portfolio. The projects are 

listed in Table 3.2 and summarized in Chapter 4. 

NextGe N Re&D pR oGRam S 

In addition to the System Development budget line item under F&E, the FAA NextGen R&D portfolio includes 

seven budget line items under the RE&D appropriation. The seven programs or budget line items under RE&D 

are listed in Table 3.2 and summarized in Chapter 4. 

Chapter 3 87 

 

"" • f...-CM~C.OO..__~..._. 

'lt~~UOAdloloO 

t 

J 

l 

J 

• 

I 

i 

• 

J 

• ! 

I 

H ' 

h 

! • 

J ' t • f J I • ' ' . 1~ H 

·' < • ·' 

. 

JU J 

J .lj I - ,, l iJJ • ~u t ; tl~ If !·1 I ~-1 n m ~~ ih f lH 

~ ! i ~ ! f ~ 

Table 3.1: Mapping of FAA NextGen R&D Portfolio

to the NextGen Implementation Plan 

88 Chapter 3 
 
I 

Ii i ~ 

!! . !J IL ~ ~ ~ 1 t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~""""""'-\" .......... "' 

~ [i 

' 

, 

'*"' .... ' 

I..,. 

r;;m; f 

X I """ • 

' r;;;;;;f 

~ 

• · if 

• li• '-== ·-·· ,...,. 2. 

' ···

·- ,;;;~ 

' l•~m 

' 1 ... ,.. 

' r ... ,.. 

' ,_,.. 

' ' r;;;;; 

' ' ,_, 

' ' p;;;; 

~ ;;: I.;..[] 

l~l t ,, 

• Chapter 3 89 
Table 3.2 – NextGen R&D Funding Levels
 

FY 2012 

Budget 

Line 

Item 

Program 

2012 

Request 

($000) 

2013 

Planned 

($000) 

2014 

Planned 

($000) 

2015 

Planned 

($000) 

2016 

Planned 

($000) 

R&D 

Goal 

NextGen - System Development Programs 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground 

Integration) 

10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 3 

1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 37,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 1 

1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation 

Modeling 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 9 

1A08D 

NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental 

Management Systems and Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction 

15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 2 

1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization 3,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1 

1A08F NextGen - Operational Assessments 10,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 9 

1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 18,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 9 

1A08H NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) 6,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 6,000 8 

Planned NextGen - Initial Operation Test & Evaluation 100 0 0 0 0 9 

Total F&E 109,000 61,500 61,500 65,500 65,500 

90 Chapter 3 

R&D Goals Key: 

• 1 - Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

• 2 - Clean and Quiet 

• 3 - High Quality Teams and Individuals 

• 4 - Human-Centered Design 

• 5 - Human Protection 

• 6 - Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

• 7 - Separation Assurance 

• 8 - Situational Awareness 

• 9 - System Knowledge 

• 10 - World Leadership 
FY 2012 

Budget 

Line 

Item 

Program 

2012 

Request 

($000) 

2013 

Planned 

($000) 

2014 

Planned 

($000) 

2015 

Planned 

($000) 

2016 

Planned 

($000) 

R&D 

Goal 

NextGen RE&D Programs 

A11.m NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation 2,071 1,984 1,968 1,987 2,030 6 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office 14,067 13,658 13,638 13,812 14,117 1,9 

A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence 10,674 10,283 10,227 10,340 10,565 1 

A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors 10,545 10,117 10,043 10,144 10,363 4 

A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors 9,934 9,534 9,464 9,561 9,767 7 

A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit 9,186 8,845 8,795 8,891 9,084 8 

A13.b NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics 20,523 19,743 19,623 19,833 20,263 2 

Total RE&D 77,000 74,164 73,758 74,568 76,189 

Total NextGen R&D Programs 186,000 135,664 135,258 140,068 141,689 

Chapter 3 91
R esea R c h

 B usiness

 M anage M ent 

c hapte R F o u R 
This chapter summarizes the FAA R&D portfolio according to its FY 2012 budget submission. The chapter 

explains what FAA is doing (programs), how much it is spending (budget), how it performs its programs 

(partnerships), and how well it executes its programs (evaluation). 
 

 

 

 

 

94 Chapter 4 

S pon S o r S 

The FAA R&D portfolio supports regulation, certification, and standards development; modernization of the NAS; 

and policy and planning. To support FAA goals, R&D addresses the specific needs of sponsoring organizations, 

including Aviation Safety; Air Traffic Organization; Airports; Commercial Space Transportation; and Policy, 

International Affairs, and Environment. The Office of Research and Technology Development under NextGen 

and Operations Planning in the Air Traffic Organization manages the FAA research portfolio for the Agency. 

p rogram S 

Four appropriation accounts fund the R&D portfolio: RE&D; F&E; AIP; and Ops. In general, the RE&D 

account funds R&D programs that improve the NAS by increasing its safety, security, productivity, capacity, and 

environmental compatibility to meet the expected air traffic demands of the future.* R&D programs funded under 

the F&E account include R&D concept development and demonstration prior to an FAA investment decision. The 

AIP account generally funds airport improvement grants, including those emphasizing safety and security needs 

and capacity development; and funds grants for aircraft noise compatibility planning and programs and low 

emissions airport equipment. †

 It also funds administrative and technical support costs for the Office of Airports. 

The Ops account funds commercial space transportation R&D. 

The programs summarized below are in the FY 2012 R&D budget request, grouped by funding account. 

Appendix A provides detailed information for each program, explaining the program’s funding request and its 

planned accomplishments, providing a description of activities and performance linkages, supporting the need 

for the program, identifying the criteria for success, and justifying the funding requested. 

ReseaRc h, engineeRing and development (Re&d) 

Fire Research and Safety (A11.a): 

The program develops technologies, procedures, test methods, and fire performance criteria that can 

prevent accidents caused by hidden cabin or cargo compartment in-flight fires and fuel tank explosions, and 

can improve survivability during a post-crash fire. Fire safety focuses on near-term improvements in fire 

test methods and materials performance criteria, fire detection and suppression systems, fuel tank explosion 

protection, and identification of hazardous materials. Fire research addresses fundamental issues of 

combustion toxicity, the impact of flame retardant chemicals, health hazards of cabin materials, the impact 

of materials flammability on the initiation of in-flight fires, and post-crash survivability. Far-term research 

focuses on the enabling technology for ultra-fire-resistant interior materials. 

Propulsion and Fuel Systems (A11.b): 

The program develops technologies, procedures, test methods, and criteria to enhance the 

airworthiness, reliability, and performance of civil turbine and piston engines, propellers, fuels, and fuel 

management systems. 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety (A11.c): 

The program ensures the safety of civil aircraft by assessing the safety implications of composites, alloys, 

and other advanced materials, and associated structures and fabrication techniques that can help to reduce 

aviation fatalities. The program also increases the ability of passengers to survive aviation accidents by 

developing advanced methodologies for assessing aircraft crashworthiness. 

* FAA Order 2500.8B, Funding Criteria for Operations, Facilities and Equipment (F&E), and Research, Engineering and Development 

(RE&D) Accounts, dated October 1, 2006 

† FAA Budget Estimates FY 2007 submitted for use by The Committees on Appropriations, Section 3D. – Grants-In-Aid for Airports, 

page 3; and Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-176, December 12, 2003. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aircraft Icing-Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety (A11.d): 

The program develops and tests technologies that detect frozen contamination, predict anti-icing fluid 

failure, and ensure safe operations in atmospheric icing conditions. The program also develops new 

guidelines for testing, evaluating, and approving digital flight controls, avionics, and other systems for the 

certification of aircraft and engines. 

Continued Airworthiness (A11.e): 

The program promotes the development of technologies, procedures, technical data, and performance 

models to prevent accidents and mitigate accident severity related to civil aircraft failures as a function of 

their continued operation and usage. The program focuses on longer term maintenance of the structural 

integrity of fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft, continued safety of aircraft engines, development of inspection 

technologies, and the safety of electrical wiring interconnect systems and mechanical systems. 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research (A11.f): 

The program develops technologies and methods to assess risk and prevent occurrence of potentially 

catastrophic defects, failures, and malfunctions in aircraft, aircraft components, and aircraft systems. The 

program also uses historical accident data and NTSB recommendations to examine and investigate turbineengine uncontainment events and other engine-related impact events. 

Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors (A11.g): 

The program provides the human factors research for guidelines, handbooks, advisory circulars, rules, and 

regulations that ensure safe and efficient aircraft operations. It improves task performance and training 

for aircrew, inspectors, and maintenance technicians; develops and applies error management strategies to 

flight and maintenance operations; and ensures that certification of new aircraft and design or modification 

of equipment considers human factors. 

System Safety Management (A11.h): 

The program develops risk management methods, prototype tools, technical information, and SMS 

procedures and practices. In addition, the program develops an infrastructure that enables the free sharing 

of de-identified, aggregate safety information derived from government and industry sources in a protected 

manner. It also conducts operational research to leverage new technologies and procedures that enhance 

pilot and aircraft safety during terminal operations. 

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (A11.i): 

The program emphasizes the concept of human-system integration (HSI) and safety aspects of the 

functions performed by air traffic controllers and technical operations personnel. The HSI concept will 

address the interactions between workstation design, personnel selection and training, and human error 

and human safety. 

Aeromedical Research (A11.j): 

The program identifies pilot, flight attendant, and passenger medical conditions that indicate an inability to 

meet flight demands, both in the absence and in the presence of emergency flight conditions. It also defines 

cabin air quality and analyzes requirements for occupant protection and aircraft decontamination. 

Chapter 4 95 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weather Program (A11.k): 

The program develops new and enhanced algorithms to improve weather information required for 

integration with decision-support tools to reduce the impact of adverse weather in the nation’s aviation 

system. The improved weather information enhances capacity and increases safety by supporting better 

operational planning by air traffic management, dispatchers, and pilots. 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research (A11.l): 

The program conducts research to ensure the safe integration of UAS in the NAS by providing information 

to support certification procedures, airworthiness standards, operational requirements, maintenance 

procedures, and safety oversight activities for UAS civil applications and operations. Research activities 

focus on new technology assessments, methodology development, data collection and generation, laboratory 

and field validation, and technology transfer. 

NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation (A11.m): 

The program addresses the use of alternative and renewable fuels for GA to lessen aviation environmental 

impacts on air and water quality. The program develops data and methodologies to support certification of 

alternative aviation fuels for GA aircraft. 

Joint Planning and Development Office (A12.a): 

The program addresses far-term imbalances in aviation capacity and demand while ensuring a future 

operating environment that is safe, well managed, environmentally responsible, and harmonized with 

international standards. 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence (A12.b): 

The program conducts research to increase airport runway capacity safely by reducing aircraft wake 

separation minima under certain conditions and to address wake turbulence restrictions in today’s terminal 

and en route airspace and in the future NextGen airspace designs. 

NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors (A12.c): 

The program addresses flight deck and air traffic service provider (ATSP) integration for NextGen 

operational capabilities. It focuses on human factors issues that primarily affect the pilot side of the airground integration challenge (i.e., the challenge of ensuring that pilots receive the right information at the 

right time, for decision-making and collaboration with ANSP personnel to operate in the NAS safely and 

efficiently). Using modeling, simulation, and demonstration, the program assesses interoperability of tools, 

develops design guidance, determines training requirements, and verifies procedures for ensuring effective 

and efficient human system integration in transitions of NextGen capabilities. 

NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors (A12.d): 

The program addresses human performance and coordination requirements for pilots and ANSPs through 

development of the initial standards and procedures that will lead to an operational capability for separation 

assurance. It assesses the human factors risks and requirements associated with self-separation policies, 

procedures, and maneuvers, including interim operational capabilities for reduced and delegated separation 

and high-density airport traffic operations in reduced visibility using advanced flight deck technologies. 

Research results will provide the technical information and data needed to support the development of 

standards, procedures, and training by the Flight Standards service to implement enhanced spacing and 

separation operations. 

96 Chapter 4 
 

 

 

 

NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit (A12.e): 

The program enables the integration of cockpit, ground, and communication technologies, practices, and 

procedures to provide pilots with shared and relevant weather information to enhance common situational 

awareness. It will do this by aiding development of airborne decision-support tools to exploit the common 

weather picture, exchange weather information automatically with surrounding aircraft and ground systems, 

and facilitate the integration of weather information into the cockpit to support NextGen capabilities. The 

program develops policies and standards on hardware and software requirements, including guidelines and 

procedures for testing, evaluating, and qualifying weather systems for certification and operation on aircraft. 

It also addresses the human factors issues in developing policies, standards, and guidance, including 

training, procedures, and error management. 

Environment and Energy (A13.a): 

This program characterizes aircraft noise, emissions, and their environmental impacts and provides 

guidance on their mitigation. The program provides fundamental knowledge, and develops and validates 

methodologies, models, metrics, and tools. It analyzes and balances the interrelationships between noise 

and emissions, considers local to global impacts, and determines economic consequences. The program also 

reduces scientific uncertainties related to aviation environmental issues to support decision-making. 

NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics (A13.b): 

The program develops solutions to mitigate aviation environmental impacts in absolute terms and increase 

fuel efficiency. It matures aircraft technologies through the CLEEN program to reduce noise and emissions 

at the source level. It assesses, demonstrates, and supports qualification of alternative aviation fuels that 

reduce emissions that impact air quality and climate change. Availability of alternative aviation fuels also 

increases energy security. The program also supports research to determine the appropriate goals and 

metrics to manage NextGen aviation environmental impacts needed to support EMSs. 

System Planning and Resource Management (A14.a): 

The program manages the R&D portfolio to meet customer needs, to increase program efficiency, and to 

reduce management and operating costs. It works to increase customer and stakeholder involvement in 

FAA R&D programs and foster acceptance of U.S. standards and technology to meet global aviation needs. 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility (A14.b): 

The program provides well-equipped, routinely available facilities to emulate and evaluate field conditions; 

performs human-in-the-loop simulations; measures human performance; evaluates human factors issues; 

and provides research aircraft that are specially instrumented and re-configurable. 

Chapter 4 97 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The program investigates and demonstrates new airspace concepts and procedures to increase national 

aviation system capacity. It focuses on the nation’s major metropolitan areas to shorten flight distances, to 

provide more fuel-efficient routes, and to reduce arrival and departure delays. 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller 

Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) (1A08A): 

The program addresses human system integration and human performance issues related to improving 

controller efficiency to yield greater traffic throughput without a commensurate increase in the number 

of ANSP personnel. It examines how ANSP personnel can achieve higher efficiency levels through the 

integration of automation, decision support tools, workstation displays, and procedures. It also addresses 

the ATSP perspective and works together with the flight deck human factors program to address the airground integration required to transition from the current system to NextGen. It addresses changes in 

responsibilities and liabilities and examines new types of human error modes to manage safety risk. 

Facilities and equipment (F&e) 

Runway Incursion Reduction (1A01A): 

The program minimizes the chance of injury, death, damage, or loss of property caused by runway accidents 

or incidents. It selects and evaluates technologies, validates technical performance and operational 

suitability, and develops a business case to support program implementation. It improves pilot situational 

awareness with airport visual aids such as runway status lights, final-approach runway occupancy signals, 

and other enhanced airport lighting technologies. 

System Capacity, Planning and Improvement (1A01B): 

The program delivers products and services to alleviate traffic congestion, system delays, and operational 

inefficiencies in the aviation system through the development of new runways, new technologies, and modified 

operational procedures. It also develops performance metrics; implements performance measurement tools; 

and collects, processes, and analyzes data to measure and report performance on a routine basis. 

Operations Concept Validation (1A01C): 

The program conducts modeling and simulation to validate new ATO operational concepts for the next 

generation of decision support systems for pilots and air traffic controllers. It validates performance 

requirements and identifies research criteria at the system and subsystem level. It also assesses safety, 

identifies risk, and takes actions necessary to reduce risk. 

NAS Weather Requirements (1A01D): 

The program analyzes mission needs and establishes weather requirements for the NAS to increase 

operational efficiency and safety during weather events. It aligns requirements, priorities, programs, and 

resources and develops metrics to measure and understand the impact of weather on the system. It also 

evaluates weather-related services and technologies for the NAS. 

Airspace Management Program (1A01E): 

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements (1A08B): 

The program supports new procedures and technologies to increase efficiency in the national airspace 

system and to provide three-times current capacity levels. It develops data communication requirements 

and standards, conflict resolution methods, procedures, and technologies to reduce aircraft separation, 

enhance surface management technologies, and develop procedures for low visibility conditions and 

decision support tools for air and ground operations. 

98 Chapter 4
William J. Hughes Technical Center

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling (1A08C): 

The program develops methods, metrics, and models to demonstrate that the planned system can handle 

the demand forecast for 2025 (up to three-times current levels) at higher efficiency levels than today. It 

measures the improvements planned by NextGen under the seven solution sets and determines whether 

these improvements will provide the targeted levels of capacity and efficiency. 

NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management System and 

Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction (1A08D): 

The program supports development and implementation of the NextGen EMS. The EMS will dynamically 

manage NextGen environmental impacts and help to define and identify optimum mitigation actions and 

their benefits. The program also evaluates the benefits of aviation environmental mitigation options and 

identifies ways to integrate them into the NAS infrastructure and demonstrate any NAS adaptation required 

to realize their full benefits. These options include new CLEEN aircraft technologies, alternative fuels, 

environmental and energy-efficient operational policies and procedures, environmental standards, and 

market-based measures. 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization (1A08E): 

The program develops enhanced methods to define wake turbulence separation between aircraft safely. It 

develops wake characterization models to include various aircraft design parameters for defining wake 

vortices. It evaluates enhanced wake turbulence separation standards and procedures through field 

measurements, analyses, and human-in-the-loop simulations. 

NextGen - Operational Assessments (1A08F): 

The program conducts research and development to assess system-wide NAS performance, safety, and 

environmental impacts. The transition to NextGen requires the conduct of operational assessments to 

ensure that new capabilities include safety, environmental, and system performance considerations, 

enabling an integrated implementation of NextGen. 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation (1A08G): 

The program develops a safety information analysis and sharing environment for NextGen to serve as 

the foundation for trend analysis and the identification and mitigation of potential safety hazards before 

incidents occur. It also produces guidelines for developing processes and technologies to implement a safety 

management system across NextGen. 

NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (1A08H): 

The program will enable ANSP personnel to provide surface and tower services by other-than-direct 

visual observation. The program outlines a roadmap for the research and engineering activities needed to 

develop and evaluate the SNT concept, verify its operational feasibility, and generate technical performance 

requirements for providing air traffic services through SNT. 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) (4A09A): 

The program identifies and tests new technologies for application to air traffic management, navigation, 

communication, separation assurance, surveillance, and system safety; and conducts R&D and high-level 

system engineering to meet FAA’s far-term requirements. 

Chapter 4 99 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Airport i mprovement progrA m (Aip) 

Airport Cooperative Research - Capacity: 

The program conducts research to provide better airport planning and design. Future aviation demand 

will rely on the ability of airports to accommodate increased aircraft operations, larger aircraft, and more 

efficient passenger throughput. This program will prepare for those future needs while simultaneously 

solving current and near-term airport capacity issues. 

Airport Cooperative Research - Environment: 

The program examines the impact an airport has on the surrounding environment and advances the science 

and technology for creating an environmentally friendly airport system. Projects include the study of airport 

specific aviation noise and emissions and their environmental impacts, developing strategies and guidance 

for green airports via reduction in noise and emissions, infrastructure, and benefits of alternative aviation 

fuels at airport facilities, deicing management, and advanced noise and emissions databases. 

Airport Cooperative Research - Safety: 

The program conducts research to prevent and mitigate potential injuries and accidents within the airport 

operational environment. A fundamental element of this program is to produce results that provide 

protection of aircraft passengers and airport personnel through improved safety training, airport design, and 

advanced technology implementation. 

Airport Technology Research - Capacity: 

The program provides better airport planning, designs, and improves runway pavement design, 

construction, and maintenance. It ensures that new pavement standards will be ready to support safe 

international operation of next-generation heavy aircraft and makes pavement design standards available to 

users worldwide. 

Airport Technology Research - Environment: 

This program will establish up-to-date exposure-response relationships for community annoyance and sleep 

disturbance in the U.S. by collecting extensive data covering a wide variety of airport types and geographic 

locations. The results will help guide national aviation noise policy, determinations of community noise 

impacts, land use guidelines around airports, and mitigation funding. 

Airport Technology Research - Safety: 

The program increases airport safety by conducting research to improve airport lighting and marking, 

reduce wildlife hazards near airport runways, improve airport fire and rescue capability, and reduce 

surface accidents. 

operAtions (op s) 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety: 

The program examines safety considerations for commercial space transportation, including those that 

involve crew and spaceflight participants’ health and safety, spacecraft vehicle safety, launch, and re-entry 

risks, public safety, and personal property risk. 

100 Chapter 4 
Chapter 4 101

B udget

This section provides four tables that present FAA R&D budget by appropriation, program sponsor, R&D 

category, and performance goal. It presents the FAA R&D request for the President’s Budget for FY 2012. The 

funding levels listed for FYs 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change. 

Appropriation Account – Table 4.1 shows the FAA R&D budget planned for FY 2012, including the five-year 

plan through FY 2016, grouped by appropriation account. The previous section described the programs in 

each of the four appropriation types. The F&E budget in Table 4.1 includes three main line items: Advanced 

Technology Development and Prototyping (ATD&P), 1A01; NextGen - System Development, 1A08; and the 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD), 4A09A. The ATD&P and NextGen - Systems 

Development line items have several programs under them, as shown in the tables. Both the F&E and the Ops 

appropriations have programs that are not part of the R&D portfolio; the NARP only presents R&D. 

Sponsoring Organization – Table 4.2 shows the FAA R&D budget planned for FY 2012, including the fiveyear plan through FY 2016, grouped by sponsoring organization. Sponsoring organizations include Aviation 

Safety; Air Traffic Organization; Airports; Commercial Space Transportation; and Policy, International 

Affairs, and Environment. 

R&D Category – The FAA R&D portfolio includes both applied research and development as defined by OMB 

Circular A-11* . Table 4.3 shows the FAA R&D portfolio according to these categories with the percent of 

applied research and development for FY 2012 through 2016. 

Performance Goal – Table 4.4 shows the FAA R&D budget by the performance goals defined in Exhibit II of 

the FAA budget request for FY 2012. The R&D programs apply to three performance goals – safety, economic 

competitiveness, and environmental sustainability. Programs may support more than one goal; however, each 

program is listed only once under its primary goal for budget purposes. The table provides information on 

contract costs, personnel costs, and other in-house costs planned for FY 2012. 

* OMB Circular A-11, “Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget,” July 21, 2010, section 84, page 8 (www.whitehouse.gov/ 

OMB/circulars). 
 


	 
	 
	


	


	
	
	

Table 4.1 

FAA R&D Program Budget by Appropriations Account 

FY 2012 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Project Appropriation Budget Line Program Request Planned Planned Planned Planned Number Account Item ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) /1 

Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D)

061-110 A11.a Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 8,157 7,998 8,028 8,152 8,340 

063-110 A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems R,E&D 3,611 3,474 3,452 3,489 3,565 

062-110/111 A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R,E&D 2,605 2,533 2,532 2,566 2,623 

064-110/111 A11.d Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety R,E&D 5,404 5,207 5,179 5,237 5,351 

065-110 A11.e Continued Airworthiness R,E&D 12,589 12,082 11,994 12,114 12,374 

066-110 A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research R,E&D 1,502 1,438 1,425 1,439 1,470 

081-110 A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors R,E&D 6,162 6,070 6,107 6,209 6,354 

060-110 A11.h System Safety Management R,E&D 10,027 9,581 9,489 9,574 9,776 

082-110 A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors R,E&D 10,634 10,502 10,579 10,762 11,015 

086-110 A11.j Aeromedical Research R,E&D 11,617 11,420 11,477 11,662 11,933 

041-110 A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 16,366 15,311 14,995 15,045 15,338 

069-110 A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research R,E&D 3,504 3,373 3,353 3,390 3,463 

111-160 A11.m NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation R,E&D 2,071 1,984 1,968 1,987 2,030 

027-110 A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office R,E&D 14,067 13,658 13,638 13,812 14,117 

111-130 A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence R,E&D 10,674 10,283 10,227 10,340 10,565 

111-110 A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors R,E&D 10,545 10,117 10,043 10,144 10,363 

111-120 A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors R,E&D 9,934 9,534 9,464 9,561 9,767 

111-140 A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit R,E&D 9,186 8,845 8,795 8,891 9,084 

091-110/111/116 A13.a Environment and Energy R,E&D 15,327 14,505 14,293 14,384 14,677 

111-150 A13.b NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics R,E&D 20,523 19,743 19,623 19,833 20,263 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 1,718 1,602 1,567 1,570 1,601 

011-140 A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility R,E&D 3,777 3,740 3,772 3,839 3,931 

R,E&D TOTAL R,E&D 190,000 183,000 182,000 184,000 188,000 

Facilities & Equipment (F&E) /2

S09.02-00 1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction F&E 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

M08.28-00 1A01B System Capacity, Planning and Improvement F&E 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 

M08.29-00 1A01C Operations Concept Validation F&E 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 

M08.27-01 1A01D NAS Weather Requirements F&E 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

M08.28-04 1A01E Airspace Management Program F&E 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

Subtotal Line 1A01 19,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 /3

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air G1M.02-01 1A08A F&E 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Ground Integration)

NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management Systems and Advanced Noise and G6M.02-01 1A08D F&E 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Emissions Reduction 

G1M.02-02 1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements F&E 37,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 

G1M.02-03 1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling F&E 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

G7M.02-01 1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation F&E 18,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

G6M.02-02 1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization F&E 3,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

G7M.02-02 1A08F NextGen - Operational Assessments F&E 10,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

G3M.04-01 1A08H NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) F&E 6,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 6,000 

Subtotal Line 1A08 109,000 61,500 61,500 65,500 65,500 /4

M03.02-00 4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) F&E 22,785 22,560 22,560 22,560 22,560 /5

F&E TOTAL F&E 150,785 105,060 105,060 109,060 109,060 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

-- -- Airport Technology Research - Capacity AIP 12,025 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 

-- -- Airport Technology Research - Environment AIP 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

-- -- Airport Technology Research - Safety AIP 15,725 15,850 15,850 15,850 15,850 /6 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research - Capacity AIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research - Environment AIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research - Safety AIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 /7

AIP TOTAL AIP 44,250 44,500 44,500 44,500 44,500 

Operations (Ops) 

-- -- Commercial Space Transportation Safety Ops 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

Ops TOTAL Ops 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

GRAND TOTAL $386,035 $333,560 $332,560 $338,560 $342,560 

Notes: 

/1 The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change.

/2 The amounts shown for F&E programs reflect only R&D activities: they do not include acquisition, operational testing, or other non-R&D activities.

/3 The five programs in the ADT&P line (1A01) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A.

/4 The eight programs in the NextGen - Systems Development line (1A08) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A.

/5 The amount shown for CAASD includes only the R&D portion of the total CAASD line item amount. R&D represents 28.2% in FY 2012 and beyond. 

/6 The three programs in the Airport Technology Research line (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A.

/7 The three programs in the Airport Cooperative Research Program (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A.
	

102 Chapter 4 
 

Table 4.2 

FAA R&D Program Budget by Sponsoring Organization 

Project 

Number 

FY 2012 

Budget Line

Item 

Program Appropriation 

Account 

2012 

Request

($000) 

2013 

Planned 

($000) 

2014 

Planned 

($000) 

2015 

Planned 

($000) 

2016 

Planned 

($000) /1 

Aviation Safety (AVS)

061-110 A11.a Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 8,157 7,998 8,028 8,152 8,340 

063-110 A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems R,E&D 3,611 3,474 3,452 3,489 3,565 

062-110/111 A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R,E&D 2,605 2,533 2,532 2,566 2,623 

064-110/111 A11.d Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety R,E&D 5,404 5,207 5,179 5,237 5,351 

065-110 A11.e Continued Airworthiness R,E&D 12,589 12,082 11,994 12,114 12,374 

066-110 A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research R,E&D 1,502 1,438 1,425 1,439 1,470 

081-110 A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors R,E&D 6,162 6,070 6,107 6,209 6,354 

060-110 A11.h System Safety Management R,E&D 10,027 9,581 9,489 9,574 9,776 

086-110 A11.j Aeromedical Research R,E&D 11,617 11,420 11,477 11,662 11,933 

069-110 A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research R,E&D 3,504 3,373 3,353 3,390 3,463 

Subtotal R,E&D 65,178 63,176 63,036 63,832 65,249 

G7M. 02-01 1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transfor mation F&E 18,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

AVS TOTAL 8 3, 178 71, 176 71,036 71, 832 73, 249 

Air Traffic Organization (ATO)

082-110 A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors R,E&D 10,634 10,502 10,579 10,762 11,015 

041-110 A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 16,366 15,311 14,995 15,045 15,338 

027-110 A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office R,E&D 14,067 13,658 13,638 13,812 14,117 

111-130 A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence R,E&D 10,674 10,283 10,227 10,340 10,565 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 1,718 1,602 1,567 1,570 1,601 

011-140 

111-160 

A14.b 

A11.m 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility 

NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation 

R,E&D 

R,E&D 

3,777 

2,071 

3,740 

1,984 

3,772 

1,968 

3,839 

1,987 

3,931 

2,030 

/3 

111-110 

111-120 

A12.c 

A12.d 

NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors 

NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors 

R,E&D 

R,E&D 

10,545 

9,934 

10,117 

9,534 

10,043 

9,464 

10,144 

9,561 

10,363 

9,767 

111-140 A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit R,E&D 9,186 8,845 8,795 8,891 9,084 

Subtotal R,E&D 88,972 85,576 85,048 85,951 87,811 

S09.02-00 

M08.28-00 

1A01A 

1A01B 

Runway Incursion Reduction 

System Capacity, Planning and Improvement 

F&E 

F&E 

5,000 

6,000 

5,000 

6,000 

5,000 

6,000 

5,000 

6,000 

5,000 

6,000 

/3 

M08.29-00 1A01C Operations Concept Validation F&E 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 

M08.27-01 1A01D NAS Weather Requirements F&E 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

M08.28-04 1A01E Airspace Management Program F&E 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

G1M.02-01 

G1M.02-02 

1A08A 

1A08B 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration)

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 

F&E 

F&E 

10,000 

37,000 

5,000 

22,000 

5,000 

22,000 

5,000 

22,000 

5,000 

22,000 

/4 

G1M.02-03 1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling F&E 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

G6M.02-02 1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization F&E 3,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

G7M.02-02 1A08F NextGen - Operational Assessments F&E 10,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

G3M.04-01 1A08H NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) F&E 6,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 6,000 

M03.02-00 4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) 

Subtotal 

ATO TOTAL 

F&E 

F&E 

22,785 

117,785 

206,757 

22,560 

87,060 

172,636 

22,560 

87,060 

172,108 

22,560 

91,060 

177,011 

22,560 

91,060 

178,871 

/5 

/2 

Airports (ARP) 

--

--

--

--

--

--

Airport Technology Research - Capacity 

Airport Technology Research - Environment 

Airport Technology Research - Safety 

AIP 

AIP 

AIP 

12,025 

1,500 

15,725 

12,150 

1,500 

15, 850 

12,150 

1,500 

15, 850 

12,150 

1,500 

15, 850 

12,150 

1,500 

15, 850 

/6 

--

--

--

--

--

--

Airport Cooperative Research - Capacity 

Airport Cooperative Research - Environment 

Airport Cooperative Research - Safety 

ARP TOTAL 

AIP 

AIP 

AIP 

5,000 

5,000 

5,000 

44, 250 

5,000 

5,000 

5,000 

44, 50 0 

5,000 

5,000 

5,000 

44, 50 0 

5,000 

5,000 

5,000 

44, 50 0 

5,000 

5,000 

5,000 

44, 50 0 

/7 

Policy, International Affairs, and Environment (APL)

091-110/111/116 A13. a Environment and Energy 

G1M. 02-01 A13.b NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics 

Subtotal 

R, E&D 

R, E&D 

R, E&D 

15, 327 

20, 523 

35, 850 

14, 505 

19,743 

34, 248 

14, 293 

19,623 

33, 916 

14, 384 

19,833 

34, 217 

14, 677 

2 0, 263 

34, 940 

G6M.02-01 1A08D NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management Systems and Advanced Noise 

and Emissions Reduction F&E 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Subtotal 

APL TOTAL 

F&E 15,000 

50,850 

10,000 

44, 248 

10, 000 

43, 916 

10, 000 

4 4, 217 

10, 000 /2

44, 940 

Commercial Space Transportation (AST) 

-- -- Commercial Space Transpor tation Safety 

AST TOTAL 

Ops 1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

GR A N D TOTA L $386,035 $333, 560 $332, 560 $338, 560 $342, 560 

Notes: 

/1 The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change.

/2 The amounts shown for F&E programs reflect only R&D activities: they do not include acquisition, operational testing, or other non-R&D activities. 

/3 The five programs in the ADT&P line (1A01) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/4 The eight programs in the NextGen - Systems Development line (1A08) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/5 The amount shown for CAASD includes only the R&D portion of the total CAASD line item amount. R&D represents 28.2% in FY 2012 and beyond. 

/6 The three programs in the Airport Technology Research line (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/7 The three programs in the Airport Cooperative Research Program (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

Chapter 4 103 
 

Table 4.3 

FAA R&D Program Budget by Research and Development Category 

Project 

Number 

FY 2012 

Budget Line

Item 

Program Appropriation 

Account 

2012 

Request

($000) 

2013 

Planned 

($000) 

2014 

Planned 

($000) 

2015 

Planned 

($000) 

2016 

Planned 

($000) /1 

Applied Research

061-110 A11.a Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 8,157 7,998 8,028 8,152 8,340 

063-110 A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems R,E&D 3,611 3,474 3,452 3,489 3,565 

062-110/111 A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R,E&D 2,605 2,533 2,532 2,566 2,623 

064-110/111 A11.d Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety R,E&D 5,404 5,207 5,179 5,237 5,351 

065-110 A11.e Continued Airworthiness R,E&D 12,589 12,082 11,994 12,114 12,374 

066-110 A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research R,E&D 1,502 1,438 1,425 1,439 1,470 

081-110 A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors R,E&D 6,162 6,070 6,107 6,209 6,354 

060-110 A11.h System Safety Management R,E&D 10,027 9,581 9,489 9,574 9,776 

082-110 A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors R,E&D 10,634 10,502 10,579 10,762 11,015 

086-110 A11.j Aeromedical Research R,E&D 11,617 11,420 11,477 11,662 11,933 

041-110 A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 16,366 15,311 14,995 15,045 15,338 

069-110 A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research R,E&D 3,504 3,373 3,353 3,390 3,463 

111-160 A11.m NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation R,E&D 2,071 1,984 1,968 1,987 2,030 

027-110 A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office R,E&D 14,067 13,658 13,638 13,812 14,117 

111-130 A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence R,E&D 10,674 10,283 10,227 10,340 10,565 

111-110 A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors R,E&D 10,545 10,117 10,043 10,144 10,363 

111-120 A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors R,E&D 9,934 9,534 9,464 9,561 9,767 

111-140 A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit R,E&D 9,186 8,845 8,795 8,891 9,084 

091-110/111/116 

111-150 

A13.a 

A13.b 

Environment and Energy 

NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics 

R,E&D 

R,E&D 

15,327 

20,523 

14,505 

19,743 

14,293 

19,623 

14,384 

19,833 

14,677 

20,263 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 1,718 1,602 1,567 1,570 1,601 

011-140 A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility R,E&D 3,777 3,740 3,772 3,839 3,931 

Subtotal R,E&D 190,000 183,000 182,000 184,000 188,000 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research - Capacity AIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research - Environment AIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

--

--

--

--

Airport Cooperative Research - Safety 

Airport Technology Research - Capacity 

AIP 

AIP 

5,000 

12,025 

5,000 

12,150 

5,000 

12,150 

5,000 

12,150 

5,000 

12,150 

/2 

-- -- Airport Technology Research - Environment AIP 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

-- -- Airport Technology Research - Safety 

Subtotal 

AIP 

AIP 

15,725 

44,250 

15,850 

44,500 

15,850 

44,500 

15,850 

44,500 

15,850 

44,500 

/3 

-- -- Commercial Space Transportation Safety Ops 500 500 500 500 500 /4 

Subtotal 

Applied Research TOTAL 

Ops 500 

234,750 

500 

228,000 

500 

227,000 

500 

229,000 

500 

233,000 

Applied Research PERCENT 60.8% 68.4% 68.3% 67.6% 68.0% 

Development 

S09.02-00 

M08.28-00 

1A01A 

1A01B 

Runway Incursion Reduction 

System Capacity, Planning and Improvement 

F&E 

F&E 

5,000 

6,000 

5,000 

6,000 

5,000 

6,000 

5,000 

6,000 

5,000 

6,000 

/5 

M08.29-00 1A01C Operations Concept Validation F&E 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 

M08.27-01 1A01D NAS Weather Requirements F&E 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

M08.28-04 1A01E Airspace Management Program F&E 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

G1M.02-01 

G6M.02-01 

1A08A 

1A08D 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration)

NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management Systems and Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction 

F&E 

F&E 

10,000 

15,000 

5,000 

10,000 

5,000 

10,000 

5,000 

10,000 

5,000 

10,000 

/6 

G1M.02-02 1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements F&E 37,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 

G1M.02-03 1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling F&E 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

G7M.02-01 1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation F&E 18,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

G6M.02-02 1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization F&E 3,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

G7M.02-02 1A08F NextGen - Operational Assessments F&E 10,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

G3M.04-01 1A08H NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) 6,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 6,000 

M03.02-00 

--

4A09A 

--

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety 

Subtotal 

Subtotal 

F&E 

F&E 

Ops 

Ops 

22,785 

150,785 

500 

500 

22,560 

105,060 

500 

500 

22,560 

105,060 

500 

500 

22,560 

109,060 

500 

500 

22,560 /7 

109,060 /8

500 /4

500 

Development TOTA L 151, 285 105, 560 105, 560 109, 560 109, 560 

Development PERCENT 39. 2% 31. 6% 31.7% 32. 4% 32. 0% 

GR A N D TOTA L $386,035 $333, 560 $332, 560 $338, 560 $342, 560 

Notes: 

/1 The funding levels listed for years 2013 to 2016 are estimates and subject to change.

/2 The amounts shown for F&E programs reflect only R&D activities: they do not include acquisition, operational testing, or other non-R&D activities. 

/3 The five programs in the ADT&P line (1A01) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/4 The eight programs in the NextGen - Systems Development line (1A08) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/5 The amount shown for CAASD includes only the R&D portion of the total CAASD line item amount. R&D represents 28.2% in FY 2012 and beyond. 

/6 The three programs in the Airport Technology Research line (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/7 The three programs in the Airport Cooperative Research Program (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

104 Chapter 4 
Table 4.4 

FAA R&D Program Budget by Performance Goals 

(Organized According to Exhibit II of the FAA FY 2012 Budget Request) 

FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 

Contract Personnel Other In- Total FY 2012 Project Appropriation Budget Line Program Number Account Costs Costs house Costs Planned Item ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) 

1. Safety

061-110 A11.a Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 3,850 3,960 347 8,157 

063-110 A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems R,E&D 2,400 1,092 119 3,611 

062-110/111 A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R,E&D 1,450 1,054 101 2,605 

064-110/111 A11.d Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety R,E&D 3,504 1,718 182 5,404 

065-110 A11.e Continued Airworthiness R,E&D 8,656 3,588 345 12,589 

066-110 A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research R,E&D 1,070 395 37 1,502 

081-110 A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors R,E&D 2,617 3,318 227 6,162 

060-110 A11.h System Safety Management R,E&D 7,330 2,427 270 10,027 

082-110 A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors R,E&D 4,241 6,019 374 10,634 

086-110 A11.j Aeromedical Research R,E&D 5,183 6,145 289 11,617 

041-110 A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 15,342 768 256 16,366 

069-110 A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research R,E&D 2,307 1,110 87 3,504 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 848 17 12 877 

011-140 A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility R,E&D 892 1,443 60 2,396 /1 

111-160 A11.m NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation R,E&D 2,003 40 28 2,071 /1

Subtotal R,E&D 61,693 33,094 2,733 97,521 

S09.02-00 1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction F&E 5,000 0 0 5,000 

Subtotal F&E 5,000 0 0 5,000 

-- -- Airport Technology Research - Safety AIP 13,984 1,741 0 15,725 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research - Safety AIP 3,750 1,250 0 5,000 

Subtotal AIP 17,734 2,991 0 20,725 

-- -- Commercial Space Transportation Safety Ops 1,000 0 0 1,000 

Subtotal Ops 1,000 0 0 1,000 

1. Safety TOTAL 85,427 36,085 2,733 124, 246 

2. Economic Competitiveness

027-110 A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office R,E&D 10,938 2,869 260 14,067 

111-130 A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence R,E&D 9,492 943 239 10,674 

111-110 A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors R,E&D 9,978 414 153 10,545 

111-120 A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors R,E&D 9,362 408 164 9,934 

111-140 A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit R,E&D 8,234 775 177 9,186 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 490 10 8 507 

011-140 A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility R,E&D 515 833 34 1,382 /1 

Subtotal R,E&D 49,009 6,252 1,036 56,295 /1 

M08.28-00 1A01B System Capacity, Planning and Improvement F&E 6,000 0 0 6,000 

M08.29-00 1A01C Operations Concept Validation F&E 4,000 0 0 4,000 

M08.27-01 1A01D NAS Weather Requirements F&E 1,000 0 0 1,000 

M08.28-04 1A01E Airspace Management Program F&E 3,000 0 0 3,000 

G1M.02-01 1A08A NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) F&E 10,000 0 0 10,000 

G1M.02-02 1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements F&E 37,000 0 0 37,000 

G1M.02-03 1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling F&E 10,000 0 0 10,000 

G7M.02-01 1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation F&E 18,000 0 0 18,000 

G6M.02-02 1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization F&E 3,000 0 0 3,000 

G7M.02-02 1A08F NextGen - Operational Assessments F&E 10,000 0 0 10,000 

G3M.04-01 1A08H NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) F&E 6,000 0 0 6,000 

M03.02-00 4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) F&E 22,785 0 0 22,785 

Subtotal F&E 130,785 0 0 130,785 /2 

-- -- Airport Technology Research - Capacity AIP 10,285 1,740 0 12,025 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research - Capacity AIP 3,750 1,250 0 5,000 

Subtotal AIP 14,035 2,990 0 17,025 

2. Economic Competitiveness TOTAL 193,829 9,242 1,036 204,105 

4. Environmental Sustainability

091-110/111/116 A13. a Environment and Energy R,E&D 12,658 2,025 644 15,327 

111-150 A13.b NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics R,E&D 18,655 1,378 490 20,523 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 323 6 4 334 

Subtotal R, E&D 31, 636 3, 409 1,138 36,184 /1

NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management Systems and Advanced Noise and Emissions G6M.02-01 1A08D F&E 15,000 0 0 15,000 Reduction 

Subtotal F&E 15,000 0 0 15,000 

-- -- Airport Technology Research - Environment AIP 1, 500 0 0 1, 50 0 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research - Environment AIP 3,750 1,250 0 5,000 

Subtotal AIP 5, 250 1, 250 0 6, 50 0 

4. Environmental Sustainability TOTAL 51, 886 4, 659 1,138 57, 684 

GR A N D TOTA L 331, 142 49,986 4,908 386, 035 

Notes: 

/1 System Planning and Resource Management is considered part of Mission Support for the R,E&D program and is pro-rated across the three goal areas as follows: Safety at 51.1 percent; Economic Competitiveness at

29.5 percent; and Environmental Sustainability at 19.54 percent. William J. Hughes Technical Center is considered part of Mission Support; it is pro-rated between Safety at 63.4 percent and Mobility at 36.6 percent. 

/2 The amount shown for CAASD includes only the R&D portion of the total CAASD line item amount. R&D represents 28.2% in FY 2012 and beyond. Many R&D programs apply to more than one goal area; however, for 

budgeting purposes most programs are included in only one goal area. The amounts shown for F&E programs reflect only R&D activities: they do not include acquisition, operational testing, or other non-R&D activities. 

Chapter 4 105 
106 Chapter 4 

P artnershi P s 

The FAA enhances and expands its R&D capabilities by working with other government, industry, and 

academic organizations using a variety of acquisition tools, such as cooperative agreements, grants, and 

contracts. These research mechanisms help leverage resources and critical national capabilities to ensure the 

FAA attains its R&D goals. 

Federal Government 

Other federal departments and agencies conduct aviation-related R&D that directly or indirectly supports the 

FAA goals and objectives. To leverage this R&D, the FAA uses cooperative agreements, such as memoranda of 

understanding/agreement (MOU/MOA) and international agreements. The establishment of the multi-agency 

JPDO shows how government can leverage the R&D capabilities of multiple agencies to transform the nation’s 

air transportation system. 

Memoranda of Understanding/Agreement 

Memoranda of Understanding/Agreement support joint research activities between departments or 

agencies. An MOU is a high-level agreement describing a broad area of research that fosters cooperation 

between departments or agencies and develops a basis for establishing joint research activities. An MOA 

is an agreement describing a specific area of research under a broader MOU. An MOA may include 

interagency agreements (IAs), written agreements between FAA and other agencies, in which FAA agrees to 

receive from, or exchange supplies or services with, the other agency. Appendix B lists current FAA MOUs, 

MOAs, and IAs. 

Joint Planning and Development Office 

The JPDO provides government-wide planning and coordination for NextGen. The JPDO members include 

the DoD, DOT, DHS, DOC, FAA, NASA, and OSTP. Its mission is to plan federal aviation R&D and focus it 

on the far-term needs of the nation’s air transportation system. Having developed the foundational NextGen 

documents, the JPDO is now focusing on the far-term NextGen vision to ensure FAA alignment with partner 

government agencies and other stakeholders that contribute to the NextGen effort. For more information, 

see http://www.jpdo.gov/. 
Chapter 4 

aviation. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/geoss/. 

The U.S. Global Change Research Program 

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) began as a presidential initiative in 1989. It was 

mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606), which called for “a 

comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world 

to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.” 

Thirteen federal departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP including DOT. The FAA contributes 

by assessing and identifying potential measures to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions 

and by conducting research to support USGCRP Goal 2, leveraging research with other U.S. Government 

agencies to reduce uncertainties surrounding aviation emissions and their effect on climate change. For 

more information, see http://www.globalchange.gov/. 

107 

National Science and Technology Council 

The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), established by Executive Order 12881 on November 

23, 1993, is a cabinet-level Council and the principal means within the executive branch to coordinate 

science and technology policy across the diverse entities that make up the federal research and development 

enterprise. Chaired by the President, the NSTC includes the Vice President, the Director of OSTP, Cabinet 

Secretaries, and Agency Heads with significant science and technology responsibilities, and other White 

House officials. For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc/. 

Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

The Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) provides an umbrella for 15 federal departments 

and agencies and several White House offices to work collaboratively to address a wide range of 

environmental issues, including those pertaining to aviation. These include enhanced weather observation, 

modeling, and forecasting; and air and water quality monitoring, modeling, and emissions. Under GEOSS, 

FAA works with the Environmental Protection Agency to address air quality and emissions issues facing 

 

Industry

The FAA technology transfer activities meet the objectives of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation 

Act of 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, the Technology Transfer 

Commercialization Act of 2000, Executive Order 12591 - Facilitating Access to Science and Technology, and 

Executive Order 12618 - Uniform Treatment of Federally Funded Inventions. The purpose is to transfer 

knowledge, intellectual property, facilities, equipment, or other capabilities developed by federal laboratories 

or agencies to the private sector. FAA does this through the following mechanisms: 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements 

A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) is collaborative in nature and allows FAA 

to share facilities, equipment, services, intellectual property, personnel, and other resources with private 

industry, academia, or state and local government agencies. Appendix B provides a list of active CRDAs for 

FY 2010. For more information, see http://www.faa.gov/go/ttp/. 

Contracts and Cooperative Agreements 

The FAA awards contracts and cooperative agreements to conduct applied research studies and to develop, 

prototype, demonstrate, and test new hardware and software. The FAA also awards contracts to small 

businesses in compliance with the terms of the Small Business Innovation Research Program. 

Intellectual Property and Patents 

As part of its commitment to assist industry through technology transfer, the FAA encourages the 

commercialization of its R&D products or results, known as intellectual property. Among the most 

transferred intellectual properties are inventions, including those protected by patents. Appendix B 

provides a list of current patents.
 

108 Chapter 4 
Ac AdemiA

The FAA has an extensive program to foster research and innovative aviation solutions through the nation’s 

colleges and universities. By doing so, it not only leverages the nation’s significant investment in basic and 

applied research but also helps to build the next generation of aerospace engineers, managers, and operators. 

The FAA efforts include the following: 

Joint University Program 

This cooperative research partnership among three universities (Ohio University, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, and Princeton University) conducts scientific and engineering research on technical disciplines 

that contribute to civil aviation, including air traffic control theory, human factors, satellite navigation 

and communications, aircraft flight dynamics, avionics, and meteorological hazards. The FAA and NASA 

benefit directly from the results of the research, and, less formally, from valuable feedback from university 

researchers regarding the goals and effectiveness of government programs. An additional benefit is the 

creation of a talented cadre of engineers and scientists who will form a core of advanced aeronautical experts 

in industry, academia, and government. For more information, see http://u2.princeton.edu/~jup/. 

Aviation Research Grants 

Public Law 101-508 Section 9205 authorizes the FAA to establish research grant programs that encompass 

a broad spectrum of aviation research activities. These programs encourage and support innovative and 

advanced research with potential benefit to the FAA mission. All colleges, universities, and other non-profit 

research institutions qualify for research grants. This FAA program also supports the long-term growth 

of the aviation industry by encouraging academic institutions to establish and nurture aviation research 

programs that increase the talent-base in aviation. Appendix B provides a summary of grants issued in FY 

2010. For more information, see http://www.tc.faa.gov/logistics/grants/. 

Air Transportation Centers of Excellence 

Public Law 101-508 Section 9209 authorizes the Administrator to establish and operate air transportation 

centers of excellence (COEs). Through these collaborative, long-term, cost-sharing partnerships, 

government, academia, and industry teams leverage their resources to advance the technological future 

of the nation’s aviation community. The FAA operates six COEs through cooperative agreements with 

academic institutions to assist in mission-critical research in the areas of commercial space transportation, 

airliner cabin and inter-modal transport environment, advanced materials, noise and emissions mitigation, 

general aviation, and airport technology. Appendix B provides a summary of COE activities. For more 

information, see http://www.faa.gov/go/coe/. 

Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute 

The Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute is a cooperative industry, government, and academic venture 

for investigation and standardization of aerospace vehicle systems to reduce life-cycle cost and accelerate 

development of systems, architectures, tools, and processes. For more information, see http://avsi-tees. 

tamu.edu/. 

Chapter 4 109 
InternatIonal

The FAA uses cooperative agreements with European and North American aviation organizations to participate 

in aviation safety and ATM modernization programs and to leverage research activities that harmonize 

operations and promote a seamless and safe air transportation system worldwide. 

EUROCONTROL 

The European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) is a civil and military 

organization with the goal to develop a seamless, pan-European ATM system. In 1986, EUROCONTROL 

and FAA established the first memorandum of cooperation (MOC), which they updated in 1992 and again in 

2004. The aim of the MOC and its governance structure is to broaden the scope of the cooperation between 

the two organizations and their respective partners in the areas of ATM research, strategic ATM analysis, 

technical harmonization, operational harmonization, and harmonizing safety and environment factors. For 

more information, see http://www.eurocontrol.int/. 

AIRE 

Established in 2007, the Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE) provides a 

foundation for cooperation between the FAA and the European Commission on research to aid the 

environment while making air transportation more efficient. In addition to facilitating cooperation among 

aviation authorities, AIRE also involves industry partners, such as aircraft manufacturers, operators, and 

providers of aviation navigation services. In total, 1,152 flights contributed to the framework of AIRE. 

Analysis of the data collected show that 400 tons of CO2 could be saved which corresponds to the annual 

CO2 emission of 100 passenger cars. For more information, see http://www.ec.europa.eu/transport/air/ 

environment/aire_en.htm/. 

Transport Canada 

In the spring of 2004, Transport Canada joined FAA and NASA as a sponsor of the PARTNER (Partnership 

for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction) Center of Excellence. Transport Canada has 

studied and will continue to study air quality at Canadian airports to develop and implement practices 

that reduce air pollution from airports. Canada, as a member state of ICAO, works to reduce smogforming pollutants from the aviation sector and participates in the COE partnership to advance the state of 

knowledge in many key areas. 

ASPIRE 

The Asia and South Pacific Initiative to Reduce Emissions (ASPIRE) was established February 18, 2008 as a 

partnership, with initial partners FAA, Airservices Australia, and Airways New Zealand; and demonstration 

partners SEAC Tahiti and Airports Fiji. The partnership seeks to reduce the impact of aviation on the 

environment in the Asia and South Pacific regions through technological innovation and best practice air 

traffic management. It includes demonstrations and implementation of key NextGen technologies and 

practices, including reduced separation, more efficient flight profiles, and tailored arrivals. Initial results 

based on the current and “ideal flight” trajectories for selected 806 city pair flights show an average of 5.5% 

fuel burn benefit. For more information, see http://www.aspire-green.com/. 

110 Chapter 4 

 

E v a l u a t i o n 

Since R&D tends to be far-term in nature, it does not lend itself to traditional return-on-investment analysis, 

such as net present value. The FAA conducts evaluation through formal and informal reviews by internal and 

external groups. 

Internal Portfol I o re vIews 

The FAA R&D portfolio receives continuous internal review to ensure that it meets customer needs, high 

quality standards, and management excellence. 

Process Improvements and Quality Management 

The FAA uses methods such as International Organization for Standards 9000 and models like the 

Integrated Capability Maturity Model to manage quality and evaluate and improve processes.
 

Program Planning Teams 

To ensure effective engagement with research stakeholders, the FAA Office of Research and Technology 

Development uses Program Planning Teams comprised of internal sponsors and researchers to review 

program outcomes and outputs, prioritize and plan research efforts, recommend research priorities and 

programs, and prepare research portfolios. 

R&D Executive Board 

When R&D portfolio formulation is complete, the FAA REB provides portfolio approval. The REB includes 

senior executives representing the major R&D sponsors of the FAA. This process helps FAA establish 

research priorities to meet its strategic goals and objectives. 

Joint Resources Council 

The Joint Resources Council (JRC) is FAA’s corporate-level acquisition decision-making body that provides 

strategic guidance to the R&D portfolio process and ensures that the research requirements support the FAA 

NAS program. The JRC reviews and approves the proposed R&D portfolio. 

external Portfol I o re vIews 

The FAA R&D portfolio receives periodic external review from advisory committees to ensure that it meets 

customer needs and is technically sound. The FAA also seeks feedback from the National Academies and 

through user surveys and discussion groups. Researchers present their progress reports at public forums and 

science reviews, publish and present technical papers, obtain formal peer validation of science, and maintain 

and share lessons learned. 

Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee 

Established in 1989, the Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) advises 

the Administrator on R&D issues and assists in ensuring FAA research activities are coordinated with other 

government agencies and industry. The REDAC considers aviation research needs in five areas: NAS 

operations, airport technology, aircraft safety, human factors, and environment and energy.* A maximum of 

30 members can serve on the REDAC and represent corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and 

government agencies. 

During 2010, the REDAC held two committee meetings and ten subcommittee meetings and produced two 

reports. Appendix C provides the recommendations from these reports and the Agency responses. For more 

information, see http://go.usa.gov/aQW/. 

* Aviation Safety Research Act of 1988, Public Law Number 100-591, November 3, 1988, and FAA Research, Engineering and 

Development Authorization Act of 1990, Public Law Number 101-508, November 5, 1990. 

Chapter 4 111 
who appoints them. 

The 

export controls and advocated support for the White House’s “four singles” approach, which would create 

a single coordinating agency, a single list, a single licensing agency, and a single information technology 

system. The second set supported the Commercial Crew Development Program and advocated licensing for 

commercial human spaceflight activities. For more information, see http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/ 

headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/. 

Transportation Research Board 

The National Research Council established the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in 1920 as the 

National Advisory Board on Highway Research. In 1974, the Board was renamed TRB to reflect its 

expanded services to all modes of transportation. The TRB mission is to promote innovation and 

progress in transportation through research. It fulfills this mission through the work of its 

standing committees and task forces. The TRB manages the ACRP for the FAA with program 

oversight and governance provided by representatives of airport operating agencies. 

The ACRP Oversight Committee announced their FY 2011 projects in August 2010. 

The 30 projects will examine different research areas that target near-term 

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 

Established in 1984, the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) advises the 

FAA Administrator and the U.S. Department of Transportation on matters relating to the U.S. commercial 

space transportation industry, including R&D activities. Currently, the Committee has twenty-two 

members. The Administrator recommends members to the Secretary of Transportation, 

Each member serves a two-year term. Members represent commercial launch providers of expendable and 

reusable launch vehicles, rocket propulsion, commercial launch site operations, satellite manufacturing and 

operations, space policy and education, space law, insurance and finance, state government and economic 

development, space advocacy, and space business and technical associations. The COMSTAC provides 

annual recommendations for commercial space transportation R&D projects and periodically reviews FAA 

commercial space R&D reports and activities. 

During 2010, the COMSTAC held two full committee meetings and eight working group meetings. 

Committee produced two sets of recommendations at its May 2010 meeting. The first set focused on 

112 Chapter 4 

solutions to problems facing airport operators and industry stakeholders, such 

as the Airports Council International. These projects include development 

of airport performance metrics, low cost practices to reduce airport 

carbon footprint, airport development under oil price uncertainty, 

and assessment of the risks of runway safety areas and existing 

airfield separation standards. For more information, see http:// 

www.trb.org/ACRP/Public/. 
 

 

 

Photo Credits 113

P hoto C redits 

FAA Headquarters, Washington, DC 

Robert Bach: Cover, ii-iii, iv-v, Chapters 1-4 title pages; pages: 18, 24-25, 38, 

 54, 106-107, 113 

Wikipedia Creative Commons: Pages: 14, 21, 22, 27, 31, 35, 41, 46, 57, 61, 

62, 66, 72, 78, 101, 108, 112 

Mark Brouwer: Page 32 (Wikipedia Creative Commons) 

Etan J. Tal: Page 45 (Wikipedia Creative Commons) 

Phillip Capper: Page 48 “De-icing at Syracuse” (Wikipedia Creative Commons) 
AC Advisory Circular 

ACER Airliner Cabin Environment Research 

ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program 

ACSD Aviation Child Safety Device 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance-Broadcast 

AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool 

AIP Airport Improvement Program 

Appropriation 

AIRE Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to 

Reduce Emissions 

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider 

APM Automated People Mover 

APMT Aviation Environmental Portfolio 

Management Tool 

ASDE-X Airport Surface Detection Equipment 

ASIAS 

ASPIRE	

ASTM 

ATC	

ATD&P 

ATM	

ATSP	

AVS 

CAASD 

CAEP 

CAMI 

CDTI	

CIP 

CLEEN 

A cronyms A nd 

Model-X 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis 

and Sharing 

Asia	and	South	Pacific	Initiative	to	

Reduce Emissions 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

Air	Traffic	Control

Advanced Technology and 

Development and Prototyping 

Air	Traffic	Management

Air	Traffic	Service	Provider

Aviation Safety 

Center for Advanced Aviation System 

Development 

Committee on Aviation Environmental 

Protection 

Civil Aerospace Medicine Institute 

Cockpit	Display	of	Traffic	Information

Capital Investment Plan 

Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions 

EA 

EFB 

EMS 

ERAM 

ERS 

EUROCONTROL 

EVO 

EVS 

F&E 

FAA 

FAC 

FEP 

FLEX 

A bbrevi A tions 

and Noise 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

COE Center of Excellence 

COMSTAC 

Advisory Committee 

ConOps Concept of Operations 

CONUS Continental United States 

CRDA Cooperative Research and 

Development Agreement 

CRS Child Restraint System 

CSPO 

DARWIN 

Inspection 

DataCom Data Communications 

DHS 

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOT 

DRG Design Review Group 

Commercial Space Transportation 

Closely Spaced Parallel Operations 

Design Assessment Of Reliability With 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

FMS 

FEWS 

FY 

GA 

GEOSS 

GPS 

HIWC 

HSI 

HUMS 

IA 

ICAO 

IM 

IMC 

IWP 

JPDO	

JRC 

LOSA 

LTO 

MMPDS 

MOA 

MOC 

MOPS 

MOU 

Flight Management System 

Future En Route Work Station 

Fiscal Year 

General Aviation 

Systems 

Global Positioning System 

High Ice Water Content 

Human-System Integration 

Interagency Agreement 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

Interval Management 

Integrated Work Plan 

Joint Resources Council 

Line Operations Safety Audit 

Landing and Takeoff 

Metallic Materials Property 

Memorandum of Agreement 

Memorandum of Cooperation 

Standards 

Memorandum of Understanding 

Enterprise Architecture 

Electronic Flight Bag 

Environmental Management System 

En Route Automation Modernization 

Enhanced Repository System 

European Organization for the Safety 

of Air Navigation 

Equivalent Visual Operations 

Enhanced Vision System 

Facilities and Equipment 

Appropriation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Transform Facilities 

Front End Processor 

Flexible Terminals and Airports 

Global Earth Observation System of 

Health and Usage Monitoring System 

Instrument Meteorological Conditions 

Joint	Planning	and	Development	Office

Development and Standardization 

Minimum Operational Performance 

114 Acronyms and Abbreviations 
Report of the Federal Aviation Administration to the 

United States Congress pursuant to 49 U.S. Code 44501(c)

2011 NARP

May 2011

The National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) is a report of the Federal Aviation Administration to the United 

States Congress pursuant to 49 United States Code 44501(c). The NARP is available on the Internet at http://

www.faa.gov/go/narp.


 


 


 


 


 


 

Federal Aviation
 

Administration
 

2011 

National Aviation Research Plan 

(NARP) 

Appendices 

A - Program Descriptions 

B - Partnership Activities 

C - R,E&D Advisory Committee 

D - NARP Chapter 2 Milestone Status 

E - Acronyms and Abbreviations 

May 2011 

Report of the Federal Aviation Administration 

to the United States Congress 

pursuant to 49 U.S. Code 44501(c) 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

2011 NARP Appendix A 

Appendix A: Program Descriptions 

Table of Contents
 

Budget Narrative Number and Name Page No. 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety............................................................................................. 1
 

A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems ....................................................................................... 5
 

A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety ........................................................................... 8
 

A11.d Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety ......................................... 13
 

A11.e Continued Airworthiness............................................................................................ 18
 

A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research ........................................................ 22
 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors ........................................ 25
 

A11.h System Safety Management ...................................................................................... 29
 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors ............................................... 34
 

A11.j Aeromedical Research................................................................................................ 38
 

A11.k Weather Program ..................................................................................................... 44
 

A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research ......................................................................... 48
 

A11.m NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation ....................................................... 52
 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office ...................................................................... 56
 

A12.b NextGen – Wake Turbulence ..................................................................................... 59
 

A12.c NextGen – Air Ground Integration Human Factors....................................................... 63
 

A12.d NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors ................................................................. 69
 

A12.e NextGen – Weather Technology in the Cockpit ........................................................... 74
 

A13.a Environment and Energy ........................................................................................... 79
 

A13.b NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics ............ 84
 

A14.a System Planning and Resource Management .............................................................. 90
 

A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility................................................ 93
 

1A01 Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping ................................................... 97
 

1A08 Next Generation Transportation System (NextGen) – System Development ..................102
 

4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.................................................111
 

Airport Cooperative Research Program ...............................................................................114
 

Airport Technology Research Program ................................................................................116
 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety ............................................................................121
 

A-i 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Fire Research and Safety 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety $7,799,000 $8,157,000 +$358,000 

For FY 2012, $8,157,000 is requested for Fire Research and Safety. Major activities and accomplishments planned 

with the requested funding include: 

Fire Safety Improvements: 

	 Complete tests in engine fire simulator to determine the fire extinguishing effectiveness and performance 

criteria for novel, environmentally friendly dry powder agent. 

	 Develop a cost-effective halon (an ozone depleting and global warming chemical) replacement system for 

hand-held extinguishers. 

	 Evaluate the effectiveness and safety (toxicity) of hand-held extinguishers discharging contaminated halon. 

	 Determine the capability of existing airline hazardous materials containers for preventing the hazards of a 

lithium battery fire from spreading outside of the containers. 

	 Study novel agents and systems for the suppression of cargo fires in freighter aircraft. 

	 Develop improved next generation burner test method for the fire worthiness of power plant components. 

Fire Safety Research: 

	 Extend the FAA ThermaKin burning model to two-dimensions to predict flame spread on cabin materials and 

composite fuselage structure. 

	 Conduct reduced-scale fire tests to calibrate cabin fire model. 

	 Test and evaluate developmental environmentally-friendly, ultra-fire resistant materials. 

For FY 2012, research continues to focus on in-flight fire safety in both freighter (all cargo) and passenger-carrying 

aircraft. In freighter aircraft, work will continue on the development of a practical and cost-effective fire detection 

and suppression system. Also, the safe transport of lithium batteries will be emphasized by the evaluation of 

available agents/systems to extinguish lithium battery fires and the development of a fire-hardened container to ship 

lithium batteries. This work supports proposed rulemaking by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA), in consultation with FAA, to improve the fire safety aspects of the transportation of lithium 

batteries. 

In passenger carrying aircraft, FAA will continue work on extinguishment or suppression of in-flight fires in fire-prone 

areas. Because of deadlines proposed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), more full and largescale tests will be conducted on engine, hand-held, and cargo compartment applications to replace halon with 

practical and effective agents that are environmentally acceptable in terms of ozone depletion and global warming. 

Also, recent discovery of contamination in recycled halon will require testing to determine the effect on 

extinguishment effectiveness and safety (toxicity). 

The FAA will also continue its research on the improvement of existing flammability tests and the development of 

new tests for novel applications of materials that may impact fire safety. A next generation oil burner will be adapted 

for power plant component fire tests because the existing antiquated burner produces variable results, and a 

replacement propane burner has been shown to produce conditions that are less severe than required. Proper fire 

Research, Engineering and Development A-1 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

tests and performance criteria are needed for structural composite fuselages, such as the new Boeing 787, and for 

the novel application of fire resistant magnesium alloys in seat structure and possibly other cabin applications. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The FAA issues aircraft fire safety rules that govern material selection, design criteria, and operational procedures. 

The new test methods, reports, and journal publications produced by the Fire Research and Safety Program describe 

the technical basis for these regulations and offer guidance for regulatory compliance. We provide industry with 

state-of-the-art safety products and information as a result of our research and produce publications and 

government-owned patents on new materials, fire test instrumentation, and analytical methodologies. 

The program develops technologies, procedures, test methods, and fire performance criteria that can prevent 

accidents caused by hidden cabin or cargo compartment in-flight fires and fuel tank explosions, and improve 

survivability during a post-crash fire. Fire safety focuses on near-term improvements in fire test methods and 

materials performance criteria, fire detection and suppression systems, and aircraft fuel tank explosion protection. 

Fire research addresses fundamental issues of combustion toxicity, the impact of flame retardant chemicals on the 

fire and health hazards of cabin materials, and the impact of materials flammability on the initiation of in-flight fires 

and post-crash survivability. 

The Fire Research and Safety Program works with the following industry and government groups: 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

(REDAC) – These representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review 

the program’s research activities. 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support new rule making and development of alternate means of compliance 

for existing rules. 

	 Aircraft manufacturers (U.S. and foreign), airlines, foreign airworthiness authorities, chemical companies, 

material suppliers, and aircraft fire safety equipment manufacturers meet regularly to share information on 

interior material fire tests and improvement of fire detection and suppression systems and jointly funded 

university research on ultra fire resistant materials. 

	 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) – FAA works with and supports NTSB on in-flight fire incidents, 

on-site accident investigations, and related testing. 

	 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) – FAA works with PHMSA to cooperatively 

develop requirements/guidelines for the safe transport of hazardous materials (current focus is on lithium 

batteries). 

	 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) – FAA provides expertise on the development of a mandate 

by ICAO to require the replacement of halon in civil aviation by specific dates. 

Fire Research and Safety Program R&D partners include: 

	 FAA-sponsored International Systems Fire Protection Working Group – R&D involves fuel tank protection, 

hidden fire safety, fire/smoke detectors, halon replacement, and lithium battery fire hazards. 

	 FAA-sponsored International Aircraft Materials Fire Test Working Group – R&D involves development and 

standardization of improved material fire tests. 

	 Interagency working group on fire and materials – promotes technology exchange among U.S. Government 

agencies and prevents unwarranted duplication of work. 

	 Interagency agreement with the National Institute of Standards and Technology – develops fire-retardant 

mechanisms and rapid screening tools for flammability. 

	 Memorandum of cooperation with the British Civil Aviation Administration – R&D involves a variety of fire 

safety research efforts. 

	 Cabin safety research technical group – cooperates in and coordinates cabin safety research conducted 

and/or sponsored by international regulatory authorities. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-2 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Consortia with Fortune 100 companies to share research and development costs for new fire-resistant 

materials. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Fire Safety Improvements: 

	 Determined the effectiveness of cost-effective available fire suppression agents/systems against cargo 

container fires in freighter aircraft. 

	 Evaluated the effectiveness of current fire extinguishing agents against lithium battery fires. 

	 Provided comprehensive guidance on lithium battery fire safety in passenger items and aircraft systems. 

	 Determined the effectiveness and safety of approved and developmental halon replacement agents for the 

extinguishment of cabin fires with hand-held extinguishers. 

	 Standardized the new composite flammability test method for in-flight fire resistance. 

	 Developed a flammability test method for seat structure (e.g., magnesium alloy), if warranted. 

	 Determined and compared the fuel tank flammability envelope for candidate alternative fuels and Jet A fuel. 

Fire Safety Research: 

	 Evaluated the combustion characteristics of adhesives used in the construction of aircraft cabins in support 

of FAA/industry effort to obtain regulatory relief by demonstrating similarity of fire performance. 

	 Extended the FAA thermal-kinetic burning model (ThermaKin) to one-dimensional burning of layered and 

structural composite materials. 

Performance Linkages 

Fire Research and Safety is an in-house program that supports the DOT’s strategic goal of increasing aviation safety 

by reducing the number of accidents associated with aircraft fires and by mitigating the effects of a post-crash 

ground fire. 

FAA will work to reduce the number of accidents and incidents caused by in-flight fire in both passenger-carrying and 

all-cargo (freighter) aircraft, to prevent fuel tank explosions, and to improve survivability during a post-crash fire. 

Near-term research will focus on improved fire test standards for interior materials; new fire tests for novel material 

applications such as composite fuselage structure and magnesium seats; high energy lithium battery fire safety; 

supporting the replacement of halon, in FAA-required fire extinguishing systems; and new or improved fire detection 

and extinguishment systems. Long term research will be conducted to support near term improvements and develop 

the enabling technology for a fireproof aircraft cabin. 

The following goals directly support the ultimate strategic goals of in-flight fire prevention, fuel tank explosion 

prevention, and improved post-crash fire survivability: 

	 By FY 2012, define composite fuselage fire safety design criteria. 

	 By FY 2013, define performance criteria for cargo containers for the safe shipment of lithium batteries. 

	 By FY 2014, use full-scale cabin fire models to demonstrate the effects of material improvements and 

substitutions on post-crash fire survivability and the likelihood of in-flight fires. 

	 By FY 2014, determine viable and environmentally safe agents/systems to replace halon in cargo 

compartment fire suppression systems. 

	 By FY 2016, demonstrate the effectiveness of an integrated fire suppression system using nitrogen available 

from a fuel tank inerting system. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The consequences of fire in commercial aviation are great – the large loss of life in accidents either caused by fire 

(in-flight fire and explosions) or as a consequence of fire (post-crash fire), and the destruction of the aircraft. It is an 

Research, Engineering and Development A-3 
 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

awesome challenge to prevent accidents caused by in-flight fire or fuel tank explosions and to improve survivability 

by mitigating the effects of a post-crash fire when one considers the following: the passengers are in a densely 

populated and confined space; the wings are laden with tens of thousands of gallons of flammable jet fuel; the cabin 

is furnished and lined with plastic materials; tens of miles of wiring and cable are routed behind the cabin walls, 

ceiling and floor; and below the floor in the cargo compartment is flammable passenger luggage and cargo. To 

prevent or mitigate the effects of fire, the majority of the research is directed toward the development of new or 

improved fire tests for interior materials and cost-effective fire extinguishing systems. 

FAA fire safety research is largely driven by accidents, NTSB recommendations, new technology, new fire threats, 

and environmental concerns. In the 1980’s and early 1990’s the emphasis was on improved post-crash fire 

survivability. However, three catastrophic accidents in the 1990’s have driven research priorities over the past 

decade: ValuJet (1995, 110 fatalities), TWA 800 (1995, 230 fatalities) and Swiss Air (1998, 229 fatalities). Currently, 

fire safety research is addressing destructive freighter fires and the continuing threat of in-flight fire (e.g., over 800 

incidents of odor and smoke in 2006); structural composite fuselage fire resistance (e.g., B787) and other proposed 

new interior materials such as magnesium alloys; fuel tank flammability in composite wings; the growing threat of 

lithium batteries in cargo shipments, passenger personal electronic devices and in aircraft emergency power systems; 

and the need for environmentally-acceptable and practical replacements for halon extinguishing agents. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

Over the past 25 years, every major improvement in aircraft fire safety that has been implemented by FAA through 

the regulatory and advisory process was a product of this program. Over that time period a recent analysis of worldwide accidents has shown that the probability of dying in an aircraft fire has been reduced (improved) by a factor of 

three. The most recent examples of these regulatory products are (1) in-flight fire resistant thermal acoustic 

insulation (effective 9/2/05), (2) explosion prevention fuel tank inerting systems (effective 9/19/08), and (3) 

burnthrough resistance thermal acoustic insulation (effective 9/2/09). The future benefit of the first two rules was 

projected by FAA to be the prevention of two to three catastrophic aircraft accidents, which would have caused many 

hundreds of fatalities. 

Almost all of the work is conducted in-house by internationally recognized experts in aircraft fire safety and research. 

The FAA operates the world’s most extensive aircraft fire test facilities. The vast majority of the work is directed 

toward the improvement by FAA fire safety regulations. In addition, FAA certification engineers receive training in 

these facilities on the material flammability test standards developed by this program that are now FAA regulations. 

At the request of the NTSB, program personnel participate in major fire accident and incident investigations. The 

Fire Research and Safety Program annually publishes over two dozen reports and papers (available to the public 

online at http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/reports/reports.asp) highlighting research results that have led to major 

improvements in aircraft safety. In addition, the results of FAA’s research is often published in peer-reviewed 

scientific journals, presented at technical conferences, and/or discussed at technical workshops. 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure that FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Modest reductions would delay plans to build burners for six laboratories and conduct round robin tests to establish 

the reproducibility of the burners. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-4 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems $3,105,000 $3,611,000 +$506,000 

For FY 2012, $3,611,000 is requested for Propulsion and Fuel Systems. Major activities and accomplishments 

planned with the requested funding include: 

	 The probabilistic design for rotor integrity (PDRI) program will continue to address material and 

manufacturing anomalies that can increase the risk of failure of critical rotating turbine engine parts by 

advancing the probabilistically-based turbine engine rotor design and life management code found in the 

Design Assessment of reliability with Inspection (DARWINTM) in order to enhance its predictive capability. 

These enhancements map directly to future advisory circulars (ACs) planned by the Engine and Propeller 

Directorate (ANE) and benefits will accrue in the form of a reduced risk of engine failures and fewer 

accidents, which in turn will lead to fewer injuries and fatalities. 

	 The PDRI program will also continue to develop advanced damage tolerance methods for turbine rotor disks 

through experimentation and modeling to address the effects of complex time-temperature stress histories, 

small crack sizes, anomalies in nickel alloys, crack geometries, and surface residual stress on fatigue crack 

growth life. 

	 The cold dwell fatigue program will continue to develop a design methodology for use by industry to 

prevent cold dwell fatigue in turbine rotor disks and will continue to develop a technique to assess the risk 

of cold dwell fatigue in the current aircraft fleet. 

	 Continue the enhancement of the DARWINTM probabilistic rotor design code. 

	 Develop a plan with stakeholders for propulsion malfunction detection and reporting requirements in 

NextGen and also propulsion malfunctions on unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to assess safety risks. 

2. What Is This Program? 

FAA issues certification standards and ACs and reviews the specifications and practices recommended by recognized 

technical societies (American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) International) to maintain the airworthiness of aircraft engines, fuels, and airframe fuel management systems. 

The agency also publishes information and sponsors technology workshops, demonstrations, and other means of 

training and technology transfer. The Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program provides the technical information, R&D 

resources, and technical oversight necessary for the agency to enhance the airworthiness, reliability, and 

performance of propulsion and fuel systems. 

The Propulsion and Fuel Systems program develops technologies, procedures, test methods, and criteria to enhance 

the airworthiness, reliability, and performance of civil turbine and piston engines, propellers, fuels, and fuel 

management systems. To improve safety, the program conducts research needed to develop tools, guidelines, and 

data to support improvements in turbine engine certification requirements. 

Propulsion malfunction events in the NextGen environment with decreased aircraft separation may result in aircraft 

trajectory deviations. Propulsion system monitoring and possibly adaptive controls will be investigated to mitigate 

potential incursions. Also, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) will be assessed for safety risks associated with engine 

malfunctions. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-5 
	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

The Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program works with the following industry and government groups: 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – 

representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review the program’s 

activities. 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support new rulemaking and development of alternate means of compliance for 

existing rules. 

	 The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) – working subcommittees on rotor integrity and rotor 

manufacturing.
 

Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program R&D partners include: 

	 Turbine Rotor Material Design Program – Southwest Research Institute has teamed with Pratt and Whitney, 

General Electric, Honeywell, and Rolls Royce to provide DARWINTM, a probabilistic-based rotor life and risk 

management certification tool. 

	 The AIA working subcommittees on rotor integrity and rotor manufacturing. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Turbine Engine Research 

	 Released an enhanced version of the DARWINTM probabilistic rotor design code with capabilities for high 

temperature crack growth and the ability to introduce anomalies that occur at shop visits and during service. 

Performance Linkages 

The main research area within the Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program is to ensure the structural integrity and 

durability of critical rotating engine parts in turbine engines throughout their service life. This research is providing 

analytical tools to meet the requirements of AC 33.14-1, “Damage Tolerance for High Energy Turbine Engine Rotors,” 

allowing aircraft turbine engine manufacturers to assess the risk of fracture and manage the life of rotor disks. 

Research is also being conducted to establish an improved understanding of other material factors and 

manufacturing anomalies that can shorten the fatigue life of rotor disks. The goals of the focused research endeavors 

are: 

	 By FY 2013, develop a design methodology for use by industry to prevent cold dwell fatigue in turbine 

engine rotor disks and define a technique to assess the risk of the current aircraft fleet for cold dwell 

fatigue. 

	 By FY 2014, develop a certification tool that will predict the risk of failure of rotor disks containing material 

and manufacturing anomalies. 

	 By FY 2014, perform analysis of propulsion malfunctions in the NextGen environment and on UAS to assess 

safety risks. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

In spite of a history of safe turbine engine operation in commercial aviation, the threat of an engine failure is always 

present and the potential consequences are enormous – the large loss of life in accidents and the destruction of the 

aircraft. Although they are few, accidents such as United Airlines Flight 232 on July 19, 1989 in Sioux City, Iowa, and 

the Delta Airlines 1288 on July 6, 1996 in Pensacola, Florida are noteworthy because they were caused by the failure 

of turbine engine components that caused catastrophic loss of life and aircraft. Turbine engine research is conducted 

to study the causes of failures and determine how to prevent them in the future. 

FAA Propulsion and Fuel Systems research, conducted in conjunction with the manufacturers, has shown that the 

primary inherent failure modes in these accidents result from the presence of material and manufacturing anomalies 

that can degrade the structural integrity of high energy turbine rotors. The primary failure mode of the Sioux City 

accident was a fatigue crack that originated from an undetected titanium alloy melt-related defect. From the 

research the FAA made recommendations related to the improvement of titanium metallurgical quality, 

nondestructive inspection, and turbine rotor structural design and lifing standards. The research has yielded a 

Research, Engineering and Development A-6 
 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

probabilistically-based damage tolerance design code (DARWINTM) to determine the risk of fracture of turbine engine 

rotor disks containing undetected material anomalies which is used by all the major engine manufacturers. The goal 

of the research continues to be the prevention of turbine engine related accidents. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction would result in a delay of several months in the start of development of a new fleet risk assessment 

module for the DARWINTM code. 

A further reduction would delay development of a new fleet risk assessment module for the DARWINTM code until FY 

2013. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-7 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Advanced Materials/Structural Safety 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural 

Safety $4,935,000 $2,605,000 -$2,330,000 

For FY 2012, $2,605,000 is requested for Advanced Materials/Structural Safety. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Advanced Materials 

	 Continued work to expand developments in composite training with the initial emphasis on levels of safety 

awareness for structural engineering and manufacturing. 

	 Study for the types of threats to composite aircraft structures while at the service gate and on the flight line. 

	 Documenting of accepted certification methodology for damage tolerance and fatigue, including full-scale 

test and analysis protocols for repeated loads and damage threats. 

	 Development of training and conduct workshops to review progress in damage tolerance, adhesive joints, 

and maintenance. 

	 Evaluation of safety of new material forms (e.g., discontinuous fiber composites) that have found 

application in primary aircraft structures. 

Structural Safety 

	 Continued development of analytical modeling protocols and methodologies of aircraft structures crash 

conditions for certification use. 

	 Continued development of standards and methods to characterize dynamic properties of composite material 

systems. 

	 Continued support of new rulemaking and guidance development for Part 25 composite and metallic aircraft 

crashworthiness for structural substantiation certification. 

Advanced Materials 

The program will continue to focus on damage tolerance and fatigue issues of composite structures, including the 

assessment of impact damage threats (e.g., in-flight hail, ground vehicle collisions), and the aging of composite 

materials. Composite control surfaces degradation on transport airplanes will be explored and linked to aircraft 

safety issues. Quality control procedures will be studied for adhesive joints. Important field variables will be 

evaluated for bonded and bolted repairs. Properties of new materials and applications, which are used in primary 

aircraft structures, will be studied and evaluated. Safety awareness trainings in structural engineering for advanced 

composite materials have been developed and provided to related workforce. Work will continue supporting the 

composite safety awareness training development for a manufacturing course. 

Structural Safety 

Research will continue to develop analytical models of aircraft crash events. This will focus on the development of 

criteria and methodologies to validate analysis techniques and assess the effectiveness of the analysis to properly 

describe the crash event. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-8 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

2. What Is This Program? 

The Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program provides technical support for rule making and develops guidance 

to help the aviation industry comply with agency regulations. 

Advanced Materials 

FAA establishes rules for the certification of safe and durable materials for use in aircraft construction. While the 

rules are the same for composite or metal structures, different behavioral characteristics of structural materials call 

for different means of compliance. Although Advisory Circular (AC) 20-107B, “Composite Aircraft Structure,” has 

been published, advances in technologies and materials require periodic updates and expansion of the AC. The FAA 

Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor disseminates current technical information developed in this program to 

regulatory personnel through technical reports, handbooks, guidance, policy, and related training courses. The goal 

of this data exchange is to allow regulatory processes to keep pace with industry advances and benefit from state-ofthe-art technology and design. This provides the most efficient safety and certification information to the FAA 

certification service and industry. 

Structural Safety 

FAA revises or updates crashworthiness-related Federal Aviation Regulations to accommodate new information for 

overhead stowage bins, auxiliary fuel tanks and fuel systems, aircraft configurations, seat and restraint systems, and 

human tolerance injury criteria. FAA, through this program, is developing alternative methods to streamline the 

certification process (i.e., certification by analysis and component tests in lieu of full-scale tests). 

The Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program assesses the safety implications of new and present-day 

composites, alloys, and other materials, and associated structures and fabrication techniques that can help to reduce 

aviation fatalities. The program also develops advanced methodologies for assessing aircraft crashworthiness. In 

addition, the Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program helps FAA achieve its strategic goals in international 

leadership and organizational excellence by providing a developmental basis in aircraft certification guidance and 

training in all areas of study that can be used throughout the world. 

The Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program complies with or cooperates with the following legislation and 

industrial and government groups: 

	 Public Law 100-591, the Aviation Safety Research Act of 1988, and House of Representatives Report 100­

894 – set priorities to: develop technologies, conduct data analysis for current aircraft, and anticipate 

problems related to future aircraft. 

	 The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee – this FAA committee and its subcommittees help to ensure 

the effectiveness of the agency’s rulemaking by identifying R&D requirements and priorities, providing 

guidance for the update of documents, such as AC 20-107B and encouraging industry’s full participation in 

implementing new rules. 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – 

representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review the program’s 

activities. 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support new rule making and development of alternative means of compliance 

for existing rules. 

	 The Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program benefits from a close working relationship with the Joint 

Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials and Structures led by Wichita State University and the 

University of Washington. The research performed under this program is leveraged by the monetary and 

intellectual contributions of its partners including many major commercial aviation companies. 

Advanced Materials 

	 FAA sponsors, with the cooperation of other government agencies and industry, a primary, authoritative 

handbook (Composite Materials Handbook 17) facilitating the statistical characterization data of current and 

emerging composite materials. This international reference tool is the best available data and technology 

source for testing and analysis, and also includes guidance on data development, design, inspection, 

Research, Engineering and Development A-9 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 
 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

manufacturing and product usage. On recommendations by regulatory guidance, material data contained in 

this handbook are acceptable for use in the certification process. The FAA research is also coordinated with 

SAE standards organizations for advanced materials (e.g., Committee P-17 for composite materials 

specifications and the Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee (CACRC), ASTM, and Society for the 

Advancement of Material & Process Engineering). 

	 Interagency Advanced Structures Working Group, which consists of FAA, NASA and the DoD agency, was 

established in FY 2010. This working group will coordinate all current and future advanced composite 

research programs between federal agencies to ensure effective research efforts by interchanging 

information, identifying and filling technical gaps, and avoiding duplication. 

Structural Safety 

The program maintains cooperative interagency agreements in the structural safety area with the U.S. Army and 

Navy in the analytical modeling area. 

Memoranda of cooperation and exchange of personnel have been established between the program and the French, 

Italian, and Japanese governments in the crash testing area. The program has worked closely with Drexel University 

to develop dynamic crash computer modeling codes for transport airplane structures. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Advanced Materials 

	 Generated composite material dynamic properties important to crashworthiness. 

	 Provided next level of support data and guidelines to the FAA Office of Aviation Safety for AC 20-107B. 

	 Worked with industry to develop consensus for a damage tolerance and fatigue certification protocol. 

	 Continued work to expand developments in composite training with the initial emphasis on levels of safety 

awareness for structural engineering and manufacturing. 

	 Continued studies for the types of threats to composite aircraft structures while at the service gate and on 

the flight line. 

	 Documented accepted certification methodology for damage tolerance and fatigue, including full-scale test 

and analysis protocols for repeated loads and damage threats. 

	 Developed training and conducted workshop to review progress in damage tolerance, adhesive joints, and 

maintenance. 

	 Continued to evaluate safety of new material forms (e.g., discontinuous fiber composites) that have found 

application in primary aircraft structures. 

Structural Safety 

	 Developed analytical modeling techniques of aircraft crash conditions. 

	 Reviewed the need for off-axis analysis capabilities to assist in certification of structures for crashworthiness. 

	 Continued developing analytical modeling protocols and methodologies of aircraft structures crash
 

conditions for certification use. 

	 Developed standards and methods to characterize dynamic properties of composite material systems. 

	 Initiated benchmarking industry analysis and test practices to support new rulemaking and guidance 

development activity for Part 25 composite and metallic aircraft crashworthiness structural substantiation 

certification. 

Performance Linkages 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing transportation related 

injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. To prevent accidents associated with the 

airframe use of advanced materials and to improve the crashworthiness of airframes in the event of accidents, the 

Research, Engineering and Development A-10 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety research focuses on developing analytical and testing methods for 

standardization; understanding how design, loading, and damage can affect the remaining life and strength of 

composite aircraft structures; developing maintenance and repair methods that are standardized and correlated with 

training and repair station capabilities; enhancing occupant survivability and reducing personal injury from accidents; 

improving crash characteristics of aircraft structures, cabin interiors, auxiliary fuel tanks, fuel systems, and occupant 

seat and restraint systems; and improving the efficiency of aircraft certification through the use of better analytical 

modeling of crash events. 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By FY 2012, assess the risks and technical issues associated with severe blunt impact (e.g., ground service 

vehicle collisions). 

	 By FY 2012, establish design criteria for restraint systems that protect occupants at the highest impact 

levels that the aircraft structure can sustain. 

	 By FY 2012, quantify critical sandwich panel degradation mechanisms (e.g., disbonding, fluid ingression, 

freeze/thaw). 

	 By FY 2013, develop criteria for damage tolerance assessments of stiffened laminated composite structures. 

	 By FY 2013, generate methodology for demonstrating aircraft structure crashworthiness certification by 

analysis. 

	 By FY 2014, evaluate field bonded and bolted repair practices to update related guidance and training for 

composite aircraft structures. 

	 By FY 2014, evaluate the ability of models to predict off-axis and multiple terrain impacts. 

	 By FY 2015, evaluate existing and emerging bonded airframe technology to update guidelines and 

standards. 

	 By FY 2016, develop standards and methods to characterize dynamic properties of composite material 

systems. 

	 By FY 2016, generate background documentation on acceptable industry practices in structural analysis and 

testing to substantiate aircraft crashworthiness of primary composite structures supporting new rules and 

guidance. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The use of new materials, processes and forms on aircraft continues to push the knowledge base for certification and 

provides safe aircraft for civilian applications. This has been accelerated in the last decade due to the rapid 

expansion of the use of them in increasingly large structures. Dominating the rapid expansion has been the use of 

fiber reinforced polymers to provide lighter, fuel efficient airframe components including, in recent applications, full 

fuselage barrels and wings. The understanding of these emerging technologies is paramount to assuring the safety 

of the civil aviation and the flying public. The current certification process for many advanced materials and 

structures were established for smaller, less critical components and service conditions. As the current certification 

protocols are applied to the larger structures, uncertainty exists in the applicability which has to be demonstrated for 

these aircraft products. In addition to operational issues, these changes in materials, construction methods and 

processes have altered the response of these structures to dynamic crash events. The difference in structural 

characteristics needs to be understood and incorporated in certification and operational plans to assure safety for 

new aircraft that incorporate these advances. 

FAA Advanced Materials and Structural Safety research requirements are driven by industry advancements in 

construction of airframes and related components presented for certification. The FAA must assure that the changes 

maintain an equivalent or improve the level of safety compared to that achieved with currently operational aircraft. 

Requests from the Aircraft Certification Offices and from the aircraft manufacturers seeking Type Certification 

approval are major influences that shape research requirements, as the FAA seeks to evaluate the safety of planned 

new concepts using advanced materials, processes and forms. Additional requirements are developed from 

assessments of existing techniques, protocols, and service histories of previous advanced products to determine if 

modifications are required for the ever expanding materials, processes, and forms that are being introduced on civil 

aircraft. The National Transportation Safety Board review of accidents (AA587, R22, etc.) involving these structures 

Research, Engineering and Development A-11 
 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

provides additional focus for the information and research required to understand these emerging technologies. 

Currently the program is researching the damage tolerance and fatigue of composite structures; bonded structures; 

maintenance and repair of composite structures; aging and environmental effects; dynamic component damage 

tolerance and fatigue of composite structures; and the structural response in dynamic crash conditions. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in funding to the Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program would decrease funds to the work done 

in Environmental and Aging Effects for Composite Structures. It would result in an extension of the schedule of 

approximately four months. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-12 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.d Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.d Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System Safety $4,482,000 $5,404,000 +$922,000 

For FY 2012, $5,404,000 is requested for Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety. Major activities 

and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Aircraft Icing – Atmospheric Hazards 

	 Reduce Accidents During Flight In Glaciated, Mixed-phase and Supercooled Large Drop (SLD) Icing 

Conditions 

- Continue experimental work on the physics of engine icing in high ice water content (HIWC) 

environments. 

- Continue development of methods to test engines in simulated HIWC environments. 

 Reduce Accidents During Flight In 14 CFR Part 25, Appendix C Icing Conditions 

- Continue research on aerodynamic effects of ice on 3-D lifting surfaces. 

 Reduce Accidents During Takeoffs In Icing Conditions 

- Continue the development of improved methods for simulation of ice pellet and mixed conditions for 

determination of fluid failure and holdover times and allowance times. 

- Continue evaluation of Remote Onboard Ground Ice Detection System (ROGIDS) for pre-takeoff 

contamination check and other applications, including data package for Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) spec and advisory material. 

Digital System Safety 

	 Continue Software Development Techniques and Tools, such as verification of adaptive systems. 

	 Complete development process technology and criteria task on data integrity. 

	 Continue to evaluate systems considerations for complex intensive systems. 

	 Continue Onboard Network Security and Integrity, such as Phase 6 onboard network security and integrity 

effort for insuring consistency with aircraft safety and certification. 

 Continue airborne electronic hardware (AEH) Techniques and Tools, such as AEH design assurance. 

 Continue COTS Technology in Complex and Safety-Critical Systems, such as obsolescence and life cycle 

maintenance of avionics. 

Researchers will continue to refine laboratory methods to determine anti-icing fluid holdover times and allowance in a 

variety of environmental conditions, including new mixed conditions. Investigation of the enhancement and 

validation of icing simulation methods, with an emphasis on engine testing in HIWC conditions, will continue. 

Researchers will continue to evaluate software development techniques and tools, onboard network security and 

integrity, AEH techniques and tools, and COTS technology in Complex and Safety-Critical Systems. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-13 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

2. What Is This Program? 

FAA establishes rules for the certification and operation of aircraft that encounter icing conditions as well as rules for 

the use of digital systems. The agency uses the research results to generate Advisory Circulars (ACs) and various 

other forms of technical information detailing acceptable means for meeting requirements, to guide government and 

industrial certification and airworthiness specialists and inspectors. 

The Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety Program develops and tests technologies that detect 

frozen contamination, predict anti-icing fluid failure, and ensure safe operations both during and after flight in 

atmospheric icing conditions. To improve digital system safety, researchers are proactive in ensuring the safe 

operation of emerging, highly complex software-based digital flight controls and avionics systems. 

A major goal of the program is to reduce aviation’s vulnerability to all in-flight icing hazards through the application 

of its research to improve certification criteria. Commercial airplanes are not yet certified to fly in icing conditions to 

an icing envelope that includes supercooled large droplet (SLD) and ice crystal icing conditions. The program’s 

researchers have contributed to the development of technical data and advisory materials to correct this omission. A 

study by the Engine Harmonization Working Group indicates that over 100 in-service engine events, many resulting 

in power loss and at least six in multiple engine flameouts, occurred in HIWC environments from 1988 to 2003. A 

current collaborative research effort addresses this issue. 

The program will develop new guidelines for testing, evaluating, and approving digital flight controls, avionics, and 

other systems for the certification of aircraft and engines. Additionally, the program supports development of policy, 

guidance, technology, and training needs of the Aircraft Certification Service and Flight Standards Service that will 

assist and educate FAA and industry specialists in understanding digital system safety and assessing how it may be 

safely employed in systems such as fly-by-wire, augmented manual flight controls, navigation and communication 

equipment, and autopilots. 

The Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety Program collaborates with a broad segment of the 

aviation community to improve aircraft certification, inspection, and maintenance, including: 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – 

representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review the activities of 

the Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety Program. 

	 The Aerospace Industries Association Ice Crystal Consortium – this is a private sector working group that 

coordinates ice crystal ground facility research testing with the FAA. 

	 SAE G-12 Aircraft Ground Deicing Committee– this subcommittee assists in updating holdover time 

guidelines and establishing standards for de/anti-icing methodologies, deicing fluids, and ground ice 

detection. 

	 SAE AC-9C Aircraft Icing Technology Committee – this subcommittee assists in establishing guidance and 

standards for icing test and simulation methods. 

	 Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) – members of this U.S. Federal Advisory Committee 

and its special committees (SC) help to ensure the effectiveness of the agency’s rulemaking in aviation 

areas, such as digital systems. 

	 Certification Authorities Software Team – a group of international certification software and AEH specialists 

who collaborate and make recommendations to regulatory authorities for digital systems. 

	 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center – the Center is leading cyber security research in 

aeronautical system security that supports the onboard network security and integrity goal. 

The program maintains a number of cooperative relationships: 

	 NASA Glenn Research Center - includes various cooperative efforts on aircraft icing activities. 

	 Transport Canada - based on an international agreement on research on aircraft ground deicing issues. 

	 Environment Canada - based on an international memorandum of cooperation for research on in-flight icing 

conditions. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-14 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 National Research Council of Canada - based on an international memorandum of cooperation for research 

on engine and airframe icing. 

	 Australian Bureau of Meteorology - partner in field campaign in Darwin, Australia to obtain data in HIWC 

environments. 

	 Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute - cooperative industry, government, and academia venture for 

investigation and standardization of aerospace vehicle systems. 

	 NASA Langley Research Center – includes cooperative efforts on digital systems. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Aircraft Icing – Atmospheric Hazards 

	 Reduced Accidents During Flight In Glaciated, Mixed-phase and SLD Icing Conditions 

- Continued experimental work on the physics of engine icing in HIWC environments. 

- Developed data and methods supporting the evaluation of aircraft engines for operation in HIWC 

environments. 

- Continued development of methods to test engines in simulated HIWC environments. 

 Reduced Accidents During Flight In 14 CFR Part 25, Appendix C Icing Conditions 

- Continued research on aerodynamic effects of ice on 3-D lifting surfaces. 

 Reduced Accidents During Takeoffs In Icing Conditions 

- Continued the development of improved methods for simulation of ice pellet and mixed conditions for 

determination of fluid failure and holdover times and allowance times. 

- Continued evaluation of ROGIDS for pre-takeoff contamination check and other applications, including 

data package for SAE spec and advisory material. 

Digital System Safety 

 Software Development Techniques and Tools 

- Continued to determine alternative software assurance approaches and completed the investigation into 

reverse engineering. 

- Evaluated development process technologies and criteria, such as data integrity. 

- Continued to evaluate systems considerations for complex software intensive systems, such as System 

Architecture Virtual Integration. 

 Onboard Network Security and Integrity: Completed Phase 5 onboard network security and integrity effort 

for insuring consistency with aircraft safety and certification. 

 AEH Techniques and Tools: Continued to evaluate AEH techniques and tools, such as AEH design assurance. 

 COTS Technology in Complex and Safety-Critical Systems: Continued to evaluate COTS technology, such as 

obsolescence and life cycle maintenance of avionics. 

Performance Linkages 

Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing 

transportation related injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. To reduce the number 

and severity of accidents, or potential accidents, associated with icing and failures to software-based digital flight 

controls and avionics systems, the program develops and assesses ways to ensure airframes and engines can safely 

operate in atmospheric icing conditions and while using digital systems. The goals of the focused research 

endeavors are: 

Research, Engineering and Development A-15 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Aircraft Icing - Atmospheric Hazards 

	 By FY 2012, complete fundamental research work on ice crystal accretion studies to determine physical 

parameters of importance and modeling schemes for ice accretion formation mechanisms inside engine 

compressors. 

	 By FY 2013, complete analysis of the ice crystal cloud properties from field campaign and provide ice crystal 

cloud parameters in a format that will allow for their evaluation as an updated engineering standard for 

convective weather ice crystal icing conditions. 

	 By FY 2014, develop data and methods for guidance material for the airworthiness acceptance criteria and 

test methods for engines in simulated HIWC environments. 

Digital System Safety 

	 By FY 2012, identify certification issues, including security vulnerabilities introduced by network connectivity 

to multiple aircraft systems, and potential mitigation techniques. 

	 By FY 2012, develop COTS electronic hardware reliability prediction tools and techniques for the latest 

generation of the COTS electronic components. 

	 By FY 2013, identify safety issues and propose mitigation approaches when software development 

techniques and tools are used in airborne systems. 

	 By FY 2014, identify safety issues and propose mitigation approaches when airborne electronic hardware 

techniques and tools are used in airborne systems. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Aircraft Icing-Atmospheric Hazards 

Aircraft icing due to the freezing of supercooled water on aircraft surfaces is a continuing concern in all realms of 

aviation, due to the insidious nature of icing problems for takeoff, cruise, holding, and landing. Fatal accidents fall 

into two major categories: takeoff accidents due to failure to properly de-ice or anti-ice prior to takeoff, and 

accidents due to accretion of ice while in-flight. The latter class affects all phases of flight, but particularly holding 

and approach and landing. Since 1980, takeoff icing accidents have claimed many hundreds of fatalities, while inflight icing accidents have claimed at least 200 fatalities. Icing problems due to flight in ice crystals in HIWC 

environments were not fully recognized as posing a serious safety hazard until recent years. Although ice crystals 

bounce off aircraft surfaces, when ingested into engine cores and pitot tubes, the crystals have resulted in serious 

events. The FAA, working with industry, has identified 140 ice crystal turbine engine power loss events in reviewing 

16 years of recent data (a power-loss event is a surge, stall, rollback, or flameout of one or more engines). There 

were also 11 total power loss events from flameout and 1 forced landing due to ice crystals. The FAA has also 

received recent feedback on pitot tube ice crystal events where the probe stopped working. 

Digital System Safety 

The goal of the Software and Digital Systems (SDS) research is to improve and maintain manned and unmanned 

aircraft safety and prepare for the FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System by conducting research in the 

area of advanced, airborne digital systems (software-based and programmable logic-based), such as fly-by-wire flight 

controls, navigation and communication equipment, autopilots, and other aircraft and engine functions. Software 

and digital systems are concerns in aviation due to the large quantity of aircraft computer software code and AEH 

used to implement the software code. Also, the field of digital systems continues to change rapidly and is becoming 

increasingly more complex and pervasive within aircraft. More importantly, the effect of software and AEH upon the 

ultimate safety of the aircraft in which this equipment resides is yet to be fully determined. The SDS Program 

focuses the research on areas that will help prevent normal equipment failures (faulty software code and AEH) and 

abnormal equipment failures through security vulnerabilities exposed by cyber security threats. This research 

supports the aircraft certification process that includes work to assure digital systems function properly and safely. 

The results of the research are technical data, reports, compliance methods, verification methods, and certification 

techniques that can be used to develop policy, guidance, and training materials, and to enforce aircraft continued 

airworthiness. The research assists both the FAA and industry in meeting their safety objectives. Although there 

have been no aircraft accidents directly attributable to the failure of software or AEH, it is prudent to take research 

and development actions that will prevent such accidents. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-16 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in Aircraft Icing-Atmospheric Hazards would slow preparations for testing in the Office of National 

d’Etudes et de Recherches Aérospatiales F1 Tunnel anticipated in FY 2013. In Digital Systems Safety, this reduction 

would remove the FAA funding contribution to the Systems Architecture Virtual Integration research and cause the 

FAA to be an observer only. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-17 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.e Continued Airworthiness 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Continued Airworthiness 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.e Continued Airworthiness $10,944,000 $12,589,000 +1,645,000 

For FY 2012, $12,589,000 is requested for Continued Airworthiness. Major activities and accomplishments planned 

with the requested funding include: 

	 Complete assessment on surveyed corrosion data for transport aircraft and on feasibility of using data from 

accelerated corrosion testing to determine applicability of the probabilistic risk analysis approach. 

	 Continue to lead the Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS) steering group 

in updating the metallic materials properties handbook. 

	 Continue damage tolerance and durability research for emerging structural technologies to ensure safety, 

support maintenance, and support future FAA policies and guidance. 

	 Enhance FAA’s Full-scale Aircraft Structural Test and Evaluation facility capabilities and demonstrate residual 

strength of panels fabricated from advanced materials. 

	 Develop Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) database for commercial rotorcraft operations in 

order to assess its application in usage credit determinations. 

	 Continue to develop technical data on regulatory issues for ongoing fly-by-wire and fly-by-light working 

groups. 

	 Continue to develop data to support a specification for industrial ultrasonic forging inspection. 

	 Complete the evaluation of thermal acoustic technology as an inspection technique for engine disks. 

	 Complete an assessment of the performance of infrared inspection spectrometry to identify and quantify 

environmental damage of composite structures. 

	 Complete research on basic envelope protection. Technical data will support development of FAA guidance 

and policies for general aviation autopilot systems. 

	 Continue research to assess the performance of prognostic and health monitoring systems that are in use or 

under development for transport airplanes. 

	 Continue research to develop enhanced models of full stall departure characteristics for transports. 

The FY 2012 funding request will support Continued Airworthiness Program research requirements that contribute to 

FAA’s aviation safety goal. The program will continue to focus on providing data and analysis on developing 

technologies, technical information, procedures, and practices that help ensure the safety of aircraft systems and 

structures in the civil aviation fleet. Research will continue on: 

	 Development of certification processes for HUMS systems for rotorcraft, with emphasis on the processes 

related to validation of usage credits. 

	 Tracking the development of prognostic and health monitoring methods for complex flight critical systems 

and structures of commercial aircraft. 

	 Development and evaluation of risk assessment and risk management methods for the continued 

operational safety of small airplanes, with the methods extended to transport aircraft structures. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-18 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Flight controls and mechanical systems, focusing on assisting pilots with advanced displays and systems to 

avoid hazards in both transport category and general aviation airplanes. 

	 Investigation of nondestructive inspection techniques for critical engine components. 

	 Nondestructive inspection of structures will continue to develop methods and technologies to assure the 

long term safety of metallic, composite, and bonded structures. In light of the increased use of composites 

in the latest transport models, the focus will be on composite structures for both in-production and inservice aircraft. 

2. What Is This Program? 

FAA issues rules and advisory materials for regulating aircraft design, construction, operation, modification, 

inspection, maintenance, repair, and continued operational safety. Further understanding of the technologies, 

procedures, technical data, and analytical models produced by the Continued Airworthiness Program provide a major 

source of technical information used in developing these regulations and related information. Through this research, 

FAA also works with industry to provide the aviation community with critical safety technologies and data. 

The Continued Airworthiness Program promotes the development of technologies, procedures, technical data, and 

performance models to prevent accidents and mitigate accident severity related to civil aircraft failures as a function 

of their continued operation and usage. The program is focused on long-term maintenance of the structural integrity 

of fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft; continued safety of aircraft engines; development of inspection technologies; 

and safety of electrical wiring interconnect systems (EWIS), flight control systems, and mechanical systems. 

The Continued Airworthiness Program coordinates with an extensive network of government and industry groups, 

including: 

 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

– representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review program 

activity, progress, and plans. 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support rulemaking and the development of guidance for means of compliance 

with rules. 

	 Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committees – industry representatives propose cost-effective rulemaking and 

research to address aircraft safety issues. 

	 Aircraft manufacturers, operators, foreign airworthiness authorities, academia, and industry trade groups 

consult on a wide range of current and future aging aircraft and continued airworthiness issues. 

The Continued Airworthiness Program activities are closely coordinated with industry, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Defense (DoD). FAA maintains interagency agreements with 

NASA, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, the Department of Energy, and the Forest Service. DoD and NASA have 

co-sponsored 12 joint Aircraft Airworthiness and Sustainment Conferences with FAA (formerly known as Aging 

Aircraft Conference). 

FAA collaborates closely with several private and public organizations, including: 

	 MMPDS - Government/Industry Steering Group – a joint government and industry working group that funds 

and develops the metallic materials properties handbook. 

	 Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with Boeing for joint research on structural integrity of 

bonded repairs and emerging structural technologies. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

	 Completed a study of safe life and risk-based fleet management for small airplane continued operational 

safety. 

	 Continued damage tolerance and durability research for emerging structural technologies to ensure safety, 

support maintenance, and support future certification policies and guidance. 

	 Continued to lead the MMPDS steering group in updating metallic materials properties handbook. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-19 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Continued research to develop rotorcraft data that provide guidance for the certification of HUMS for usage 

credits. 

	 Developed technical data on regulatory issues for ongoing fly-by-wire and fly-by-light working groups. 

	 Continued research to develop the potential of advanced or emerging nondestructive inspection (NDI) 

techniques for critical engine components. 

	 Assessed advanced inspection systems to perform large-area inspection of composite airplane components. 

	 Provided technical guidance on pilot rudder usage, design, and training issues. 

	 Developed enhanced models of full stall departure characteristics for transport airplanes. 

	 Assessed damage detection technologies for inspecting remote or inaccessible aircraft areas. 

	 Developed monitoring of machining processes to prevent manufacturing-induced surface anomalies on 

critical engine components. 

	 Developed functional, safety, and certification information for advanced flight displays to meet the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) trajectory management needs. 

	 Continued research on minimum performance criteria and certification requirements for automatic envelope 

protection and automation systems for general aviation. 

	 Conducted research to develop technical data to evaluate and assess commercial aircraft health monitoring 

systems for certification and continued airworthiness requirements. 

	 Developed technical data for standards on NextGen electrical power systems and components. 

Performance Linkages 

The Continued Airworthiness Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing transportation related 

injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. The goal of the Continued Airworthiness 

Program is to understand and develop methods to counter the effects of age and usage on the airworthiness of an 

aircraft over its lifetime, including potential effects of modifications and repairs. The program conducts research in 

developing technologies and processes, and assesses current practices in order to eliminate or mitigate the potential 

failures related to aircraft aging, thereby reducing the number and severity of accidents. The research also supports 

development of methodologies for both inspection and maintenance protocols to assure the continued airworthiness 

of advanced composite aircraft. 

To satisfy these goals, the program conducts research to assess causes and consequences of airplane structural 

fatigue, corrosion, and other structural failures, and develop effective analytical tools to predict the behavior of these 

conditions. This includes research on NDI technologies being developed to detect these conditions. Similar research 

is conducted on aircraft engines and rotorcraft. Aircraft systems research to understand the causes and 

consequences of EWIS and mechanical systems failures, and the relationship of these failures to other aircraft 

systems and safety completes the program. The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By FY 2012, assess performance of an advanced inspection system for identifying environmental damage of 

composite structures, such as by chemical, ultraviolet, and water ingress. 

	 By FY 2013, assess performance of traditional and advanced inspection systems necessary for evaluating 

the strength of bonded aircraft structures. The continued airworthiness of bonded aircraft structures, 

whose use is increasing, will require technologies to detect defective bonds as well as determine the actual 

strength of the bond. 

	 By FY 2013, develop technical data on rotorcraft that provide guidance for certification of HUMS for usage 

credits. 

	 By FY 2013, develop a predictive methodology for damage tolerance risk assessment and risk management 

for continued operational safety of small airplanes. 

	 By FY 2014, provide technical data to develop guidelines for implementing structural health monitoring in 

commercial transport category airplanes 

Research, Engineering and Development A-20 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The Continued Airworthiness Research Program came into existence as a direct result of accident involving an Aloha 

Airlines Boeing 737 in 1988. The aircraft experienced an explosive decompression during flight that tore off a large 

section of the top of the fuselage. The research program that subsequently developed was called the Aging Aircraft 

Program because that structural failure was connected with the aircraft’s age and its large number of takeoff-landing 

cycles. The program’s research scope grew to address causes of subsequent accidents. For instance, aircraft 

engines were included as a result of a 1989 United Airlines DC-10 crash caused by an uncontained engine failure, 

and electrical systems were added as a result of a 1998 Swiss Air MD-11 crash most likely caused by wire arcing. 

Today, the breadth of the research has grown to include safety of transport and small airplanes as well as rotorcraft. 

The program title was changed to Continued Airworthiness to better match the FAA’s aircraft regulatory language 

regarding “Continuing Airworthiness.” The technical scope of the research includes inspection and maintenance of 

structures and engines, structural integrity of fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft, and flight controls and electrical 

systems. The focus is on the continuing safety of all aircraft (new and in-service) throughout their lifetime. 

The current research program is based on requirements developed by the FAA Office of Aviation Standards. The 

requirements reflect the need of the regulatory office for technical data and information to support regulatory 

activities or for possible solutions to real world questions and problems. For example, the inspection of composite, 

metallic, and bonded structures in an accurate and reliable way is challenging. The program’s research looks at 

improved inspection technologies and procedures, as well as quantifiable measures to describe the accuracy. A 

research output might be a feasibility demonstration of an inspection technology, a characterization of new 

inspection methods and procedures, or a proposed inspection standard for the aviation industry. There is almost 

always cooperation and sometimes even partnerships with aircraft manufacturers, systems manufacturers, air 

carriers, and academic researchers. A similar description can be applied over the full range of research areas within 

the Continued Airworthiness program. In certain areas the partners include NASA and elements of the DoD. Finally, 

the research program provides a core technical competency as well as a unique test facility to serve the interests of 

FAA and the safety of flying public. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, REDAC reports to 

the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in funds to the Continued Airworthiness program would slow down parts of the maintenance and 

inspection program by three months, particularly affecting the FY 2012 research goal to assess performance of an 

advanced inspection system for identifying environmental damage of composite structures, and would thereby raise a 

risk of missing the research goal milestone. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-21 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure 

Prevention Research $1,545,000 $1,502,000 -$43,000 

For FY 2012, $1,502,000 is requested for Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Engine Uncontainment Research 

	 Continue FAA/NASA/industry sponsored quality control program for modeling aircraft problems in 

manufacturers-supported finite-element code (referred to as LS-DYNA). 

	 Continue development of new material model for titanium in LS-DYNA. 

	 Continue collaboration with the Naval Aviation Weapons Center (NAWC) China Lake to maintain the 

Uncontained Engine Debris Assessment Damage Model (UEDDAM) code. 

Research will continue on the NASA/FAA/industry program for modeling aircraft engine failures in LS-DYNA. The 

FAA, NASA, and academia will continue to evaluate improved material models and incorporate them into LS-DYNA 

upon acceptance by the Aerospace Users Group. Users’ guidelines and training will continue to be developed and 

made available through George Washington University. 

Additional research will continue on developing a generalized damage and failure model with regularization for 

titanium materials impacted during engine failure events. Also, research will continue on material characterization 

tests to support development of damage and failure models for aircraft materials. 

2. What Is This Program? 

With technical data from the Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program, FAA establishes certification criteria for 

aircraft and revises regulations to certify new technologies. The Agency also publishes Advisory Circulars to outline 

acceptable means for meeting these rules. The program’s objective is to ensure safe aircraft operation in the 

National Airspace System (NAS). 

The Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program supports FAA’s strategic goal of increasing aviation safety by 

reducing the number of fatal accidents from uncontained engine failures and engine malfunctions. The program 

develops technologies and methods to assess risk and prevent occurrence of potentially catastrophic defects, failures, 

and malfunctions in aircraft, aircraft components, and aircraft systems. The program also uses historical accident 

data and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations to examine and investigate: 

	 Turbine engine uncontainment events, including the mitigation and modeling of aircraft vulnerability to 

uncontainment parameters stated in AC 20-128, Phase II. 

	 Fan blade out analysis and other engine-related impact events like bird strike and ice ingestion. 

The program collaborates with a broad cross section of the aviation community, including: 

 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

– representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review the program’s 

activities. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-22 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support new rule making and development of alternate means of compliance 

with existing rules. 

	 The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) – helps to ensure the effectiveness of the agency’s 

rulemaking. Members of the subcommittee and full committee identify research requirements, priorities, 

and provide guidance for the update of documents such as AC 20-128, and encourage industry’s full 

participation in implementing new rules. 

The Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program partners with industry and other government agencies, 

including: 

	 NASA and industry in support of the development and validation of explicit finite element analysis. The 

industry participates in the LS-DYNA Aerospace Users Group to support quality control reviews of the code 

and also critique research objectives in material testing, model development, and verification. NASA and 

FAA are teamed to develop high-quality test data and analytical models that support the Aerospace Users 

Group efforts. The end goal is to develop guidance for the use of LS-DYNA in the certification process. 

	 The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) Transport Committee – with participation of FAA and industry, 

has examined propulsion system malfunctions, identified inappropriate crew response, and recommended 

development of specific regulations and advisory materials to correct safety hazards. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Engine Uncontainment/Containment Research 

	 Continued FAA/NASA/industry-sponsored quality control program for modeling aircraft problems in LS-DYNA 

– a primary output of this work on impact analysis supports Fan Blade Certification to improve safety by 

developing and implementing better analytical technology into the certification process. 

	 Completed testing of titanium necessary to populate the material failure map of LS-DYNA material model 

MAT224. 

	 Continued collaboration with NAWC China Lake to maintain the Uncontained Engine Debris Damage 

Assessment Model (UEDDAM) code. 

Performance Linkages 

The Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing 

transportation related injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. To reduce the number of 

fatal accidents from uncontained engine failures, the program develops data and methods for evaluating aircraft 

vulnerability to uncontained engine failures and provides analytical tools for protecting identified critical systems that 

may need shielding from uncontained engine debris. Through the LS-DYNA Aerospace Users Group, FAA is working 

with industry to establish standards for finite element analysis and guidance for use in support of certification. The 

goal of the focused research endeavors is: 

	 By FY 2013, develop and verify a generalized damage and failure model with regularization for aluminum 

(MAT 224) and titanium materials impacted during engine failure events. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The threat of catastrophic failure in commercial aviation is always present and the potential consequences are great 

– the large loss of life in accidents and the destruction of the aircraft. It is an awesome challenge to prevent 

accidents caused by catastrophic failure. Over the years, this research program has supported the FAA to improve 

regulations and advisory material related to uncontained engine failure, loss of flight controls, propulsion malfunction 

plus inappropriate crew response, and fuel tank explosion. 

The Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research Program is largely driven by accidents and incidents, but also 

by NTSB recommendations, new technology, and industry focus groups focused on accident reduction. This program 

was initiated after the 1989 DC-10 Crash landing at Sioux City, Iowa. The major thrust of the program started in 

engine containment and uncontained engine failures mitigation. The second focus area historically has been 

propulsion system malfunction plus inappropriate crew response which the program has supported since the original 

Research, Engineering and Development A-23 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) group started meeting in 1996. (Note: beginning in FY 2012, propulsion 

malfunction research is being shifted into Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program (Congressional budget line a11.b.)) 

These two areas are top drivers of propulsion system initiated accidents today. The Aircraft Catastrophic Failure 

Prevention Research Program has worked closely with the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, AIA focus 

groups, Department of Defense (DoD), NASA and academia to leverage existing work and develop data, analytical 

methods, and processes that make up the foundation for improved policy, regulation and advisory material. Some of 

the benefits to the FAA, other government agencies, and industry partners, and the public are as follows: 

	 Develop aircraft material models that improve the state of the art and better represent impacts from engine 

failures to allow for standardized certification by analysis and increased safety. 

- By 2014, it is planned to complete verification of new material model for aluminum and titanium and by 

2016, Inconel 718 material. 

	 Collaborate with NASA to establish an aircraft material database to be used by industry in aircraft modeling 

of engine contained and uncontained failures. 

- In 2011, aluminum and titanium material characterization testing was completed and by 2014, Inconel 

718 is planned to be completed. 

	 FAA/NASA/Industry Quality Control Aerospace Working Group is developing aerospace guidelines for 

dynamic modeling used in engine containment design, bird strikes, uncontained engine debris, etc. which 

will benefit both industry and the FAA in evaluating new aircraft designs. 

	 Continue development of the UEDDAM model with inputs from industry and DoD. DoD is currently using 

the UEDDAM analysis for new aircraft designs to mitigate uncontained engine debris damage. 

	 Published over 50 technical reports documenting testing, data, and improved analytical methods. 

If this program was not funded, important working groups making tremendous progress to come together and 

standardize critical safety analysis procedures would cease. The research team has developed knowledge of the 

work and is a primary contributor to technology improvement. FAA must maintain an active presence in safety 

related development as it is often an area of little return on investment to the manufacturers, making it an area 

where our investment provides direct safety benefit to the public. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the NAS and works to ensure that FAA’s program goals and priorities properly 

link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development 

program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure 

a high quality RE&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, 

REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction will cause the program to reduce their staff and delay completion of the material model validation by one 

to three months. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-24 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 –Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors $7,128,000 $6,162,000 -$966,000 

For FY 2012, $6,162,000 is requested for Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program. 

Major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

	 Report on literature review to assess the state of the art in scenario modeling and execution for jet upset 

prevention, detection and recovery. 

	 Complete analysis of Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) and NTSB accidents and incidents related to 

surface moving maps and Capstone 3 airline data highlighting human factors certification issues. 

	 Provide human factors evaluation checklist of human factors display issues for aircraft certification 

engineers, test pilots, and human factors specialists to ensure human factors display issues with multifunction displays are identified during the certification approval process supporting compliance to Technical 

Standard Order (TSO) C113 and Advisory Circular 25-11A. 

	 Provide analyses and human factors recommendations for unmanned aircraft system control station vision 

systems to ensure safe and effective operator performance. 

	 Analyze the effects of imperfect Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) generated traffic 

information including the loss of traffic targets and the depictions of such information to the pilot and report 

out technical results. 

Research will continue in the following areas: 

	 Develop human factors input for Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification to develop design, evaluation and 

operational approval guidance for ADS-B enabled implementations. 

	 Assist Aircraft Certification in identifying, assessing, and remediating human performance issues involving 

electronic flight bags, moving map displays and multi-function displays. 

	 Support the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office by providing human factors recommendations for the design 

and operation of unmanned aircraft systems control stations. 

	 Provide technical information for the certification of advanced auto pilots and related automation 

technologies in general aviation (GA) airplanes, which may include research on systems mode awareness, 

energy state management, and distraction. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program provides the research foundation for FAA 

guidelines, handbooks, orders, advisory circulars (ACs), Technical Standards Orders (TSOs), and regulations that help 

to ensure the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations. It also develops human performance information that the 

agency provides to the aviation industry for use in designing and operating aircraft, and training pilots and 

maintenance personnel. 

The Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program helps achieve increased safety and greater 

capacity by: 

	 Developing more effective methods for pilot, inspector, and maintenance technician training. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-25 
	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Enhancing the understanding and application of risk and error management strategies in flight and 

maintenance operations.
 

	 Increasing human factors considerations in approving new aircraft and new aircraft systems. 

	 Improving pilot, inspector, and maintenance technician task performance. 

	 Developing requirements, knowledge, guidance, and standards for design, certification, and use of 

automation-based technologies, tools, and support systems. 

	 Addressing human and human-system task/performance requirements associated with transitioning to new 

technologies and National Airspace System (NAS) operations. 

Program researchers work directly with colleagues in FAA, other government agencies, academia, and industry to 

support the following research and development (R&D) programs and initiatives: 

	 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Aviation Safety Program. 

	 The FAA’s Voluntary Safety Program Office initiatives including Advanced Qualification Program, Flight 

Operations Quality Assurance, and Aviation Safety Action Program. 

	 The FAA/Industry Safer Skies initiative – analyzes U.S. and global data to find the root causes of accidents 

and proposes the means to prevent their occurrence. 

	 The FAA’s Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – Representatives from industry, 

academia, and other government agencies annually review the activities of the program and provide advice 

on priorities and budget. 

The Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program collaborates with industry and other 

government programs through: 

	 Joint Safety Analysis Teams and Joint Safety Implementation Teams within the Safer Skies Agenda – 

coordinated with NASA and industry, these efforts stress human factors issues in developing intervention 

strategies for the reduction of air carrier and general aviation accidents. 

	 Department of Defense Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group – FAA participates in this 

group to promote a joint vision for automation and related technical areas. 

	 Domestic and international aviation maintenance industry partners such as Boeing, Continental Airlines, 

British Airways, and the International Association of Machinists –the emphasis is on achieving research 

results that can be applied to real-world problems. 

	 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) G-10 subcommittees – FAA participates on all of the Society’s 

subcommittees involving human factors to adapt their findings to aviation standards, guidelines, etc. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Information Management and Display 

	 Completed instrument procedures design research project addressing charting and depiction of 

performance-based navigation procedures and produce draft report. 

	 Completed usability assessment of surface moving maps that display ownship position in surface operation 

report. 

	 Updated human factors guidance for electronic flight bag certification, operational approval, and training 

based on performance data. 

	 Developed guidance to address human factors issues associated with using synthetic and enhanced vision to 

support equivalent visual operations. 

Human-Centered Automation 

	 Developed human factors guidance for ADS-B equipment certification and operational approval. 

	 Developed human factors guidance for the evaluation and approval of electronic flight bags, multi-function 

displays, and surface moving maps. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-26 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Compiled and analyzed human factors issues with advanced autopilots and related automation technologies 

in GA airplanes. 

	 Developed report reflecting results of an industry study on automation issues with Transport Category 

Airplanes as part of a Performance Based Operations Aviation Rule-Making Committee (PARC) team activity. 

Human Performance Assessment 

 Tested and fielded the Maintenance Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA) safety audit tool for maintenance 

and ramp operations that will evaluate a maintenance organization’s effectiveness. 

 Delivered and implemented guidance materials, tools, and administrative process to manage and/or regulate 

aircraft maintainer fatigue. 

 Provided human factors guidance for the operation of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) within the NAS. 

 Completed research study to identify human factors issues that are contributing to very light jet incidents. 

Selection and Training 

 Validated training for visual approaches for low-time pilots to improve flight path and energy management. 

 Developed guidance and training material to improve consistency of safety team decisions. 

 Continued development of international standards for simulator fidelity. 

Performance Linkages 

The Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program supports the DOT Strategic Goal of Safety 

by reducing transportation related injuries and fatalities on commercial air carriers and in GA. 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By 2013, develop human factors guidance material to support certification of cross regulatory display work 

including alerting, multi-function displays, moving maps, and electronic flight bags (EFB) which can host a 

variety of applications. 

	 By 2013, develop human factors guidance material for the certification of UAS automation including 

guidance for control station design and pilot training. 

	 By 2013, develop pilot system interface and human factors guidance for current and proposed autopilot and 

flight management automation systems used in single pilot GA airplanes. 

	 By 2014, provide human factors guidance material for FAA Certification and Flight Standards personnel to 

evaluate traffic displays and traffic applications/operations that use ADS-B technology. 

	 By 2014, develop training guidelines for jet upset prevention, detection and recovery. 

	 By 2015, develop human factors criteria and guidelines for approving head-up displays and head-mounted 

displays. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Human error continues to be a major contributor to aircraft accidents and incidents both in commercial and general 

aviation. This research program has, over the years, identified human factors issues and developed training, 

mitigation, and guidance material used by government and industry to address problem areas. For example, Crew 

Resource Management (CRM) research supported the development of an FAA Advisory Circular as well as training for 

air carriers. The research program has provided substantial support for the FAA’s Voluntary Safety Programs. One 

of these programs, the Line Operations Safety Audit, is a direct result of our research and is now mandated by ICAO 

as a worldwide safety monitoring requirement for airlines. 

The human factors research program continues to focus on the needs of pilots, inspectors and aircraft maintainers. 

Flight deck design and operational practices are experiencing a revolution in digital avionics, enabling new head up 

displays, surface moving maps, electronic flight bags, advanced controls, communications, navigation, surveillance 

systems, and tools for aircraft system management. With these advances come important human performance and 

Research, Engineering and Development A-27 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

human factors implications which must be understood and the appropriate guidance material developed for policy, 

procedures, operations and training. Our research supports the development of these products. History has taught 

us that the introduction of new automation to the flightdeck has resolved some human error tendencies but also 

introduced new ones. One goal of current research is to try to be proactive in identifying error tendencies and 

thereby enhance the safe and effective introduction of new technologies and procedures into the NAS. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Any current or future reduction in funding to the Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program 

would result in a delay of project delivery within the FY 2012 new start to conduct research that will support the 

development of certification requirements and operational approval criteria for head-up and head-mounted displays. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-28 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.h System Safety Management 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – System Safety Management 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.h System Safety Management $12,698,000 $10,027,000 -$2,671,000 

For FY 2012, $10,027,000 is requested for System Safety Management. Major activities and accomplishments 

planned with the requested funding include: 

Risk Management Decision Support 

 Continue to demonstrate a two-third reduction in the rate of fatalities and injuries through the development 

of an analytical method and associated metrics. 

 Initiate development of transport airplane risk analysis evaluative metrics. 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) 

 Demonstrate a working prototype of network-based integration of information extracted from diverse, 

distributed sources. 

 Continue to develop an advanced infrastructure and laboratory for conducting and sharing analysis tools and 

aggregated safety information. 

 Continue development of automated tools to monitor databases for potential safety issues. 

 Conduct safety analytical studies and safety assessments using ASIAS and other safety aviation data. 

 Expand ASIAS to other domains (e.g., general aviation, rotorcraft, corporate, and military). 

Operational Safety Oversight of the National Airspace System (NAS) through ASIAS 

 Continue development of a user interface and trend analysis capability for equipment performance. 

 Test the equipment module for facility performance. 

 Develop user guide to facilitate use by air traffic safety inspectors. 

 Initiate development, integration of function points, and testing of an Air Traffic Control (ATC) module, 

which integrates air traffic databases and permits prognostic trend analysis of air traffic safety performance 

for operational oversight. 

Terminal Area Safety 

	 Investigate issues concerning the connection of required navigation performance (RNP)/performance based 

navigation (PBN) paths with global position landing system indicators for terminal area operations using 

human-in-the-loop simulations. 

	 Complete analysis of contributing factors and develop models for operational landing performance of 

selected aircraft make/model/series to improve the safety and capacity in terminal areas. 

	 Enhance advance simulator software models for stalls based on actual and/or wind tunnel-derived aircraft 

performance data. This research is performed within the context of developing models of unusual attitude 

encounters outside the normal operating envelope. 

	 Conduct research to investigate the operational procedures and the technical limitations of using enhanced 

vision system/synthetic vision system, and to establish the level of credit allowed by the FAA for the 

Research, Engineering and Development A-29 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

equipment availability on an aircraft. This research is performed within the context of cockpit-centric 

navigation technologies. 

ASIAS - Via the ASIAS project, researchers, with support from other government agencies, e.g., NASA, industry, and 

academia, will continue to develop innovative, advanced tools and methods that will extract relevant knowledge from 

copious amounts of disparate safety information. Development will continue on safety metrics and vulnerability 

discovery capabilities. Using ASIAS and other aviation safety data, analytical and directed studies to identify safety 

issues and verify mitigation and safety enhancements will continue. 

Operational Safety Oversight of the NAS through ASIAS - Research continues and extends the work initiated in 2011 

that expanded ASIAS to include facility performance data. In 2012, research advances the integration of facilities 

databases and develops modules for active monitoring of facilities’ performance and their impact on NAS safety. 

Using experience and infrastructure developed for integrating the facility database into ASIAS, additional research will 

be conducted to develop modules for the integration of air traffic safety data for prognostic analysis. 

Terminal Area Safety - Researchers will analyze operational data, develop models, and evaluate new navigation 

technologies to ensure FAA maintains a desired level of safety while accommodating the need for more efficient use 

of the terminal area. Research activities will provide the ability for advanced flight simulators to be more realistic for 

evaluating and training stall recognition and recoveries outside the normal operating envelope to improve the safety 

of terminal operations. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The System Safety Management Program will develop an infrastructure that enables the free sharing and analysis of 

de-identified safety information that is derived and protected from government and industry sources. In addition, 

the program provides methodologies, research studies, and guidance material that provide aviation safety inspectors, 

aircraft certification engineers, analysts, and managers the capabilities of systematically assessing potential safety 

risks and applying proactive solutions to reduce aviation accidents and incidents. The program also conducts 

operational research and analysis to maintain or improve safety and to improve terminal area efficiency. 

The System Safety Management Program develops risk management methods, prototype tools, technical information, 

and safety management system procedures and practices that will improve aviation safety. In addition, the program 

will develop an infrastructure that enables the free sharing of de-identified, aggregate safety information that is 

derived from government and industry sources in a protected, aggregated manner. It also conducts operational 

research to leverage proposed new technologies and procedures that may enhance pilot and aircraft safety during 

terminal operations. 

The program encourages broad industry and government participation across all projects, including: 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – 

representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review the program’s 

activities. 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support new rulemaking and the development of alternative means of 

compliance with existing rules. 

	 The Joint Planning and Development Office Safety Working Group – a national-level integrated safety 

management framework that addresses all facets of the air transportation system, building safety design 

assurance into operations and products. 

	 Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) – an FAA/industry collaborative effort to develop and implement 

data-driven safety initiatives. 

The Program partners with industry, academia, and other governmental agencies, including: 

	 The Civil Aviation Authority of the Netherlands to conduct joint research on aviation system safety initiatives 

via a Memorandum of Cooperation. 

	 Technical expertise from air carriers to provide industry reviews and recommendations regarding safety and 

efficiency of terminal area operations as well as air carriers’ cooperation with data sharing agreements and 

Research, Engineering and Development A-30 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

governance models that allow for the free sharing of aviation data in accordance with approved voluntary 

safety information sharing agreements. 

	 Center of Excellence for General Aviation Research, via grants, to increase data and tools available for 

cooperative general aviation safety analyses among industry stakeholders. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Risk Management Decision Support 

	 Continued to demonstrate a two-third reduction in the rate of fatalities and injuries through the 

development of an analytical method and associated metrics. 

ASIAS 

	 Developed automated tools to monitor each database for potential safety issues and to analyze disparate 

data drawn from multiple sources, enhancing discovery, identification, and evaluation of safety risks. 

	 Continued to develop an advanced infrastructure and laboratory for conducting and sharing analysis tools 

and aggregated safety information that allows industry stakeholders to perform standardized data analysis 

and limited vulnerability discovery on diverse sets of data. 

	 Continued to expand prototype system to include the concepts of sharing information and applications 

among industry stakeholders from an enterprise-level, allowing diverse industry stakeholders to analyze 

data on an industry-wide basis rather than individual organizational level. 

	 Conducted analytical studies (e.g., aircraft hazard analysis, determination of risk values for potential unsafe 

conditions, and flight crew intervention design credit) using ASIAS and other aviation safety data. 

	 Developed methods and risk models to evaluate advanced aircraft systems and component integration. 

Operational Safety Oversight of the NAS through ASIAS 

	 Completed development of a facility/equipment operations module that includes a collection of business 

objects that provides a view of NAS equipment maintenance functions, combined with ASIAS/ATC baselined 

data, specific to NAS safety oversight. 

	 Initiated development of a user interface and trend analysis capability that monitors NAS equipment 

operations with respect to failures, risk, and other off-nominal occurrences. 

Terminal Area Safety 

	 Completed an evaluation air traffic and flight procedures for terminal area operations using pilot-in-the-loop 

flight simulator. 

	 Continued testing procedures and requirements to identify RNP/ PBN constraints related to terminal area 

operations. 

	 Developed models for the landing distance performance of selected aircraft make/model/series using 

standard operating practices. 

	 Continued developing wake encounter models for the advanced flight simulators. 

	 Identified new cockpit centric navigation technologies and data for the development of new procedures to 

enhance the safety and capacity within the terminal area. 

Performance Linkages 

The System Safety Management Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing transportation 

related injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. To reduce the number of aviation 

accidents and incidents by developing a secured safety information and analysis system that provides access to 

numerous databases, maintains their currency, enables interoperability across their different formats, provides the 

ability to identify future threats, conducts a causal analysis of those threats, and recommends solutions. The goals of 

the focused research endeavors are: 

Research, Engineering and Development A-31 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 By 2012, demonstrate a working prototype of network-based integration of information extracted from 

diverse, distributed sources. 

	 By 2013, develop advanced infrastructure and laboratory for conducting and sharing analysis tools and 

aggregated safety information that allows industry stakeholders to perform standardized data analysis and 

limited vulnerability discovery on a wide variety of diverse sets of data. 

	 By 2012, develop a user interface and trend analysis capability that monitors NAS equipment performance 

with respect to failures, risk, impact on ATC and other off-nominal occurrences. 

	 By 2013, develop a user interface and trend analysis capability that monitors NAS ATC operational safety 

with respect to risk and other off-nominal occurrences for use by FAA field and headquarters safety 

inspectors to more economically identify facilities with higher safety risks. 

	 By 2014, complete the compilation of risk analysis data and/or statistical data into a format best suited for 

efficient use in transport airplane risk analysis. 

	 By 2015, demonstrate a two-thirds reduction in the rate of fatalities and injuries.* 

	 By 2015, expand ASIAS system safety analysis to other domains (e.g., general aviation, rotorcraft, 

corporate, military). 

	 By 2017, enhance vulnerability assessment capabilities of discovery, identification, and evaluation of safety 

risks not currently known to the aviation community. 

To reduce the risk for passengers and crews and enhance the traffic control process in terminal area operations, 

human-in-the-loop (pilot/controller) simulations, evaluations, and operational flight data analysis will be conducted. 

	 By 2012, develop methods to model unusual attitude encounters outside the normal operating envelope, 

allowing FAA to approve advanced flight simulators that more realistically model the behavior of an actual 

aircraft. 

	 By 2012, identify new navigation technologies and data requirements for the development of new 

procedures to enhance the safety and capacity of the terminal area. 

	 By 2012, identify contributing factors and develop models for landing performance of selected make, model, 

and series aircraft using standard operating practices to improve the safety and capacity in terminal areas. 

	 By 2014, determine the amount of credit granted for synthetic or enhanced vision system installation and 

the level of operations that can be approved in lieu of airport infrastructure. 

	 By 2015, distribute a validated and portable wake mathematical model for use in simulator training. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The System Safety Research Program has two primary goals. First, the program is designed to identify and analyze 

emerging threats in a cooperative nature with the aviation industry. Working cooperatively with aviation 

stakeholders provides the ability to analyze trends across the aviation community that is much more effective than 

monitoring individual airlines. Thus, the aviation community and FAA must have regular access to safety information 

to move toward a risk-based safety management approach. By creating a safety baseline and benchmarks, the 

program will produce products that regularly monitor safety enhancements to ensure the incorporation of new 

capabilities does not impact current levels of safety. Therefore, the program has direct impact in several areas that 

affect the incorporation of new technologies, NextGen capabilities, and evolution of the National Airspace System. 

Also, the program responds to several Government Accountability Office studies that call for the FAA to collect better 

data and improve its effort to identify and address safety issues. For FY 2012, development will continue on the 

working ASIAS prototype, a new air traffic control module will be developed, and analytical studies and safety 

assessments using ASIAS and other safety aviation data will be conducted. An initiative to develop transport airplane 

evaluative metrics will be initiated. 

* The two-thirds reduction in the rate of aviation fatalities and injuries is based on a 2004 baseline. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-32 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

The second major goal is to identify and mitigate the risks associated in the terminal area operations. This effort 

aims to provide solutions to the airport capacity problem so that maximum benefits for both safety and efficiency can 

be realized. It supports the FAA’s goal of Increased Safety as stated in objectives 1 and 2 to reduce fatal accidents, 

and the goal of Increased Capacity as stated in objective 1 to meet projected demand, which are identified by the 

Flight Plan 2009-13. Furthermore, the research efforts also support the FAA’s NextGen efforts to enhance the 

efficiency of the national airspace system, especially for the performance based navigation initiatives. For FY 2012, 

research will include an evaluation of air traffic and flight procedures for terminal area operations by using human-inthe-loop flight and air traffic simulator, the development of models of unusual attitude encounters outside the normal 

operating envelope, and the identification of new, cockpit-centric navigation technologies and data for the 

development of new procedures to enhance safety and capacity within the terminal area. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

The FAA is conducting research in support of continued operational safety of transport category airplanes. The next 

phase, entitled Transport Airplane Risk Analysis Evaluative Metrics, requires developing the supporting statistically 

derived data. This will prolong the research and delay delivery of hazard and risk analysis information that would be 

useful for FAA aircraft certification engineers. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-33 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors $10,302,000 $10,634,000 +$332,000 

For FY 2012, $10,634,000 is requested for Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors. Major activities 

and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Advanced Air Traffic Systems 

	 Continue development of a human factors design standard for Air Traffic Control (ATC) displays that is 

harmonized with the color vision testing used during controller selection. 

	 Continue development of an ATC symbology and style guide to aid the efficient development of ATC display 

details. 

	 Continue work on a revised Human Factors Design Standard that can be cited as a design requirement 

during ATC system procurements. 

Individual and Team Performance 

 Report on the effectiveness of the ATC Quick Reference Guide for supervisor best practices. 

 Continue the Preventive Maintenance Tasks Vulnerable to Human Error study that seeks to identify and 

prevent human errors resulting in ATC system outages. 

 Perform fatigue research measuring the effectiveness of fatigue risk management interventions that are 

scheduled for implementation. 

Advanced Technical Operations Systems 

	 Continue to evaluate user manuals and other multi-media documentation in the Technical Operations 

domain. 

Personnel Selection and Training 

 Continue longitudinal validation of ATC selection instruments. 

 Document the effectiveness of a selection battery to place controllers by option and match skills to optimal 

placement. 

 Continue a study of controller entry and retirement age. 

 Conclude development of potential approaches to increase the efficiency of air traffic controller training and 

staffing. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations (ATC/TO) Human Factors Program provides leadership and products to 

motivate National Airspace System (NAS) evolution to ensure the system’s human component will safely and reliably 

perform to meet the flying public’s needs. Outputs include: 

	 Air traffic workstations and concepts that increase workforce productivity by identifying key workload factors 

that must be mitigated to enable the humans in the system to manage the future NAS traffic flow. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-34 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Human reliability analytical tools and methods to assess and mitigate the potential for human error. 

	 Assessments of the effectiveness of fatigue-risk-management strategies. 

	 Air Traffic Organization (ATO) safety culture transformation through research in the TO community to 

identify effective interventions to move the ATO toward a “Just Culture.” 

	 Future controller and maintainer personnel selection criteria to enhance screening process efficiency and 

effectiveness. 

	 Guidelines and standards for design of computer-human interfaces used in TO. 

The ATC/TO Human Factors Program supports FAA strategic goals for increased safety and greater capacity by 

developing research products and promoting the use of those products to meet the future demands of the aviation 

system. The human factors research program for FY 2012 will emphasize the concept of human-system integration 

(HSI) and safety aspects of the functions performed by air traffic controllers and technical operations personnel. The 

HSI concept will address the interactions between workstation design, personnel selection, training, and human 

error/safety. The ATC/TO Human Factors Program generates requirements for human interface characteristics of 

future air traffic and technical operations (maintainer) workstations and enhances our understanding of the role that 

system design plays in mitigating human error, including operational errors, runway incursions, and errors that result 

in NAS equipment outages. Additionally, researchers are developing methods to select new air traffic controllers and 

maintainers so that the applicant screening process is valid, reliable, and fair, and also to improve HSI in the 

maintenance arena to increase reliability and availability of the NAS. 

The research program works to improve system safety by: 

	 Developing: 

- Organizational changes to transform the technical operations ATO safety culture. 

	 Improving: 

- Effectiveness of safety analyses that concentrate on detecting the potential for human error during the 

concept and research phases of system development. 

- Methods to select and train new controllers and maintainers. 

The program works to improve the ATC and TO contributions to system capacity by: 

	 Developing: 

- Integrated workstations that allow TO specialists to meet increased availability and service demand. 

- Methods to assess the value of proposed changes to workstations to determine if human-in-the-loop 

performance is enhanced. 

- Advanced concepts for maintenance workstations that use automation and advanced technology to 

increase availability of the NAS, decrease the probability of system outages, and decrease the cost of 

air traffic services. 

	 Improving: 

- HSI in a manner that allows controllers and pilots to cooperatively manage traffic loads as cockpit 

technology and air traffic workstations are more closely connected to efficiently move NAS air traffic. 

- Allocation and sharing of roles and responsibilities between controllers and pilots as technology evolves 

to meet future demands. 

The ATC/TO Human Factors Program receives requirements from its internal FAA sponsoring organizations (primarily 

the following FAA ATO ATC/TO research groups) and collaborates with national and international research 

organizations: 

	 Advanced Air Traffic Systems Requirements Group – En Route and Terminal Service units as well as System 

Engineering in Operations Planning, operational personnel, and systems developers articulate human factors 

research requirements for measuring the proposed technology benefits to controllers and maintainers. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-35 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Individual and Team Performance Requirements Group – ATO Safety, En Route, Terminal, Technical 

Operations and System Engineering service units participate to identify human performance research needs 

involving fatigue, safety culture, human error hazard identification, age, operational errors, runway incursion 

prevention, and supervisor practices. 

	 Advanced Technical Operations Systems Requirements Group – The Technical Operations, En Route, and 

Terminal service units recommend NAS infrastructure operational and maintenance research, including ATC 

systems maintenance displays, controls, and maintainability features specifications. 

	 Personnel Selection and Training Requirements Group – ATO Technical Training and Development, Human 

Resources, FAA Academy, Workforce Services, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Administration and Talent 

Management, and the Financial Services groups address personnel selection and training, including the 

ability to successfully screen applicants for controller positions. 

	 Collaborative research with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration includes human factors areas 

such as the measurement of fatigue risk management effectiveness. 

	 Collaboration with EUROCONTROL, including joint development of a Human Reliability Assessment Tool, 

participation in semi-annual Air Traffic Management (ATM) seminars, and leadership of an Action Plan 15 

Safety workgroup to identify ATM human factors issues. 

	 Cooperative research agreements are in place with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Georgia Institute 

of Technology, St. Louis University, Ohio State University, and The American Institutes for Research. 

The FY 2011 President’s Budget requested $10,475,000 for Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors. 

Major activities and accomplishments to be achieved in FY 2011 with the requested funding include: 

Advanced Air Traffic Systems 

	 Initiated a human factors standard for safety alert information to users of tower ATC displays. 

	 Initiated revisions to the Human Factors Design Standard for the application of human factors design criteria 

to new systems and equipment. 

Individual and Team Performance 

	 Expanded the application of human error reporting and reduction research for transformation of the ATO 

safety culture. 

	 Assessed the effectiveness of controller fatigue mitigation strategies. 

Advanced Technical Operations Systems 

	 Reviewed human factors requirements for a standard graphical user interface on maintenance work stations 

and system displays used by maintainers. 

	 Continued development of human factors information requirements for remote maintenance monitoring. 

Personnel Selection and Training 

	 Applied a new training effectiveness evaluation methodology for new tower simulator systems. 

	 Tested an occupational test of controller color vision. 

Performance Linkages 

	 By FY 2012, improve computer-human interface design to reduce information overload and resulting errors. 

	 By FY 2012, apply program-generated human factors knowledge to improve aviation system personnel 

selection and training. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system and to 

organize and expedite the flow of traffic. Decisions are made by thousands of human operators and involve tens of 

thousands of aircraft as they use the services of airport towers, approach control facilities, en route air traffic control 

Research, Engineering and Development A-36 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

centers, the FAA System Command Center, and many airline operation centers. The safety and performance of the 

National Airspace System (NAS) is directly linked to the performance of these human operators. Within this complex 

system, from time-to-time, accidents and incidents still happen, often repeating the same sequence of events played 

out many times before. As a result, we are often left with the regrettable truth that there are very few “new” 

accidents, just different players. Among the most complex problems facing aviation today are those involving human 

error. To achieve quantifiable improvements in aviation safety and capacity, increasing emphasis is being placed on 

the human operator and those involved with the safe and efficient conduct of flight (e.g., supervisors, air traffic 

controllers, maintenance technicians). Enhancing safety will require a reduction in human error and increasing 

capacity will involve the development of techniques and tools that increase controller efficiency. The human issue 

will be made even more complex as a large percentage of the agency’s controllers become eligible to retire within ten 

years. With total losses expected to exceed 10,000, FAA must develop effective recruitment, selection, and training 

procedures to ensure those who are hired have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to be successful. 

FAA Human Factors R&D for ATC/TO is motivated by a need to reduce the potential for human error and increase the 

efficiency of ATC operations. To meet these challenges, the FAA is focused on integrating the human into the 

development cycle. The major areas of human system integration are in effective workstation design, human error 

reduction, effective and fair personnel selection, and efficient training. The need for air traffic services is growing 

and the requirement to include the human component in the development of the NAS is being addressed by this 

research program. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure that FAA’s program goals 

and priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the 

Research and Development Program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to 

best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

The requested funding level covers slightly over half the research requirements identified by the sponsors in the ATO. 

A reduction will require the cancellation of major elements such as the Human Factors Design Standard used during 

acquisition programs to reduce human factors risk. A further reduction will require cancellation of the Human Factors 

Design Standard for Display Symbology and reduce the funding available for the completion of a study regarding 

Preventive Maintenance Tasks Vulnerable to Human Error. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-37 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.j Aeromedical Research 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Aeromedical Research 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.j Aeromedical Research $10,378,000 $11,617,000 +$1,239,000 

For FY 2012, $11,617,000 is requested for Aeromedical Research. Major activities and accomplishments planned 

with the requested funding include: 

The Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) Aeromedical Research Program 

	 Analysis and distribution of zolpidem, a prescription medication used for the short-term treatment of 

insomnia, in postmortem specimens from aviation accident fatalities. 

	 Report on the effects of exposure to combustion gases (CO and hydrogen cyanide) in support of 

investigation of aviation accidents involving fire/smoke. 

	 Develop procedure to validate potential biomarkers by special biochemical methods. These biomarkers will 

assist in identifying fatigue and other aviation stressors. 

	 Provide guidance for measuring and estimating radiation exposure during commercial aerospace activities 

and develop instructional materials on radiation exposure to humans during commercial aerospace travel. 

	 Examine and model aviation accidents in Alaska over time. The model will provide a way of assessing risk 

within the Alaskan aviation community. 

	 Evaluate the performance of current aircrew oxygen regulators installed on commercial aircraft. 

	 Report on the review of all fatal and high profile accidents to determine reporting accuracy of medical 

certification applications and provide insight on possible corrective measures. 

	 Assess the vision performance effects of pilots exposed to non-ionizing radiation (ultraviolet, visible, 

near/mid-infrared) from natural and artificial sources and develop guidance material. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research (ACER) Program 

	 Collect baseline data for volatile organic compound (VOC) contaminants on loaded aircraft filters. 

	 Create prototype sensor network with select bleed air sensors for demonstrating feasibility of system to 

detect simulated contaminants. 

	 Detail investigation of what is generated during a bleed air event. 

	 Report that documents chemical reaction kinetics of high temperature degradation of aircraft engine oil and 

hydraulic fluids. 

	 Support regulatory, certification, and operations for existing Aviation Rulemaking Committees. 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

Research will continue on identifying, assessing, and developing improved evacuation equipment and evacuation 

aids, such as lighting, aural way-finding systems, and symbolic information media. Emergency evacuation issues 

frequently arise during accidents, where scenarios develop that cannot be simulated during certification. Identifying 

these factors in the absence of accidents can be difficult, but is essential to prevent death and injury. Improvements 

in systems to inform passengers and crew about emergency issues and prepare occupants to speed evacuation will 

directly improve safety and take advantage of improvements in other areas such as fire safety. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-38 
	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Research will be ongoing to develop and maintain analytical tools, empirical data and scientific expertise to support 

regulatory actions, standards development, accident investigations, and enhanced safety of airplane interior 

arrangements and emergency equipment and operations. Emergency evacuation issues frequently arise during 

accidents in which scenarios develop that cannot be simulated during certification. Conversely, proposed changes to 

aircraft and/or operations often suggest that reductions in evacuation efficiency will likely result as a consequence. 

Analytical tools and empirical data are needed to confirm the effects of such identified factors, using accident 

histories and findings in the technological literature, as well as empirical data and analyses derived from 

experimentation. Work on injury criteria for obliquely oriented seats will continue to determine the injury 

mechanisms and human impact tolerance levels and methods of predicting occupant injuries in obliquely facing seats 

during a survivable crash. Techniques will be developed to use advanced occupant models to accurately simulate 

human response to impact and predict potential injuries for all impact vectors and occupant sizes. Dynamic testing 

and occupant injury assessment have been required for seats in newly certified aircraft since the adoption of Title 14 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 25, 25.562, and similar regulations in Parts 23, 27, and 29 (1). The 

occupant injury criteria contained in those regulations are primarily focused on protecting the occupant from forward 

and vertical impacts. This research is required since the biomechanics of side impacts differ significantly from 

forward or vertical impacts. 

Research on prevention of injuries that impede egress will also continue in FY 2012. Human impact tolerance levels 

and methods for predicting occupant unconsciousness and leg injuries that can occur during a survivable crash will 

be determined and enhanced means of mitigating injury causing mechanisms for the brain and leg will be 

investigated. The CAMI impact sled and anthropometric test dummies will be utilized to perform this research. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

In the areas of aircraft cabin environments, evaluation of aircraft cabin for exposure to pesticides, volatile organic 

compounds, semi volatile organic compounds, assessment of potential polybrominated diphenyl ethers exposure will 

continue in FY 2012. Models of engine oil and hydraulic fluid chemical kinetics, simulated bleed air events, 

experimental characterization of bleed air and recirculation air purification technologies will continue in support of 

research on purification of environmental control systems air supplies. 

2. What Is This Program? 

Agency outputs proceed from the FAA Office of Aviation Medicine, specifically, 1) CAMI and 2) the National Air 

Transportation Center of Excellence for Research in the Intermodal Transportation Environment (RITE). 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

CAMI’s Aeromedical Research Program provides research data to assess new technology and evaluate existing 

bioaeronautical guidelines, standards, and models for aerospace craft cabin equipment, procedures, and 

environments. Aeromedical research serves as the basis for new regulatory action and evaluation of existing 

regulations to continuously optimize human performance and safety at a minimum cost to the aviation industry. This 

research program analyzes pilot medical and flight data, information from accidents and incidents, and advanced 

biomedical research results to propose standards and assess certification procedures that optimize performance 

capability. This research program is conducted by in-house resources, specifically the CAMI Aerospace Medical 

Research Division, and supports Airliner Cabin Environment Research efforts. 

The Aeromedical Research Program supports FAA’s regulatory and medical certification processes that develop safety 

and health regulations covering all aerospace craft occupants and their flight environments; Recommending and 

developing equipment, technology, and procedures for optimal (a) Evacuation and egress of humans from aerospace 

craft, (b) Dynamic protection and safety of humans on aerospace craft, and (c) Safety, security, and health of 

humans on aerospace craft. 

Research program outcomes include: 

	 Improved safety, security, protection, survivability, and health of aerospace craft passengers and aircrews 

	 Exploiting new and evaluating existing bioaeronautical guidelines, standards, and models for aerospace craft 

cabin equipment, procedures, and environments 

Research, Engineering and Development A-39 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Providing research data to serve as the basis for new regulatory action in evaluation of existing regulations 

to continuously optimize human performance, health, and safety at a minimum cost to the aviation industry 

	 Analyzing pilot medical and flight data, information from accidents and incidents, and advanced biomedical 

research results to propose standards and assess certification procedures that optimize performance 

capability 

	 Evaluating the complex mix of pilot, flight attendant, and passenger activities in a wide range of 

environmental, behavioral, and physiological situations to propose standards and guidelines that will 

enhance the health, safety, and security of all aerospace travelers. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program was formulated in response to issues raised in a 2002 National 

Research Council Report regarding the airliner cabin environment and the health of passengers and crew during 

normal and events outside the normal operational envelope and continued public and congressional concern. The 

airliner cabin environment research addresses public, aircrew, and congressional concerns regarding these issues, 

including, contaminant transport, ozone (including chemical reactivity of aircraft cabin interiors), pesticides (residual 

and sprayed), contaminants that may be carcinogenic, additives in hydraulic and lubricating fluids in aircraft engines 

and auxiliary power units and identified as possible neurological toxins in crew members. The Airliner Cabin 

Environment Research program also conducts R&D on cabin air quality sensors; advanced environmental control 

systems; and on chemical and biological agents, and disinfection techniques and processes. The research is primarily 

conducted by the National Air Transportation Center of Excellence for Research in the Intermodal Transport 

Environment (RITE). 

The Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program supports FAA’s Flight Plan goal for Increased Safety by: 

Developing and testing adaptive environmental control techniques to enable a safe and healthy cabin air environment 

including during in-flight incidents; Validating software tools and methods to mitigate possible air contamination 

incidents during flight and ground operations; Developing advanced scientific models and experimental data of 

airborne and surface transmission of existing and emerging infectious diseases within aircraft; Evidence-based 

development of appropriate hazard identification and risk management criteria guidelines to maximize safety and 

health in the air transportation system in response to infectious disease; Recommending and developing equipment, 

technology, and procedures for optimal (a) evidence-based development of appropriate policy, regulations, and 

guidelines to maximize safety and health from the cabin air quality environment and (b) identifying hazards and 

characterizing risks of the major infectious diseases likely to be carried on-board aircraft; Providing air quality 

incident identification to alert crew to potential problems and provide signals to the environmental control system for 

appropriate response; and providing for safety, security, and health of passengers and crewmembers on commercial 

aircraft. 

Both the CAMI and ACER Aeromedical Research Programs support numerous DOT and FAA organizations, public 

laws, customers, and stakeholders including: the Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology 

Council, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science & Technology Policy, European Aviation Safety 

Authority, Transport Canada, World Health Organization, and the Department of Health and Human Services. 

CAMI has established a professional relationship with over 90 organizations and 55 committees, including holding 

fellowships and other leadership positions. These scientific, medical, academic, and bioengineering relationships 

include working in partnership on a multitude of efforts with these organizations, including Cooperative Research and 

Development Agreements and advisory groups. RITE has over 30 industry partners participating in the research and 

development effort. RITE researchers and Office of Aerospace Medicine staff members collaborate with leading 

organizations associated with aerospace medicine, aviation health, airliner cabin environment, and safety. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

Aeromedical Systems Analysis 

	 Provided incidental medical findings and injury description and injury mechanisms analysis to support the 

development of prevention and mitigation strategies: Aerospace Accident Injury and Autopsy Data System 

(AAIADS). 

Research, Engineering and Development A-40 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Conducted a risk assessment of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors use in civil aviation. 

Accident Prevention and Investigation 

 Quantified the effects and impact of fatigue in aviation using gene-expression research. 

 Determined the usefulness of blood from aviation accidents as an RNA source for gene-expression analysis. 

 Determined the prevalence of psychotropic drugs in pilot fatalities from civil aviation accidents. 

 Assessed unapproved medications found in fatally injured pilots involved in homebuilt-aircraft accidents. 

 Correlated the incidence of quinine positives in aircraft fatalities with elevated serotonin metabolite ratios. 

Protection and Survival 

 Developed methods to qualify replacement elements for worn seat cushions used in energy-absorbing seats. 

 Developed mathematical prediction of emergency evacuation performance. 

 Conducted the performance evaluation of inflatable emergency equipment for ditching scenarios. 

Aviation Physiology 

 Calculated galactic cosmic radiation dose rates in the atmosphere at altitudes above 60,000 feet. 

 Developed a Windows version of the CARI program. 

 Evaluated and developed oxygen system guidelines for high-altitude aircraft. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

	 Provided scientific knowledge base on medical effects of combined exposures to carbon monoxide, carbon 

dioxide, and ozone from mild hypoxic conditions associated with reduced air pressures. 

	 Evaluated toxicological aspects of cabin environmental (air) quality: development of reference laboratory to 

support aircraft cabin air contaminants analysis. 

	 Validated computational models of air contaminants, VOCs; biological and viral contaminants to evaluate 

health impacts on passengers and crew. 

Performance Linkages 

The Aeromedical Research Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing transportation related 

injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

	 By 2014, establish design criteria for restraint systems that protect occupants at the highest impact levels 

the aircraft structure can sustain. 

	 By 2015, establish validation parameters for mathematical models that can evaluate whether aircraft type 

designs meet requirements for evacuation and emergency response capability, in lieu of actual tests. 

	 By 2015, incorporate aerospace medical issues in the development of safety strategies concerning pilot 

impairment, incapacitation, spatial disorientation, and other aeromedical-related factors that contribute to 

loss of aircraft control. 

	 By 2015, develop advanced methods to extract aeromedical information for prognostic identification of 

human safety risks. 

	 By 2015, develop a methodology to compile, classify, and assess aviation-related injuries, the mechanisms 

that resulted in these injuries, and their relationship to autopsy findings, medical certification data, aircraft 

cabin configurations, and biodynamic testing: AAIADS. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-41 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 By 2016, apply and develop advances in gene expression, toxicology, and bioinformatics technology and 

methods to define human response to aerospace stressors. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

	 By 2013, develop advanced data and mathematical models for cabin-air-purification systems. 

	 By 2015, establish design criteria for aircraft-cabin-air-quality-sensing systems. 

	 By 2015, demonstrate advanced methods to remove contaminants from bleed-air and non-bleed-air 

ventilation systems. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The human components of aviation systems are simultaneously the strongest and the weakest links in aerospace 

safety. Thus, the Aeromedical Research Program conducts research to maximize the strengths of the human link and 

minimize inherent human weakness to prevent accidents and improve safety and health in both commercial and 

general aviation aircraft. The Aeromedical Research Program combines three major efforts: Aerospace Medical 

Research that is focused on the medical aspects of aircraft accident investigation and pilot medical certification, Crash 

Survival and Cabin Evacuation Research to ensure post crash survival and Cabin Environment Research focused on 

airliner occupant health and safety. 

The Aerospace Medical Research Program investigates and analyzes injury and death patterns in civilian flight 

accidents and incidents to determine their cause and develop preventive strategies. This research supports FAA 

regulatory and medical certification processes that develop safety and health regulations covering all aerospace craft 

occupants and their flight environments. A new aspect of the Aerospace Medical Research program combines 

toxicological and medical aspects of all fatal and high priority aircraft accidents to provide accident investigators, 

medical certification managers and researchers with near real time data to rapidly identify issues and support for 

safety information systems. 

The Crash Survival and Cabin Evacuation Research Program recommends and develops equipment, technology, and 

procedures for optimal (a) evacuation and egress of humans from aerospace craft and (b) the crash protection and 

safety. National Transportation Safety Board reports show the survivability of commercial aircraft accidents including 

serious accidents is quite high – greater than 94 percent; thus, research to ensure occupants can survive crash 

impact and safely evacuate the aircraft is essential. The implementation of this research was evidenced by the 

successful water evacuation of all occupants in U.S. Airways Flight 1549. 

The Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program supports FAA’s Flight Plan goal and Congressional requests for 

research to ensure airliner occupant safety and security by developing and testing adaptive environmental control 

techniques to enable a safe and healthy cabin air environment including during in-flight incidents. This research 

develops advanced scientific models and experimental data on airborne and surface transmission of existing and 

emerging infectious diseases within aircraft and develops evidence-based hazard identification and risk management 

criteria guidelines to maximize safety and health in the air transportation system in response to infectious disease. 

This program will provide data and systems for air quality incident identification to alert crew to potential problems 

and provide signals to the environmental control system for appropriate response. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-42 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

The Aeromedical Research program is principally an in-house effort; 84 percent of FY 2012 funds are assigned for 

CAMI to address: (a) aeromedical PCB&T (50+ full-time government employees, $7.125 M), (b) $1.094 M baseline 

laboratory operating costs, and (c) $1.550 M to conduct specialized Fire and Cabin Safety research; thus the CAMI 

aeromedical FY 2012 non-PCB&T funds total $2,644. A reduction in funding will extend research time to assess 

bleed air quality on commercial aircraft and to identify oil-based contaminants, air contaminants from cabin 

materials, hydraulic fluid, and other toxins in the aircraft cabin that affect the safety and health of airline 

crewmembers and the flying public (FY 2012 Major Activity in the Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program). 

Research, Engineering and Development A-43 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.k Weather Program 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Weather Program 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.k Weather Program $16,789,000 $16,366,000 -$423,000 

For FY 2012, $16,366,000 is requested for the Weather Program. Major activities and accomplishments planned with 

the requested funding include: 

	 Develop advanced storm prediction probabilistic forecast capability. 

 Develop initial Current Icing Product (CIP) algorithm for Alaska. 

	 Update high ice water content (HIWC) algorithm to support FY 2012 field program. 

	 Evaluate rapid refresh ensemble with 3 km Continental United States (CONUS) and Alaskan nests at 

National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). 

	 Transition turbulence forecast capability including mountain-waves for implementation. 

	 Test and assess CONUS ceiling, visibility, and flight category 1-3 hour forecast capability. 

	 Test and implement observation trending and locale specific data capability to Helicopter Emergency Medical 

Services (HEMS) weather tool. 

	 Develop volcanic ash concept of operations and initial set of functional and performance requirements. 

	 Develop verification techniques and approaches that assess research capabilities in support of the Research 

Transition process. 

	 Develop Terminal Area Icing Weather Information System concept design documents including description 

of operational use. 

	 Conduct research field program using high ice water content and particle size measurement 

instrumentation. 

The Weather Program will continue to develop and enhance forecast and nowcast capabilities to support DOT safety 

strategic goal, FAA Flight Plans goals of greater capacity and increased safety, and meet NextGen requirements. This 

will include applied research in naturally occurring atmospheric hazards including turbulence, severe convective 

activity, icing, and restricted visibility. In FY 2012 additional turbulence forecast capabilities are being developed to 

enhance en route safety and capacity, an advanced probabilistic storm prediction capability is being developed to 

enhance terminal and en route capacity, an in-flight icing capability for Alaska is being developed to enhance safety 

especially for general aviation, a ceiling visibility 0-12 hour capability is being developed to enhance en route safety 

especially for general aviation, and a volcanic ash dispersion ensemble forecast capability is being developed with 

NOAA to enhance en route safety and capacity. Additionally in FY2012, modeling capability via a rapid refresh 

ensemble will be evaluated that will provide enhanced icing, ceiling and visibility, turbulence, and convective 

forecasts for the CONUS and Alaska. This will include evaluating the ensemble using CONUS and Alaska nests, 

where a nest is a smaller, specific area in a large domain that is analyzed in greater detail to resolve weather 

structures that may contain potentially hazardous weather. Capabilities developed are transitioned to National 

Weather Service (NWS), FAA, and industry weather systems. 

Additionally the HEMS weather tool will be enhanced to provide additional altitude and location specific data to 

increase safety and the FAA will be collaborating with NASA on a field program to develop measurement technology 

and forecast capability of high ice water content conditions which are a critical safety hazard. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-44 
 

	 

	 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

2. What Is This Program? 

The Weather Program provides new and improved weather products that support legacy National Airspace System 

(NAS) systems, NOAA/NWS, and near-term NextGen capabilities as well as enablers necessary for mid-term and farterm benefits. Weather products are enhanced by upgrading algorithms for existing NAS platforms such as the 

Weather and Radar Processor, and the Integrated Terminal Weather System. The NWS platforms also use the 

algorithms developed. Research is an integral element in providing the advanced forecast and nowcast information 

that can be integrated into aviation decision-support tools. This information will be transitioned by the FAA’s Reduce 

Weather Impact (RWI) portfolio to accomplish this. The information will be developed in accordance with the 

NextGen Network Enabled Weather dissemination standards. This will allow universal access to weather information 

through net-centric capabilities. 

The Weather Program will develop advanced forecast capabilities consistent with the operational improvements 

specified in the NextGen Integrated Work Plan (IWP) and the FAA NextGen Implementation Plan. To support 

transition of these advanced capabilities to operations, the Weather Program will utilize evaluations of these scientific 

advancements to verify their performance. These advanced capability requirements for NextGen include the 

following: 

	 Advanced convective weather forecast - high-resolution, deterministic and probabilistic 0 to 12+ hour 

forecasts of convection for air traffic management (ATM) to enhance capacity. 

	 Hourly (nowcasts) and 0- to 18-hour probabilistic forecasts of turbulence for use by ATM, Aviation
 

Operations Centers (AOC), and the pilot in the cockpit to enhance safety and capacity. 

	 Hourly (nowcasts) and 0- to 12-hour probabilistic forecasts for in-flight icing, including its severity for use by 

ATM, AOC, and the pilot in the cockpit for preflight planning to enhance safety and capacity. 

	 Analysis and 0- to 12-hour probabilistic forecasts of ceiling, visibility, and flight category for use by ATM, 

AOC, and the pilot in the cockpit, and to support estimation of capacity resources at airports as well as 

increased general aviation safety. 

The weather capabilities developed by FAA provide the following benefits: 

	 Depiction of current and forecasted in-flight icing areas – enhances safety and regulatory adherence. 

	 Interactive data assimilation, editing, forecast, and dissemination tools – improves aviation advisories and 

forecasts issued by the NWS as well as accessibility to users of aviation weather information. 

	 Depiction of current and forecast precipitation type and rate – enhances safety in the terminal area. 

	 Depiction of current and forecast terminal and en route convective weather – enhances terminal and en 

route capacity. 

	 Short-term prediction and forecast of ceiling and visibility in the national area – enhances en route safety. 

	 In-situ, remote detection, and forecast of en route turbulence, including clear-air turbulence – enhances en 

route safety. 

The Weather Program supports NextGen goals via applied research and development of the advanced forecast 

capabilities detailed in the NextGen Integrated Work Plan (IWP) and the FAA NextGen Implementation Plan. Efforts 

undertaken in collaboration with the NOAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) increase 

FAA’s ability to provide the operational improvements required for NextGen. These improvements include short-term 

and mid-term forecasts of naturally occurring atmospheric hazards, such as turbulence, severe convective activity, 

icing, and restricted visibility. Improved forecasts enhance flight safety, reduce air traffic controller and pilot 

workload, enable better flight planning, increase productivity, and enhance common situational awareness. 

The Weather Program works within FAA, industry, and government groups to ensure its priorities and plans are 

consistent with user needs. This is accomplished through: 

	 Guidance from the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) NextGen initiative and the NextGen 

Integration and Implementation Office within FAA. 

	 Guidance from the FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-45 
	 

	 

	 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Inputs from the National Aviation Weather Initiatives, which are strongly influenced by other NAS drivers 

including “Safer Skies” and Flight Plan Safety Objectives. 

	 Inputs from the aviation community, such as the annual National Business Aircraft Association 

/Friends/Partners in Aviation Weather Forum; JPDO; RTCA; and scheduled public user-group meetings. 

	 Close collaboration with FAA organizations internal to the Agency such as the Air Traffic Organization 

Oceanic and Off-Shore Programs Office and various FAA Aviation Safety Offices. 

The Weather Program collaborates with the Department of Commerce (DOC) in promoting and developing 

meteorological science, and in fostering support of research projects through the use of private and governmental 

research facilities. The program also leverages research activities with members of industry, academia, and other 

government agencies through interagency agreements, university grants, and Memorandums of Agreement. 

Partnerships include: 

 National Center for Atmospheric Research (in-flight icing, convective weather, turbulence, ceiling and 

visibility, ground de-icing, modeling, weather radar techniques). 

 NOAA laboratories (convective weather, turbulence, volcanic ash, modeling, weather radar techniques, 

quality assessment/verification). 

 Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory (convective weather). 

 NOAA’s NCEP Aviation Weather Center (in-flight icing, convective weather, turbulence, ceiling and visibility) 

and Environmental Modeling Center (modeling).
 

 NASA Research Centers (in-flight icing, turbulence, satellite data).
 

 Universities (modeling). 

 Airlines, port authorities, cities (user assessments). 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

	 Developed CONUS 0-8 hour advanced storm prediction capability including lightning proxy. 

	 Integrated Canadian weather radar information into the High-Resolution Rapid Update National 3D Radar 

Mosaic. 

 Completed Forecast Icing Product and CIP severity Weather Research & Forecast (WRF)/Rapid Refresh (RR) 

transition. 

 Completed prototype HIWC algorithm in support of NASA trial field program. 

 Tested 3km High-Resolution Rapid Refresh WRF model at NOAA. 

 Completed turbulence forecast capability for WRF rapid refresh transition. 

 Developed prototype CONUS ceiling, visibility, and flight category 1-3 hour forecast capability. 

 Conducted QA evaluations, utilizing Network-Enabled Verification System of weather research capabilities to 

support the research transition process. 

 Implemented FAA approved products for operational use within the NAS. 

 Evaluated liquid water equivalent system for measurement of freezing rain, freezing drizzle, snow & ice 

pellets and the ability to distinguish between them. 

Performance Linkages 

The Weather Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing transportation related injuries and 

fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation as well as the FAA Flight Plan Goals of greater capacity and 

increased safety. Research is on-going to provide weather observations, warnings, and forecasts that are more 

accurate, accessible, and efficient, and to meet current and planned regulatory requirements. The goals of the 

focused research endeavors in support of the NextGen weather operational improvements are: 

Research, Engineering and Development A-46 
 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 By FY 2012, in support of segment-one: develop timely and accurate deterministic and an initial set of 

probabilistic aviation weather forecasts for operational use by ATM, dispatchers, and pilots. 

	 By FY 2018, in support of NextGen mid-term requirements: increase maturity of probabilistic forecasting; 

using integrated ground, airborne, and satellite weather observation information in real-time for operational 

use by ATM, dispatchers, and pilots. 

	 By FY 2025, in support of NextGen far-term requirements: enhance accuracy of net-enabled deterministic 

and advanced probabilistic weather forecast information for integration into NAS decision support tools and 

dissemination in real-time from a single authoritative source for operational use by ATM, dispatchers, and 

pilots. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Weather has been identified as a causal factor for 70 percent of delays and 20 percent of accidents as cited in “The 

Mission Need Statement for Aviation Weather (#339)”. The identified shortfalls are in the areas of weather detection 

and forecasting as well as product creation and dissemination. These shortfalls are also in line with the NextGen 

Integrated Work Plan (IWP) requirements and Weather Functional Requirements documents. The National Airspace 

System (NAS) is a complex system whose safe and efficient operation is dependent on the accurate nowcast and 

forecast of aviation weather conditions. The FAA’s Flight Plan for 2009-2013 cites objectives for greater capacity by 

reducing the impacts of adverse weather on the operational capacity of the NAS and increasing aviation safety by 

reducing the number of accidents associated with hazardous weather conditions. Since demand is anticipated to rise 

sharply during this timeframe, weather impact mitigation is critical to meet that demand. 

The Weather Program R&D, while driven by the FAA Flight Plan as well as the NextGen Weather Operational 

Improvements, is also influenced by NTSB and Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee 

recommendations. Accidents have also driven the weather program; as an example the Roselawn Halloween 

accident (American Eagle, 68 fatalities, 1994) led to the capability to forecast the location, severity, and probability of 

in-flight icing conditions with sufficient accuracy to allow proactive planning of previously denied airspace to 

uncertified aircraft. Improvements to forecast and nowcast capabilities as a result of the development of in-flight 

icing, turbulence, ceiling and visibility, and convective weather algorithms have been transitioned into operational or 

experimental use and have led to improved short-term and mid-term forecasts of these naturally occurring 

atmospheric hazards. There have been an average of 400 weather-related accidents (general aviation, air taxi, and 

air carrier) per year, over the 10-year period ending in 2006, resulting in $1.46B (fatalities, injuries, aircraft damage) 

as well as 42,000 air carrier delay hours in 2008, resulting in $200M in delay costs. Continued evolution of improved 

nowcasting and forecasting algorithms with applicability to achieving higher aviation safety and capacity during 

hazardous weather is needed. The key is to be able to provide high quality weather nowcasts and forecasts uniquely 

designed to allow for rapid and effective decision making by traffic managers, air traffic control, and air crews to 

proactively select safe and optimal reroutes. In the view of the Joint Planning and Development Office, and as 

espoused in the NextGen Concept of Operations, weather is an essential element to be integrated into TFM safety 

and capacity management tools. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A funding reduction would delay completion of the NextGen requirement for a turbulence probabilistic forecast for all 

flight levels. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-47 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Research $3,467,000 $3,504,000 +$37,000 

For FY 2012, $3,504,000 is requested for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned with the requested funding will include: 

Sense and Avoid (SAA) 

	 Determine performance characteristics and operational requirements for SAA technologies. 

	 Continue FAA-United States Air Force (USAF) joint flight tests to study on-board SAA technology. 

	 Identify the barriers for systems and equipment providing equivalent SAA capabilities. 

Control and Communications (C2) 

	 Define UAS control and communication system performance requirements such as latency, availability, 

integrity and security and critical fly-by-wireless certification challenges. 

Minimum Requirements for UAS Control Stations 

	 Complete development of information to support the definition of minimum human factors requirements for 

UAS control stations by recommending compensatory strategies in equipment design and training to 

minimize the impact of the pilot’s inability to directly sense data from the aircraft and its immediate 

environment. 

	 Define certification criteria for new automated functions to ensure that UAS automation meets an equivalent 

level of safety to manned aircraft. 

	 Identify information required for decision-making and execution of operational changes. 

UAS Maintenance and Repair Issues 

	 Identify the UAS technology developments currently underway for small UAS to establish a central 

repository of historical data used to track continuous airworthiness of life-limited components.
 

	 Determine the requirements that the FAA, other government agencies, and industry may have for 

evaluation of equipment and systems that are peculiar to UAS and how they are analyzing this equipment 

and systems. 

Safety Management System (SMS) and System Safety Criteria 

	 Use Causal-Model for Air Transport Safety (CATS) to conduct causal analysis of SAA encounters in the NAS 

with a focus on interaction of visual flight rule (VFR) aircraft and instrument flight rule (IFR) traffic. 

	 Study SAA 14 CFR requirements for VFR-IFR encounters by using interim results from CATS analysis. 

The FY 2012 funding request will support the UAS program, particularly in research areas of UAS technologies which 

directly impact the safety of the NAS. The program will focus on sense and avoid; command, control and 

communications; and UAS ground station requirements that will enable operation of UAS in the NAS within the 14 

CFR regulatory framework. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-48 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

2. What Is This Program? 

Researchers are developing methodologies and tools to establish regulatory standards on UAS design and 

performance characteristics while operating in the NAS. They are evaluating technologies, conducting laboratory and 

field tests, performing analyses and simulations, and generating data to support standardization of UAS civil 

operations. New standards are being implemented to establish UAS certification procedures, airworthiness 

standards, operational requirements, inspection and maintenance processes, and safety oversight responsibilities. 

Policies and guidance materials are also being published to provide FAA certification engineers and safety inspectors 

with the knowledge and tools they need to ensure the safe integration of UAS into the NAS. 

The UAS Research Program supports FAA efforts in Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) 

implementation by studying safety implications of new aircraft operational concepts and technology to the NAS and 

supporting the development of new and modified regulatory standards to support these new technologies. The 

program’s research activities focus on new technology assessments, methodology development, data collection and 

generation, laboratory and field validation, and technology transfer. 

Full and safe integration of UAS into civil aviation requires FAA to work closely with other government and private 

agencies that have experience in developing and operating UAS: 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – These 

representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review program activity, 

progress, and plans. 

	 Technical Community Representatives Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support rulemaking and the development of guidance for means of compliance 

with rules. 

	 Department of Defense (DoD) – the DoD is the largest UAS user requesting expanded access to the NAS. 

The FAA collaborates with DoD through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) and Interagency Agreements 

to leverage resources and implement new technologies for civil applications. 

	 Other entities include the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOC, NASA, state government agencies, 

and independent organizations that use UAS for national security, earth science and oceanic studies, and 

commercial applications. 

	 The Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) – the JPDO has identified UAS integration to NAS and 

new aircraft technology as one of the emerging challenges to the nation’s air transportation system. In 

particular, the NextGen-related research will be coordinated with the JPDO Aircraft Working Group activities 

in support of aircraft equipage requirements and necessary enablers to fully utilize NextGen capabilities. 

	 RTCA Special Committee 203 (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) – members of this special committee will help to 

ensure the effectiveness of the agency’s rulemaking by recommending Minimum Aviation System 

Performance Standards (MASPS) for UAS, C2 Systems, and SAA Systems. 

	 FAA Air Transportation Centers of Excellence – various consortiums of university and industry partners who 

conduct R&D for FAA on a cost-matching basis, which currently consists of seven centers in different 

technical disciplines. 

	 The Civil Aviation Authority of the Netherlands – conduct joint research on UAS initiatives via an MOC. 

	 Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) with industry to jointly study UAS regulatory 

compliance issues, e.g., type design, airworthiness, operation, maintenance, and repairs. 

For FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Sense and Avoid 

	 Continue to evaluate a UAS SAA system including considerations for civil certification of logic 

implementations for UAS collision avoidance and separation assurance. 

	 Determined performance characteristics and operational requirements for SAA technologies. Included will 

be the development and evaluation of specific SAA technologies including both airborne and ground-based 

systems in compliance of regulatory requirements (airworthiness and flight operations). 

Research, Engineering and Development A-49 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Continued FAA-USAF joint flight tests to study on-board SAA technology. 

Control and Communications 

	 Continued to identify potential safety implications of system performance impediments of communications 

latency. 

	 Continued development and evaluation of UAS C2 technologies and performance requirements (e.g., data 

link requirements, C2 spectrum bandwidth estimates, latency and availability, communication with ATC, and 

interactions with other NAS users) to ensure operational safety with consideration of current regulatory 

basis for aviation. 

	 Identify and make recommendations on communications performance standards for difference classes of 

airspace, phases of flight, and system architecture (e.g., line of sight (LOS) and SATCOM relay). 

Safety Management System 

	 Performed risks analyses to determine impacts of specific hazards, mitigation strategies, recommended 

approaches, safety measurements, and oversight requirements. 

	 Initiated the collection of UAS operational data and performed analyses to develop technical information 

required to support establishment of regulatory standards. 

Minimum Requirements for UAS Control Stations 

	 Develop information to support the definition of minimum human factors requirements for UAS control 

stations by recommending compensatory strategies in equipment design and training to minimize the impact 

of the pilot’s inability to directly sense data from the aircraft and its immediate environment 

	 Define certification criteria for new automated functions to ensure that UAS automation meets an equivalent 

level of safety to manned aircraft. 

	 Identify information required for decision-making and execution of operational changes 

UAS Maintenance and Repair Issues 

	 Identify the UAS technology developments currently underway in small UAS to establish a central repository 

of historical data used to track continuous airworthiness of life-limited components 

	 Determine the requirements that the FAA, other government agencies, and industry may have for 

evaluation of equipment and systems that are peculiar to UAS and how they are analyzing this equipment 

and systems. 

Performance Linkages 

The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing 

transportation related injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. To safely integrate UAS 

into the NAS, FAA needs to develop airworthiness standards, devise operational requirements, establish maintenance 

procedures, and conduct safety oversight activities. The program is structured into multiple research areas: system 

safety; SAA; C2; contingency management (i.e., lost-link logic and procedures, diverts, emergency landings, and 

flight termination); certification and airworthiness standards; and maintenance and continuing airworthiness. The 

research began with a baseline survey to determine the existing technologies used in UAS and needs of 

corresponding regulatory standards. Technologies used to avoid mid-air collisions due to UAS operations will be 

examined and tested. ATC voice and data communications architectures and requirements necessary to support UAS 

operations in the NAS, as well as the necessary safety procedures for contingency management of UAS, will be 

researched. A system safety approach based on regulatory framework was initially developed to identify the 

potential hazards, perform risk assessments, and evaluate mitigation strategies for safe operations in the NAS. The 

goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By FY 2012, determine a set of performance characteristics and operational requirements for SAA 

technologies.
 

	 By FY 2013, analyze data and identify potential safety implications of system performance impediments of 

communications latency. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-50 
 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 By FY 2013, identify the UAS technology developments currently underway to establish a central repository 

of historical data for maintenance and repairs and determine the requirements that the FAA, other 

government agencies, and industry may have for evaluation of equipment and systems that are peculiar to 

UAS. 

	 By FY 2015, identify and make recommendations on how communications performance standards will vary 

among different classes of airspace and phases of flight, considering both a LOS and SATCOM-relay type 

architecture. 

	 By FY 2016, conduct field evaluations of UAS technologies in an operational environment, including SAA, C2, 

and contingency management technologies. The documented results will be used to develop certification 

and airworthiness standards. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Safe integration of UAS into the NAS poses substantial technical challenges not only to the FAA, but also to the 

aviation industry as a whole. UAS uses the most advanced technologies to achieve certain operational capabilities far 

exceeding the expectations of current NAS users. These unique capabilities have demonstrated its potentials of 

commercial applications as well as scientific research needs. Data from the recently completed UAS technology 

survey initiated within the UAS Research Program shows that integrating UAS in the NAS will potentially affect the 

entire NAS due to the various sizes of UAS (less than a foot up to the size of a commercial jet), wide ranges of 

maximum take-off weight (less than a pound to the weight of a large jet), large performance disparities in reference 

to the existing certificated aircraft, and capabilities of operating in all classes of airspace (even the ones weighing less 

than 100 pounds are capable of operating in Class A airspace), which could potentially disrupt normal aircraft traffic 

flow and induce unknown safety hazards while interacting with other NAS users. 

The FAA UAS Research Program has initiated a system approach with focus on safety. It applies the SMS principle 

based on the existing regulatory framework, i.e. Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, which ensures the common 

safety baselines, enforces the mandatory safety requirements, and allows technology-driven solutions. It is a safetyfocused, technology-driven, and NextGen evolution-guided approach. Research activities within the UAS Research 

Program will generate technical information to support development of policies, guidance materials, and advisory 

circulars on utilizing advanced technologies to demonstrate regulatory compliances while operating UAS in the NAS. 

UAS-specific technical issues, such as “sense and avoid”, control and communications with air traffic controls, and 

emergency response requirements, will also be studied in reference to certifications and operational requirements. It 

will also be an integral part of the NextGen development. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

NAS and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also 

examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its subcommittee 

structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. 

Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year 

terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in funding will delay research in the safety management system, sense and avoid, control and 

communications, and control station research areas. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-51 
	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.m NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A11.m NextGen – Alternative Fuels for 

General Aviation $0 $2,071,000 +$2,071,000 

For FY 2012, $2,071,000 is requested for NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

	 Evaluate the performance of a fleet representative, naturally aspirated engine on ultra-low lead fuels. 

	 Evaluate the impact on the general aviation (GA) fleet from the reduction and eventual removal of lead from 

aviation gasolines. 

	 Evaluate the safety and performance of high compression engines on unleaded, mid-octane aviation alkylate 

fuel. 

Research will focus on the feasibility of reducing high-octane lead additives in aviation gasoline and how that will 

impact fleet performance and certification. Test data and laboratory analyses of ultra-low lead fuels will be used to 

determine the certification and safety impact of reducing lead in aviation fuel as a temporary measure to reduce 

ambient lead emissions. This research will include the investigation of increased aromatic limits in the low lead fuel 

for octane enhancement and its impact on other safety critical performance metrics. 

The assessment of the impact on safety and operating performance from the use of the traditional 100Low Lead 

(100LL) aviation gasoline (avgas) without lead will continue. Research will also continue on evaluating high-octane, 

quasi-drop-in fuels. 

Research will continue to support the development of test methods needed to evaluate the performance, safety, 

durability, and operability of unleaded avgas containing high aromatic or biomass derived compounds. This work will 

supplement the Aircraft Fuel System Materials Task Force (ASTM TF) work of developing a fuel qualification protocol 

for aviation and compression ignition fuel and additives qualification to ensure deviations to the current specification 

properties and fit-for-purpose properties ensure safety of aviation fuels. FY 2012 research will also address 

development of new engine, rig, and laboratory test methods necessary to evaluate fuels which differ from traditional 

hydrocarbon, refinery based fuels. Planning will begin for the addition of new test capabilities and tools to the 

laboratory to conduct full envelope testing of turbocharged aircraft engines. The data from that testing will be used 

to update the current detonation advisory circular The capability to measure lead emissions from GA engines is also 

planned to be added. 

Additionally, research will also examine technologies that could be used to modify the GA legacy piston engines to 

run on significantly reduced octane unleaded fuels. Test data will be collected from GA engines on the effects of 

variations in fit-for-purpose property deviations from current aviation gasoline specification to the fuel qualification 

protocol from the ASTM TF for Otto Cycle fuels at ASTM International. 

2. What Is This Program? 

This program will update or create new certification standards and Advisory Circulars (ACs) that promote continued 

airworthiness of aircraft engines, fuels, and airframe fuel management systems. The Agency also publishes 

information and sponsors technology workshops, demonstrations, and other means of training and technology 

transfer related to alternative fuels for GA aircraft, and reviews the specifications and practices recommended by 

recognized technical societies like ASTM International and SAE International. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-52 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

The intended outcome is to lessen aviation environmental impacts to air and water from operation of GA aircraft by 

enabling the industry to provide safe, secure, and renewable fuels. 

The NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation Program works with the following industry and government 

groups: 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

– representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review the program’s 

activities. 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support new rulemaking and development of alternate means of compliance 

with existing rules. 

	 The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development Group – representatives 

from ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft, Teledyne Continental Motors, 

and Lycoming Engines facilitate two-way transfer of technology between government and industry to 

benefit all participants. 

	 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

	 Aerospace manufacturers. 

	 Aerospace repair stations and maintenance organizations. 

	 Aerospace industry associations, such as the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and the 

National Business Aviation Association. 

	 Aircraft user groups, such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the Experimental Aircraft 

Association. 

	 Private, commercial, government, and military operators. 

	 International airworthiness authorities. 

	 Standards development groups, such as ASTM International. 

	 Academia and national laboratories. 

Partnerships include: 

	 CRC Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development Group – includes ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, 

Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft, Teledyne Continental Motors, and Lycoming Engines; this group facilitates twoway transfer of technology between government and industry to benefit all participants. 

	 General Aviation Manufacturers Association - Future Avgas Strategy and Transition Plan (GAMA FAST) – 

includes engine and airframe original equipment manufacturers; this group is developing a plan for the 

introduction of unleaded fuel to replace 100LL and assess the impact on the current fleet of aircraft and 

engines. 

	 ASTM International Standard Practice for Evaluating the Compatibility of Proposed Fuel or Additives with 

Aviation Otto Cycle Fuels and ASTM TF –the group is developing the alternative aviation piston fuel protocol 

for Aircraft Fuel System Materials (ASTM) specification approval and is researching how changes from 

current specification and fit-for-purpose properties will impact safety. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

	 Published a detailed research plan to address alternative fuels for GA aircraft that is coordinated with EPA, 

GAMA, CRC, and the GA community and that addresses continued safe operation of aircraft, reduction and 

eventual elimination in the use of lead as an additive, and alternative fuel certification. 

	 Began initial feasibility activities, including economic feasibility, environmental impacts, and assessment of 

potential for GA aircraft reduced, unleaded, and renewable alternative fuels. 

	 Began engine and laboratory testing on ultra-low lead fuels to address the feasibility of near-term reduction 

in lead levels in aviation gasoline as a temporary measure to reduce leaded aviation emissions. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-53 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Began engine and laboratory testing on mid-octane, unleaded aviation alkylate as an input to initial safety 

and performance impact on the legacy fleet from potential for removal of lead from aviation gasoline. 

	 Began engine test data and laboratory characterization of high-octane, quasi-drop-in, unleaded fuels to 

replace 100LL avgas. 

Performance Linkages 

The NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing 

transportation related injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. The FAA will work with 

the GA community and the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the safety, environmental impact, and 

performance of alternatives to conventional GA fuel. Near-term research will evaluate the safety and performance of 

reduced lead and drop-in unleaded fuels and develop qualification and certification methodologies for those fuels. 

Longer term research will evaluate the safety and performance of quasi-drop-in and biomass derived alternative fuels 

and support development of qualification and certification methodologies for those fuels. Longer term research 

includes simulated altitude and emissions investigation of biomass derived and high aromatic based fuels. Longer 

term research will also focus on providing data and a knowledge base to industry stakeholders and certification 

officials on the effects to the safety of the legacy fleet from deviation of the current specification and fit-for-purpose 

fuel properties. This research will also evaluate new technologies to ensure safe operation on significantly reduced 

octane fuels by the legacy fleet. The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By FY 2012, complete feasibility assessment of near-term reduction in the current lead levels in avgas on GA 

aircraft and engine safety, performance, certification methodologies as a temporary measure toward full 

lead removal, assessment of removal of lead from aviation alkylate and use of the remaining mid-octane 

conventional fuel. 

	 By FY 2013, complete feasibility assessment of the use of high aromatic additives for octane enhancement 

and assessment of the use of biomass derived fuels regarding the impact on GA aircraft and engine safety, 

performance, certification methodologies. 

	 By FY 2013, establish capability to measure lead emissions from piston engines operating on ultra-low lead 

and low lead fuels. 

	 By FY 2014, complete analyses to extrapolate lead emissions over GA fleet. 

	 By FY 2014, develop methodology and acquire tools for altitude capability to enhance existing capabilities to 

evaluate high-output, turbocharged engine performance across the entire operating envelope, including 

high altitude, high and low temperature, and high and low humidity conditions. 

	 By FY 2015, complete testing to be used to update FAA AC 33.47, regarding detonation testing equipment, 

analyses, safety margin, and altitude determination. 

	 By FY 2016, develop engine and fuel test methods to evaluate the performance, safety, durability, and 

operability of unleaded avgas. 

	 By FY 2017, complete test engine emission evaluation of existing biomass derived and high-aromatic, highoctane fuels. 

	 By FY 2017, determine feasibility of engine technologies to enable high-compression engines in legacy fleet 

to safely operate on significantly reduced octane fuels. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

While energy efficiency and local environmental issues have traditionally been primary drivers of aeronautics 

innovation, the current and projected effects of aviation emissions on our global climate is a serious long-term 

environmental issue facing the aviation industry. Aside from their associated health and welfare impacts, aviation 

emissions are a considerable challenge in terms of community acceptance of aviation activities and this challenge is 

anticipated to grow. 

In the GA piston engine arena, there is a need to find a replacement for current leaded avgas (100LL). The 

replacement fuel should perform as well as 100LL in general aviation (GA) piston engines. This unleaded high octane 

replacement fuel must not cause any accidents and should be a seamless, transparent change to the GA community. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-54 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Research will evaluate and characterize new alternative fuel formulations that will have protected the environment 

while sustaining growth in air transportation. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction would result in a decrease in funding to the NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation Program 

and could delay the empirical testing of assessments needed to produce hard data for the determination of 

certification impact and safety assessment of whether the near term reduction in lead content of aviation gasoline 

could meet the estimated EPA target. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-55 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Joint Planning and Development Office 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A12.a Joint Planning and 

Development Office $14,407,000 $14,067,000 -$340,000 

For FY 2012, $14,067,000 is requested for Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). Major activities and 

accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Planning and Agency/Industry Alignment 

	 Develop NextGen Portfolio Analysis that recommends the alignment of resources within the federal 

government and U.S. industry to develop and implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) in the most expedient and cost-effective manner. 

	 Coordinate and facilitate the transfer of technologies from aeronautics research programs and direct 

research that will result in achieving NextGen. 

Systems Integration and Transformation Analysis 

	 Establish standards and application for Net Enabled Weather information exchange for integration into air 

transportation management decision making. 

	 Develop policy recommendation for key architectural decisions including level of automation and aircraft 

system vs. ground system responsibility for separation assurance. 

	 Continue to refine research plans, which will describe research and supporting activities required to drive 

implementation decisions to effect the NextGen transformation. 

	 Develop Integrated Surveillance governance to facilitate robust multi-agency information sharing 

requirements, engineering analysis, prototype demonstrations, and implementation planning. 

JPDO will continue to: 

 Report progress and maintain NextGen National Integrated Plan’s Enterprise Architecture, Concepts, and 

Integrated Work plan. 

 Continue to define benefits of NextGen concepts through modeling and simulation. 

 Continue to refine Life-cycle cost estimates for NextGen through collaboration with partner agencies and 

industry. 

 Continue to support Senior Policy Committee decision-making by refining NextGen Policy agenda. 

 Continue to coordinate and develop multi-agency NextGen Budget Portfolio. 

 Continue enhancement of Enterprise Architecture and Multi-agency Integrated Work Plan. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The JPDO is responsible for defining and facilitating the implementation of NextGen. At this stage in the 

transformation, outputs are a series of plans and analyses that define a proposed end-state and a path for achieving 

it. The objective is to drive collaborative decisions—involving government and industry—that will ultimately achieve 

the transformation. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-56 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

As the steward of NextGen, JPDO seeks to address long-term imbalances in aviation capacity and demand. At the 

same time, it seeks to ensure the future operating environment is safe, well managed, environmentally responsible, 

and harmonized with international standards. JPDO’s mission is to lead the transformation of today’s aviation system 

into that of the future, the scope of which contributes to DOT current strategic goal of Economic Competitiveness 

and Safety. 

The JPDO is truly a collaborative enterprise. Employees from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) and the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense (DoD), and Homeland Security (DHS) actively 

lead and/or participate in JPDO activities. Similarly, the JPDO Board includes executives from each 

department/agency, as well as the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Senior Policy 

Committee includes Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries, and/or Administrators from the participating organizations, as 

well as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

The private sector is also an integral part of JPDO’s work. In FY 2006, the NextGen Institute was established as an 

alliance of major aviation stakeholder communities 

Major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Planning and Agency/Industry Alignment 

	 Continued to refine research plans, which will describe research and supporting activities required to drive 

implementation decisions to effect the NextGen transformation. 

	 Continued modeling planned improvements to test their efficacy in accomplishing NextGen goals. 

	 Continued enhancement of Enterprise Architecture and Multi-agency Integrated Work Plan in response to 

the outcome of demonstrations, research, changes in agency budgets, etc. 

	 Facilitated the transfer of technologies from research programs that are ready for implementation (e.g., 

NASA and the Department of Defense) to the federal agencies with operational responsibilities and to the 

private sector, as appropriate. 

Systems Integration and Transformation Analysis 

 Risk adjusted NextGen 2025 definition including capabilities, benefits, and cost. 

 Established analysis to mitigate research and development risk for 2025. Specifically: 

- Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and other advanced technologies that will lead to NAS integration. 

- Trajectory Based Operations. 

 Developed Information Sharing Standards, Models, Technologies for Aviation Weather Community Interest. 

 Established an Intergovernmental Integrated Surveillance Memorandum of Understanding and implement an 

initial operational capability by 2012. 

Performance Linkages 

FY 2012: 

	 Enhance the NextGen planning information to reflect: 

- Integration of net-enabled weather into automation decision making; 

- Enhanced operational scenarios that describe information sharing and procedures between flight/ airline 

operations; 

- NextGen trajectory-based flight processing, including air navigation service provider, flight operations 

center, and flight crew roles & responsibilities. 

	 Continue development of an interagency, Integrated Surveillance capability including: 

- Initial information sharing operation 

- Enterprise Architecture, Concept of Operations, and funding profile. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-57 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Continue coordination of network–enabled information sharing standards for participating agencies & 

organizations including multi-agency governance processes. 

	 Continue to coordinate and conduct demonstrations that will test operational concepts, address operational 

challenges, and provide alternatives for architectural trade-offs. 

	 Continue to refine NextGen planning information: Concept of Operations (ConOps), Enterprise Architecture 

(EA), and Integrated Work Plan (IWP). 

FY 2013-2015: 

 Continue research and development to support all NextGen capabilities. 

FY 2016 and Beyond: 

 Continue development to support all NextGen capabilities 

 Identify alternatives as a result of needed research that may be immature. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The nation’s air transportation system has slowly evolved into one that has become brittle, inflexible to change, and 

grounded in antiquated policy, technology and business practices. The system is no longer scalable. The United 

States aviation system must transform itself and be more responsive to the tremendous social, economic, political 

and technological changes that are evolving worldwide. 

In Public Law 108-176 Congress recognized the need to do business differently. To ensure this change occurs, 

Congress created the Joint Planning and Development Office established by the Department of Transportation within 

the Federal Aviation Administration will manage the work related to the NextGen. 

The JPDO provides the multi-agency governance structure that guides the development of the nation’s air 

transportation system of 2025. The JPDO together with partner agencies defines the capabilities and mechanisms 

that build new capacity to accommodate a wide range of customers and address an even wider spectrum of issues. 

These include increasing mobility for private, commercial, civil, & military aviation, airport and airspace capacity that 

is adaptable to unforeseen changes in traveler and shipper needs, and capacity increases that are balanced within 

safety and security guidelines. 

The JPDO maintains the plan and provides biennial reporting on the progress that participating agencies make in 

transforming the air transportation management system into a space-based system capable of avoiding future 

capacity gridlock regardless of weather conditions. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Any current or future reduction would result in a decrease in funding to technology transfer and would reduce 

activities by one third and also the enterprise architecture by one quarter. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-58 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A12.b NextGen – Wake Turbulence 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – NextGen - Wake Turbulence 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence $10,631,000 $10,674,000 +$43,000 

For FY 2012, $10,674,000 is requested for NextGen - Wake Turbulence. Major activities and accomplishments 

planned with the requested funding include: 

	 Continue to maintain and add to the world’s most extensive aircraft wake transport data base for use in new 

air traffic control procedure development and assessments of wake encounter risk associated with those 

new procedures. 

	 Obtain RTCA agreement on weather observation parameters to be transmitted from aircraft –vital to the 

development of dynamic wake separation processes. 

	 Continue to incorporate wake transport and decay as well as aircraft navigation performance analysis results 

into FAA wake-encounter risk models. 

	 Initiate development of wake turbulence mitigation processes/procedures to support the NextGen era time 

based en-route operational environment. 

	 Continue development of wind forecast algorithm and its information needs for use in the Wake Turbulence 

Mitigation for Single Runway (WTMSR) air traffic control decision support tool. 

	 Continue cooperative development with European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation 

(EUROCONTROL) of NextGen/SESAR of ground and aircraft based situation display concepts relative to 

wake separation constraints required for implementation of the NextGen/SESAR concepts for air routes and 

airport approach/departure paths. 

	 Evaluate reports of wake turbulence encounters as part of the FAA Safety Management System assurance 

process for changes to Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures. 

	 Continue to conduct experiments, analyses, and aviation community forums to define, in terms of a wake 

turbulence hazard, what is an unacceptable level of wake turbulence for an encountering aircraft. 

	 Continue development of modeling tools to evaluate system-wide safety risk associated with the NextGen 

pair-wise separation concepts. 

	 Provide engineering and analysis support to develop airport-specific procedure modifications to enable 

dependent instrument approaches to an airport’s closely spaced parallel runway (CSPR). 

	 Continue development of wake turbulence transport and decay modeling tools for use in evaluating 

proposed, trajectory-based, operational concepts. 

	 Provide wake turbulence evaluation support in determining wake separation standards for new aircraft being 

introduced into the NAS. 

In FY 2012, FAA must continue its development of the capabilities needed to enable aircraft separation processes 

supportive of NextGen shared separation and dynamic spacing in super density operations. These capabilities are 

highly dependent on technologies that accurately predict aircraft tracks, the track/decay of their generated wake 

vortices and the provision of this information to pilots and controllers. Some aspects of the NextGen Concept of 

Operations are dependent upon the aircraft being a participant in efficient, safe air traffic control processes that 

would minimize the effects of required wake turbulence mitigation on the flow of air traffic in all weather and visibility 

conditions. The NextGen - Wake Turbulence Program’s research will result in enhanced technology assisted 

Research, Engineering and Development A-59 
	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

processes for safely mitigating aircraft wake encounter risks while optimizing capacity, for all flight regimes, including 

the effects of weather. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The NextGen -Wake Turbulence Program conducts applied research to improve, in terms of flight efficiency and 

safety, aircraft-separation processes associated with today’s generalized and static air navigation service provider 

(ANSP) wake-turbulence-mitigation-based separation standards. As an example, during periods of less than ideal 

weather and visibility conditions, implementation of an ANSP decision support tool that adjusts required wake 

separations based on wind conditions would allow ATC to operate at arrival rates closer to their visual flight rule 

arrival capacity. Additionally, the research program is developing wake-mitigation application solutions that safely 

enable reduced aircraft separations in congested air corridors and during arrival and departure operations at our 

nation’s busiest airports. The research program in FY 2012 will continue work begun in FY 2008 to address the 

feasibility and benefit of a wake avoidance decision support capability for the flight deck. 

The program provides the research to achieve near-term objectives of increasing airport runway capacity by reducing 

aircraft wake separation minima under certain conditions. The program also provides the research and analysis to 

answer the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)-era questions of: 

	 What wake turbulence mitigations will be required in implementing Trajectory-Based Operations? 

	 How can more aircraft be accommodated in high-demand airspace (terminal and en-route) and still be safe 

in terms of wake turbulence? 

In FY 2012, NextGen - Wake Turbulence Program will continue its NextGen near- and mid-term research agenda, 

addressing wake turbulence restrictions in today’s terminal and en route airspace and in the future NextGen airspace 

designs. Program outcomes include: 

	 Increasing runway capacity in instrument meteorological conditions and capacity for more flights in highusage airspace, and 

	 Providing more capacity-efficient wake separations to aircraft with the same or reduced safety risk. 

The program addresses the needs of the FAA Air Traffic Organization and works with the agency’s Aviation Safety 

Organization to ensure new capacity-efficient procedures and technology solutions are safe and that the airports and 

air routes targeted for their implementation are those with critical needs to reduce airport capacity constraints and air 

route congestion. The program works with controllers, airlines, pilots, and aircraft manufacturers to include their 

recommendations and ensure training and implementation issues are addressed in the program’s research from the 

start. 

Customers: Stakeholders: 

Pilots; Joint Planning and Development Office; 

ANSP personnel; Commercial pilot unions; 

Air carrier operations; and FAA ANSP unions; 

Airport operations. Other International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
 

air navigation service providers; and 

Aircraft manufacturers 

In addition to maintaining its partnership with the agency’s Aviation Safety organization, this research program 

accomplishes its work via working relationships with industry, academia, and other government agencies. The 

coordination and tasking are accomplished through joint planning/reviews, contracts, and interagency agreements 

with the program’s partners: 

	 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

	 The Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 

	 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (NASA-sponsored 

research) 

	 The European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) and associated research 

organizations (coordination and shared research) 

Research, Engineering and Development A-60 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory 

	 National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research 

	 National Institute of Aerospace 

	 CSSI, Incorporated 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

	 Provided engineering and analysis support to develop airport-specific procedure modifications to enable 

dependent instrument approaches to an airport’s CSPR. 

	 Continued data collection to determine the characteristics of wake vortices generated by departing and 

arriving aircraft. Emphasis is on collecting data on wake generated by Boeing 757 and heavier aircraft. 

Data is being used in development of air navigation service provider decision support tools in reducing the 

required wake mitigation separation applied to airport single runway arrivals and departures. 

	 Evaluated reports of wake turbulence encounters as part of the FAA SMS assurance process for changes to 

ATC procedures. 

	 Developed initial wake separation standards to be applied to the new Boeing 747-800 series aircraft 

Performance Linkages 

The NextGen - Wake Turbulence Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Economic Competitiveness by 

maximizing economic returns on transportation policies and investment on average daily airport capacity. 

The following illustrate some target milestones: 

	 By FY 2012, determine the National Airspace System (NAS) infrastructure requirements (ground and 

aircraft) for implementing the NextGen Trajectory Based Operation and High Density concepts within the 

constraints of aircraft-generated wake vortices and aircraft collision risk. 

	 By FY 2013, develop as requested, airport specific instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) CSPR 

approach procedures that would insure wake safety and increase IMC capacity of the CSPR. 

	 By FY 2016, develop the algorithms that would be used in the ANSP and flight deck automation systems (if 

required) for setting and monitoring dynamic wake separation minimum between aircraft and surrounding 

aircraft. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Wake turbulence research has provided and will continue to provide the data, analysis, models and aircraft wake 

turbulence information collection systems that are needed to “bring to market” wake mitigation standards, 

procedures, and processes that allow safe but more capacity efficient aircraft to aircraft wake separations. The 

research program has produced the airport specific procedure and safety analyses to bring a new air traffic control 

wake mitigation procedure into everyday operation at the Seattle – Tacoma International Airport and an impending 

implementation at the Memphis airport. Seattle is currently getting up to 8 more arrival operations per hour (when 

compared to its former wake mitigation procedure) when weather forces it to switch to using only instrument 

approaches to its runways. The NextGen - Wake Turbulence Program is continuing to facilitate implementations of 

this procedure at Newark, Cleveland and Boston. These airports will have a similar operational improvement as 

Seattle. 

The NextGen – Wake Turbulence Program has produced validated concepts for applying aircraft performance 

characteristics and runway crosswind information to reduce the required wake mitigation separations applied to 

aircraft arriving to and departing from an airport’s runways. These research products have been transitioned into the 

FAA F&E projects: Wake Re-Categorization, Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures, and Wake Turbulence 

Mitigation for Arrivals. These F&E projects, when implemented, will provide air traffic control with decision support 

tools that will allow them to safely reduce the wake separations between aircraft when crosswinds blow the wakes 

out of the way of trailing aircraft. The reduced wake separations equate to more airport operations per hour when 

the airport is busiest. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-61 
 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

The requested FY2012 NextGen - Wake Turbulence Program will expand the crosswind based wake mitigation 

concept from its use on closely spaced parallel runways to an application on single runways – potentially providing an 

air traffic control decision support tool that will allow more operations at an even greater number of the nation’s 

busiest airports. The Program will also research how the NextGen era aviation system capacity enabling concepts 

(Trajectory Based, Flexible Terminal) can be implemented without being severely limited by wake mitigation 

constraints. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction would impact the FAA’s progress in developing the WTMSR concept feasibility prototype. It is planned to 

modify the FAA terminal automation development laboratory platform at the FAA William J Hughes Technical Center 

to prototype the decision support tool functionality of the WTMSR concept. A reduction in funding slows the pace of 

the prototype development, delaying its completion by three months. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-62 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A12.c NextGen – Air Ground Integration Human Factors 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – NextGen – Air Ground Integration Human Factors 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A12.c NextGen – Air Ground 

Integration Human Factors $5,688,000 $10,545,000 +$4,857,000 

For FY 2012, $10,545,000 is requested for NextGen – Air Ground Integration Human Factors. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Roles and Responsibilities 

	 Complete definition of a standard taxonomy for describing the relationship between flight deck and Air 

Traffic Control (ATC) automated systems and human operators in the context of NextGen equipment and 

applications. 

	 Develop recommendations for function allocation strategies and policy between pilots(s), controller(s), 

Airline Operations Centers and automated systems to communicate, execute, monitor and resolve conflicts 

during delegated separation operations. 

Human System Integration – Information Needs 

	 Determine which pilot flight procedures are associated with NextGen applications, using task and 

information needs analysis techniques, and develop guidelines for each type of procedure in NextGen. 

	 Define information needs for pilots to determine acceptability of suggested conflict avoidance maneuvers 

provided by automated systems or ATC. 

	 Complete initial guidance for the design of NextGen flight deck displays and alerts that are compatible with 

those in ATC, including those required for oceanic in trail procedures. 

	 Complete initial research to identify human factors issues associated with instrument procedure design and 

to develop human factors guidelines for instrument procedures. 

Human System Integration – Human Capabilities and Limitations 

	 Complete development of a methodology to address the human capabilities and limitations of pilots 

(including single-pilot aircraft) to conduct a range of NextGen airspace procedures in normal and nonnormal situations. 

	 Based on pilot performance capabilities and limitations, develop recommendations for system performance 

requirements and operating limitations that should be applied when using data communications with 

integrated and non-integrated flight management systems (FMS). 

Human System Integration – System Integration 

	 Complete research to develop flight crew training recommendations for flight deck automation supporting 

NextGen operations for single pilot and two pilot crews. 

	 Conduct research to support guidance for data communications procedures, training, displays and alerts. 

Risk and Error Management 

	 Develop guidance to support certification personnel in evaluating risks and mitigation of human error and 

potential unintended uses of new technology in NextGen systems and procedures. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-63 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Initiate research to determine the expected nature, frequency and potential impact of pilot errors that may 

lead to exceeding Required Navigation Performance (RNP) containment criteria for trajectory operations. 

	 Assess human error impact and mitigation in Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) 

applications including oceanic in-trail procedures, flight deck interval management, and closely spaced 

parallel operations. 

The program will continue to assess human system integration issues in use of airborne NextGen concepts, 

capabilities, and procedures, and Air Traffic Management (ATM) leading to a full mission demonstration. Each of 

these research areas, although general in nature, will continue to be conducted in the context of specific near-to midterm NextGen applications such as closely spaced parallel operations, oceanic in-trail procedures, etc.. Research will 

continue to enable safe and effective changes to pilot and ATC roles and responsibilities for NextGen procedures and 

will also continue on human systems integration issues related to information needs, interface design and system 

integration required to support effective guidance for NextGen equipment design, procedure development and 

personnel training. Research will continue to identify and manage the risks posed by new and altered human error 

modes in the use of NextGen procedures and equipment. Research priorities address the implementation of RTCA 

NextGen Task Force recommendations as described in the NextGen Implementation Plan. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors Program addresses flight deck and air traffic service provider 

integration for each operational improvement or NextGen application considered, with a focus on those issues that 

primarily affect the pilot side of the air-ground integration challenge. The program collaborates with the NextGen - 

Self Separation Human Factors Program to ensure robust examination of NextGen human factors issues. Through 

use of modeling, simulation, and demonstration, the program assesses interoperability of tools, develops design 

guidance, determines training requirements, and verifies procedures for ensuring safe, efficient and effective human 

system integration in transitions of NextGen capabilities. 

Outputs include: 

	 Defining, understanding, and developing guidance to successfully implement the changes in roles and 

responsibilities between pilots and controllers, and between humans and automation required for NextGen 

capabilities and applications. 

	 Defining human and system performance requirements and guidance for the design and operation of 

aircraft and ATM systems to include examination of information needs, human capabilities, interface design 

and systems integration issues. 

	 Developing and applying risk and error management strategies, mitigating risk factors, and reducing human 

errors. 

By 2017, demonstrate that NextGen operations, procedures and information can be standard and predictable for 

users (e.g., pilots, controllers, airlines, passengers) at all types of airports and for all aircraft across the full range of 

environmental conditions. 

Integration of air and ground capabilities poses challenges for pilots and air traffic service providers. A core human 

factors issue is ensuring the right information is provided to the right human operators at the right time to make the 

right decisions. Transitions of increasingly sophisticated automation and procedures must be accompanied by 

supporting interoperability with baseline systems and refinement of procedures to ensure efficient operations and to 

mitigate potential automation surprises. 

The safety factors that primarily have an impact on separation assurance must be jointly approached by both the 

flight deck and air traffic research communities. The increased levels of automation and new enabling technologies 

that will likely transform the National Airspace System (NAS) in the future will bring new human factors challenges. 

As the NAS moves toward a more automated system and roles and responsibilities change in a series of planned 

steps, intent information as well as positive information on delegation of authority must be clear and unambiguous. 

This changing environment requires a close examination of new types of human error modes to manage safety risk in 

the human factors domain. Equipment design methods, training, and procedures must be developed to decrease 

error likelihood and/or increase timely error detection, for example in the case of blunders on closely spaced parallel 

approaches. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-64 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Changes in roles and responsibilities will occur not only between pilots and air traffic service providers, but also for 

both groups and the respective automation they use to achieve NextGen safety and efficiency gains. Issues such as 

mode confusion, transitions, and reversions must be understood and addressed to ensure appropriate levels of 

situation awareness and workload are maintained. 

The NextGen environment will include an increased reliance on collaborative and distributed decision making. 

Information must be provided to participants, e.g., pilots, air traffic service providers and airline operation centers in 

a fashion that facilitates a shared understanding of phenomena, such as weather, wake, etc. The format, content, 

timeliness and presentation of that information must be well integrated with other information provided to decision 

makers and their decision support tools. 

Program researchers work directly with colleagues in FAA, other government agencies, academia, and industry to 

support the following R&D programs and initiatives: 

	 NASA’s Aviation Safety and Airspace Programs. 

	 Close collaboration with FAA organizations, notably Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification in the Aviation 

Safety (AVS) line of business. 

	 FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – representatives from industry, 

academia, and other government agencies annually review the activities of the program and provide advice 

on priorities and budget. 

The NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors Program collaborates with industry and other government 

programs through: 

	 Collaborative research with NASA on its safety, airspace and air portal projects including the identification of 

human factors research issues in the NextGen as technology brings changes to aircraft capabilities. 

	 Cooperative research agreements used with universities to address NextGen human factors issues. 

	 Coordination on research issues and plans with aircraft and avionics manufacturers and operators as well as 

international civil aeronautics authorities 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Roles and Responsibilities 

	 Define a taxonomy for describing the relationship between flight deck and ATC automated systems and 

human operators within NextGen applications. 

	 Assess human-automation coordination methods for performance costs and benefits in the context of nearterm NextGen applications. 

Human System Integration – Information Needs 

	 Determine which flight procedures and controller tasks are associated with NextGen applications, using task 

and information needs analysis techniques, and develop guidelines for each type of procedure in NextGen. 

	 Develop initial guidance for the design of NextGen flight deck displays and alerts that are compatible with 

those in ATC, including those required for oceanic in trail procedures. 

	 Continue research to identify human factors issues associated with instrument procedure design and to 

develop human factors guidelines for instrument procedures. 

Human System Integration – Human Capabilities and Limitations 

 Develop a methodology to address the human capabilities and limitations of pilots (including single-pilot 

aircraft) to conduct a range of NextGen airspace procedures in normal and non-normal situations. 

Human System Integration – System Integration 

	 Complete research to identify human factors issues and potential mitigation strategies for the use of legacy 

avionics in NextGen procedures. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-65 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

 Conduct research to support guidance for data communications procedures, training, displays and alerts. 

Risk and Error Management 

	 Assess human error impact and mitigation in ADS-B applications including oceanic in-trail procedures, flight 

deck interval management, and closely spaced parallel operations. 

	 Develop guidance to support certification personnel in evaluating risks and mitigation of human error and 

potential unintended uses of new technology in NextGen systems and procedures. 

Performance Linkages 

The NextGen – Air-Ground Integration Human Factors Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Economic 

Competitiveness by leading U.S. transportation interests in targeted markets around the world through NextGen 

technologies. 

Research will support development of policy, standards and guidance required to design, certify and operate NextGen 

equipment and procedures from the perspective of Air-Ground Integration. Additionally, this research will include 

integrated demonstrations of NextGen procedures and equipment in the context of ongoing Air-Ground Integration 

human factors research. The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By 2016 complete research to enable safe and effective changes to pilot and ATC roles and responsibilities 

for NextGen procedures. 

- By 2013 complete initial research to evaluate and recommend pilot-ATC procedures for negotiations 

and shared decision making NextGen activities. 

- By 2015 complete research to identify and recommend mitigation strategies to address potential 

coordination issues between humans and automated systems. 

- By 2016 complete research to identify methods for effectively allocating functions between pilots/ATC 

and automated systems as well as mitigating any losses of skill associated with these new roles and 

responsibilities. 

	 By 2016 complete research to identify and manage the risks posed by new and altered human error modes 

in the use of NextGen procedures and equipment. 

- By 2013 complete development of guidance to support certification and flight standards personnel in 

assessing suitability of design and training methods to support human error detection and correction. 

- By 2013 complete initial research investigating methods to mitigate mode errors and unintended uses 

of NextGen equipment. 

- By 2014 develop initial guidance on training methods to support detection and correction of human 

errors in near to mid-term NextGen procedures. 

- By 2016 complete research and modeling activities to identify, quantify and mitigate potential human 

errors in the use of NextGen equipment and procedures. 

	 By 2016 complete research on human systems integration issues related to information needs, human 

capabilities and limitations, interface design and system integration required to support effective guidance 

for NextGen equipment design, procedure development and personnel training. 

- By 2012 initiate research to assess pilot performance in normal and non-normal NextGen procedures, 

including single pilot operations. 

- By 2013 complete initial research to identify cognitive tasks, associated information needs and 

recommended display methods for tasks that require shared flight deck-ATC information. 

- By 2013 complete research to identify human factors issues and potential mitigation strategies for the 

use of legacy avionics in NextGen procedures. 

- By 2013 complete initial research to address human-automation integration issues regarding the 

certification of pilots, procedures, training and equipment necessary to achieve NextGen capabilities. 

- By 2014 complete initial research to provide recommendations for displays, alerts, procedures and 

training associated with data communications. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-66 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

- By 2014 complete research to provide initial recommendations for equipment design, procedures and 

training to support use of 2 1⁄2 to 4 D trajectories. 

- By 2016 complete research to assess procedures, training, display and alerting requirements to support 

development and evaluation of planned and unplanned transitions between NextGen and legacy 

airspace procedures. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

NextGen involves implementation of new complex systems and flight crew procedures. The NextGen Air Ground 

Integration Human Factors R&D program supports the FAA Aviation Safety Team’s certification and operational 

approval processes and also provides tools to address flight crew procedures, maintenance procedures, training 

development, and continuous safety monitoring. Specific human factors research activities in this R&D program 

address advanced NextGen procedures such as trajectory operations, and the associated flight deck automation and 

air ground digital data communications technologies. 

The NextGen mid-term sees a shift to the management of traffic by trajectories (Trajectory-Based Operations) 

throughout the operation, including initial flight planning, all phases of the flight, and post-flight analysis. Every 

Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) aircraft that is operating in and managed by the system is represented by a four 

dimensional trajectory (4DT) either provided by the user or derived from a flight plan by the ground system. The 

4DT includes a series of points from departure to arrival representing the aircraft’s path in four dimensions: latitude, 

longitude, altitude, and time. The 4DT gets refined over time as it is used for flight planning through separation 

management. To be effective, the trajectory must be maintained and exchanged with ground automation at 

sufficient intervals to reflect the latest detailed data, including intent information. Both controller and pilot must 

monitor aircraft conformance with the negotiated 4DT, supported by their respective ground and flight deck 

automated systems. Human factors efforts ensure conformance alerts and recommended recovery maneuvers are 

consistent and effective. 

In the mid-term timeframe, a data communications capability between the air and the ground will permit the initial 

transition to air-to-ground data communications exchanges. Implementation of data communications reduces errors 

that can occur when flight crews transcribe and read back voice communications. Planned human factors R&D 

efforts are addressing flight deck displays, message content, and procedures for disseminating data communications 

to support transfer of routine ATC clearances, exchange of four dimensional flight plan trajectory information (to 

support trajectory operations), reroute requests, transfer of voice frequency channels, exchange of near term 

hazardous weather information, and allow flight crew reports for appropriately equipped aircraft. Current human 

factors research efforts are addressing data communication message set design factors to prevent recurrence of 

incidents involving human factors issues such as flight crew misunderstanding of clearances containing terms BY, AT, 

and EXPECT, and concatenated (compound) clearances with multiple elements. 

The NextGen Air Ground Integration Human Factors R&D program includes critical work to ensure flight deck 

controls, displays, alerts, and procedures that are implemented to achieve the NextGen capabilities related to 

trajectory operations and associated flight deck automation and air ground digital data communications technologies 

are compatible with flight crew capabilities and limitations. Specific research plans are developed in coordination 

with FAA stakeholders including those in the Aviation Safety (AVS) line of business including Aircraft Certification 

Service and Flight Standards Service, and ATO program offices such as Data Communications, Surveillance and 

Broadcast Services, and other offices within the ATO NextGen and Operations Planning (AJP) organization. This 

research provides the foundation for guidelines, handbooks, advisory circulars, rules, and regulations that help 

ensure the safety and efficiency of NextGen aircraft operations. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

Research, Engineering and Development A-67 
 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in funding to the NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors program would defer until FY 2013 

the planned FY 2012 completion of development of guidance to support certification personnel in evaluating risks and 

mitigation of human error and potential unintended uses of new technology in NextGen systems and procedures. 

This work provides human factors recommendations using scientific and technical information to assist Aircraft 

Certification Service personnel in their evaluation of new technology supporting NextGen applications. The result is a 

delay in research products by one year. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-68 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A12.d NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A12.d NextGen – Self-Separation Human 

Factors $8,247,000 $9,934,000 +$1,687,000 

For FY 2012, $9,934,000 is requested for NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Surface/Runway Operations Awareness 

	 Conduct research to evaluate the effects of Enhanced Flight Visibility System (EFVS) Head-Up Display (HUD) 

clutter and masking on detection of potential ground conflicts during taxi operations across a range of 

visibility and lighting conditions and develop recommended mitigations. 

	 Initiate research to evaluate and recommend display methods to ensure pilot awareness of selected 

operating modes of Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI), including research to assess manual and 

automatic methods of transitioning between CDTI display of ground and air traffic for both takeoff and 

landing operations. 

	 Conduct research to provide and evaluate alternatives and recommend minimum acceptable cockpit display 

method(s), alerts, and operational procedures to mitigate the effects of position uncertainty when degraded 

positioning information or other system failures introduce position uncertainty in closely-coupled all-weather 

ground operations. 

Reduced Separation 

	 Conduct initial research to evaluate the impact and potential risks associated with use of Traffic Alert and 

Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) in NextGen procedures. 

	 For near to mid-term NextGen reduced separation operations, initiate research to develop and evaluate 

recommendations for pilot/controller phraseology for clearances, instructions and effective communication 

of degraded systems and residual capabilities as well as transitions to and from NextGen unique airspace 

and procedures. For closely spaced parallel approach operations, this includes abandoning a closely-spaced 

parallel approach when a blunder or Mode C intruder is detected or in the event of abnormal situations 

(system malfunction, weather, etc.). 

Delegated Separation 

	 Initiate research to evaluate Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)/CDTI displays and 

procedures in a robust evaluation of merging and spacing operations for a range of controller-specified 

spacing and a variety of aircraft (not all same carrier or aircraft type). 

	 Continue research to evaluate and recommend procedures, equipage and training to safely conduct oceanic 

and en route pair-wise delegated separation. 

Cross-cutting 

	 For proposed delegated separation procedures and equipment, continue research to support development of 

training guidance for NextGen applications and technologies. 

	 Continue research to develop risk and error management strategies to identify and mitigate human-system 

errors. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-69 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Initiate research to develop recommendations for location and grouping of NextGen related displays relative 

to the primary field of view. 

The program will continue to assess human system integration issues in use of airborne NextGen concepts, 

capabilities, and procedures, and Air Traffic Management (ATM) leading to a full mission simulation in 2017. 

Research priorities address the implementation of RTCA NextGen Task Force recommendations as described in the 

NextGen Implementation Plan. Research will continue to enable enhanced aircraft spacing for surface movements in 

low visibility conditions guided by enhanced and synthetic vision systems, as well as cockpit displays of aircraft and 

ground vehicles and associated procedures. 

Research will continue to: 

	 Enable reduced and delegated separation in oceanic airspace and en route airspace. 

	 Support development of training guidance for NextGen applications and technologies. 

	 Develop risk and error management strategies to identify and mitigate human-system errors. 

	 Develop recommendations for location and grouping of NextGen related displays relative to the primary field 

of view. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors Research Program develops human factors scientific and technical 

information to address human performance and coordination among pilots and air navigation service providers (air 

traffic controllers), human system integration, and error management strategies to implement NextGen capabilities. 

Human factors technical information will also support the development of standards, procedures, training, policy, and 

other guidance material required to implement the operational improvements leading to enhanced aircraft spacing 

and separation. 

Outputs include: 

	 Defining the potential impact and human factors issues of new technologies such as enhanced vision, 

synthetic vision, and electronic flight bags on separation activities. 

	 Defining human factors technical information needed to support the development of standards, procedures, 

and training by Flight Standards to implement NextGen applications. 

	 Developing procedures and training needed to implement new roles and responsibilities for pilots and 

controllers during trajectory operations. 

	 Defining human and system performance requirements for separation activities, e.g., spacing, merging, and 

passing. 

	 Developing and applying error management strategies, mitigating risk factors, and reducing automationrelated errors associated with NextGen operations. 

	 Developing human factors criteria for the successful use of flight deck performance monitoring and decision 

support tools as they relate to NextGen operations. 

Program researchers work directly with colleagues in FAA, other government agencies, academia, and industry to 

support the following R&D programs and initiatives: 

	 NASA’s Aviation Safety and Airspace Programs. 

	 Close collaboration with FAA organizations, notably Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification in the Aviation 

Safety (AVS) line of business. 

	 FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – representatives from industry, 

academia, and other government agencies annually review the activities of the program and provide advice 

on priorities and budget. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-70 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

The research program collaborates with industry and other government programs through: 

	 Collaborative research with NASA on its aviation safety and airspace projects including the identification of 

human factors research issues in the NextGen as technology brings changes to aircraft capabilities. 

	 Coordination on research issues and plans with aircraft and avionics manufacturers and operators. 

	 Coordination with appropriate RTCA Committees, e.g., Airborne Separation Assurance System. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Surface/Runway Operations Awareness 

	 Complete initial research to evaluate and recommend minimum display standards for use of enhanced and 

synthetic vision systems, as well as airport markings and signage, to conduct surface movements across a 

range of visibility conditions. 

	 Evaluate the effects of Enhanced Flight Visibility System (EFVS) Head-Up Display (HUD) clutter and masking 

on detection of potential ground conflicts during taxi operations across a range of visibility and lighting 

conditions. 

	 Conduct research on existing Synthetic Vision System (SVS) and EFVS to evaluate time required, accuracy, 

and pilot workload associated with recognizing and reacting to potential ground collisions or conflicts with 

other aircraft, vehicles and obstructions across a range of visibility and lighting conditions. 

Reduced Separation 

	 For closely spaced parallel operations, continue research to determine CDTI requirements to support 

multiple simultaneous approaches, and evaluate workload and effects of blunder during the approach. 

Delegated Separation 

	 Develop human performance models to predict errors and their impacts on performance for NextGen 

delegated separation operations. 

Cross-cutting 

	 Continue development of a repository of NextGen human factors data, incorporating results of human 

factors research and human factors issues that surface during operational experience with systems and 

procedures relevant to near to mid-term NextGen applications. 

	 Evaluate the performance costs and benefits of various methods of decision support to include ability of 

human operators to understand automated system strengths and weaknesses. 

Performance Linkages 

The NextGen – Self Separation Human Factor Program supports the DOT Strategic Goal of Economic Competitiveness 

by leading U.S. transportation interests in targeted markets around the world through NextGen technologies. 

Conduct R&D to support the development of standards, procedures, training, policy, and other guidance material 

required to implement the NextGen operational improvements leading to enhanced aircraft spacing and separation 

including improved awareness of surface/runway operations, reduced separation, and delegated separation. The 

goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By 2016, complete research to enable enhanced aircraft spacing for surface movements in low visibility 

conditions guided by enhanced and synthetic vision systems, as well as cockpit displays of aircraft and 

ground vehicles and associated procedures. 

- By 2012 complete initial research to evaluate and recommend minimum display standards for use of 

enhanced and synthetic vision systems, as well as airport markings and signage, to conduct surface 

movements across a range of visibility conditions. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-71 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

- By 2014 evaluate and recommend minimum display standards and operational procedures for use of 

CDTI to support pilot awareness of potential ground conflicts and to support transition between taxi, 

takeoff and departure phases of flight. 

	 By 2015, complete research and provide human factors guidance to reduce arrival and departure spacing 

including variable separation in a mixed equipage environment. 

- By 2012 initiate research to evaluate alternative methods of allocating functions and coordinating 

between automated systems, pilots, Air Traffic Control (ATC), and Airline Operations Center (AOC) 

personnel in reduced and delegated separation procedures. 

- By 2014 complete research to identify likely human error modes and recommend mitigation strategies 

in closely spaced arrival/departure routings, including closely spaced parallel operations. 

- By 2015, enable reduced and delegated separation in oceanic airspace and en route corridors. 

- By 2013 complete initial research to provide recommended guidance for design of cockpit displays and 

alerts to support delegated separation. 

	 By 2015, develop a repository of NextGen human factors data containing research roadmaps, results, and 

data from relevant ongoing and historical research, demonstrations and operational experience to provide a 

foundation for flight deck human factors research to support policy decisions, standards development, 

certification and approval to enable NextGen operational improvements, and to ensure the future system 

adequately considers human systems integration issues. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

NextGen involves implementation of new complex systems and flight crew procedures. FAA’s Aviation Safety mission 

dictates that we ensure those systems are reliable and safe, even when they fail, and that we address the 

operational aspects of these systems. The NextGen Self Separation Human Factors R&D program supports the FAA 

Aviation Safety Team’s certification and operational approval processes and also provides tools to address flight crew 

procedures, maintenance procedures, training development, and continuous safety monitoring. Specific human 

factors research activities in this R&D program address NextGen procedures such as area navigation (RNAV) and 

required navigation performance (RNP), and NextGen capabilities such as those derived from the use of Automatic 

Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) as a surveillance source and to broadcast aeronautical information. 

RNAV/RNP procedures provide new arrival and departure routes, and become more effective with performance-based 

Air Traffic Management capabilities such as time-based metering and the adoption of ATC digital communication that 

can dynamically define those procedures. With new ADS-B technologies, users will be provided cockpit-based 

surveillance and near real-time access to aeronautical flight information. In the near term, user situational 

awareness in both visual meteorological conditions and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) will be enhanced. 

Flight crews on the airport surface and aloft will have the capability to detect conflicts or hazards created by aircraft, 

obstacles, weather areas, airspace restrictions, and airport surface vehicles. In the long-term end-state environment, 

select spacing, sequencing, and separation tasks may be performed by qualified and certified aircrews/aircraft within 

defined criteria and/or in designated situations or areas. An example of a key ADS-B initiative is the development of 

standards supporting Closely Spaced Parallel Operations (CSPO). The NextGen Self Separation Human Factors R&D 

program supports studies on simultaneous independent approaches to parallel runways to investigate potential 

reductions of runway separation standards. By completing the standards and obtaining agreement with the 

operators on a timeframe for their equipage, airports will likely be able to increase capacity and have greater design 

flexibility as they plan for new runways. 

The NextGen Self Separation Human Factors R&D program includes critical work to ensure flight deck controls, 

displays, alerts, and procedures that are implemented to achieve the NextGen capabilities related to RNAV/RNP 

procedures and ADS-B technologies are compatible with flight crew capabilities and limitations. Specific research 

plans are developed in coordination with FAA stakeholders including those in the Aviation Safety (AVS) line of 

business (Aircraft Certification Service and Flight Standards Service), and ATO program offices such as Data 

Communications, Surveillance and Broadcast Services, and other offices within the ATO NextGen and Operations 

Planning (AJP) organization. This research provides the foundation for guidelines, handbooks, advisory circulars, 

rules, and regulations that help ensure the safety and efficiency of NextGen aircraft operations. Initiatives span 

assessments of new information requirements to allow pilots to safely maintain aircraft separation, especially during 

low visibility ground operations, and transition of integrated air and ground capabilities to ensure interoperability with 

Research, Engineering and Development A-72 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

baseline systems and refinement of procedures to ensure efficient separation and mitigate potential automation 

surprises. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R, E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

This work allows crews of ADS-B-In – equipped aircraft to efficiently use the ADS-B-In data in flight operations 

involving multiple applications and modes of CDTI. Reduction in funding would delay the capability for Aircraft 

Certification Service personnel to develop minimum requirements for new and modified flight deck designs to 

incorporate NextGen displays such as ADS-B/CDTI, Data Communications, and Synthetic and Enhanced Vision 

Systems’ displays. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-73 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A12.e NextGen – Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology 

in the Cockpit $9,570,000 $9,186,000 -$384,000 

For FY 2012, $9,186,000 is requested for NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

	 Develop preliminary Weather Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC) functional and performance requirements 

from the adjudicated WTIC mid-term ConOps. 

	 Develop icing and turbulence products to disseminate signal latency, bandwidth, and quality of service 

requirements to the flight deck. 

	 Develop minimum requirements for the flight deck to support the management of meteorological (MET) 

information communications, storage and retrieval, and data latency. 

	 Identify the functional and performance requirements for a high-fidelity WTIC simulation, test and 

evaluation capability. 

	 Evaluate the usefulness of an in-flight display of uplinked satellite-based product that outlines the 30kft and 

40kft convective cloud top heights in a two-hour look-ahead display focused on the aircraft position and 

flight direction for Pacific Ocean transoceanic flights between California and Australia. 

	 Demonstrate and evaluate the usefulness of the uplinking turbulence eddy dissipation rates (EDR) to flight 

deck for aircrew mitigation procedures. 

	 Equip aircraft to support aircrew evaluations of graphical icing and turbulence and cloud tops presentations. 

	 Implement Turbulence EDR algorithms including joint effort with aircraft manufacturers. 

Research will include the expansion of the flight demonstration and evaluation to uplink in-flight display of 30kft and 

40kft convective cloud top heights to include flights into the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and South America regions 

and to Atlantic flights to Europe and Africa; support the development of Aeronautical Information Services/MET 

datalinks Minimum Operation Performance Standards and Minimum Aviation Safety Performance Standards with the 

commercial industry through RTCA Special Committees and EUROCAE 186/WG-51, 206/WG-76, 214/WG-78, 

217/WG-44, 222, and 223; evaluation of the global communications demand, bandwidth, quality of service, security, 

latency, and coverage requirements to uplink, downlink, and crosslink MET information via broadcast and request 

and reply datalink services, and the research and development of a conceptual approach to sustain a common 

weather picture between the ground and onboard weather systems with human-in-the-loop evaluations. 

Efforts will include the transitioning of the in-flight display demonstrations and evaluations of cloud tops, graphical 

turbulence and icing products, and EDR Turbulence to electronic flight bags (EFB) or Multifunctional Displays (MFD). 

The development of the minimum requirements for the flight deck to support the management of MET information 

communications, storage and retrieval, and data latency, the minimum requirements for human computer interface, 

MET information presentation, and intent of use for EFB/MFD, human factors interfaces and automated prototype 

weather information integration modules for flight deck technologies (e.g., FMS, EFB, etc.); initiate a study to identify 

the requirements to develop a high-fidelity WTIC simulation, test and evaluation capability; and define a path for 

further development of airborne network-enabled use of radar-derived weather data capabilities that will advance 

cockpit systems to meet NextGen objectives (collaboration with NASA). 

Research, Engineering and Development A-74 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

2. What Is This Program? 

One of the weather-related goals of NextGen is to reduce weather delays, allowing more efficient and flexible ATM. 

The objective of the NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit Program is to enable flight deck weather 

information and communications management minimum standards and human factors requirements that will provide 

flight crews with timely, comprehensive weather information from on-board sensors, cross-link from nearby aircraft, 

and up-link from ground-based processors to support flight re-planning and weather hazard avoidance in flight, as 

well as airborne sensor observations to nearby aircraft for weather avoidance decisions and ground-based processors 

for direct and forecast use in ATM decision-support processes. 

The initial research will evaluate the overarching NextGen ConOps and requirements for NextGen weather support on 

the flight deck; identify the current capabilities to meet NextGen requirements, evaluate planned and funded 

development of new weather support capabilities; identify gaps between NextGen requirement and current 

developing weather support capabilities; allocate gaps to commercial sector, government, or both and NextGen 

Solution Sets to derive WTIC functional and performance requirements; and finally develop and execute the WTIC 

research program plan. 

The WTIC program will also identify global datalink requirements and standards to transport meteorological (MET) 

information to and from the flight deck. The WTIC program requires datalinks to support uplink, downlink, and 

crosslink advisory and safety critical MET information to Parts 91, 121, and 135 NAS users in various coverage 

environments. Consequently, the WTIC program will define requirements and standards for bandwidth, security, 

quality of service, and reliability to the government and non-government operated datalinks to implement the MET 

datalink information. 

In addition, the human factors (HF) research will enable the development of the human performance, technology 

design, and human-computer interaction requirements and standards to enable safe, efficient, and cost-effective 

operations and training, both on the flight deck and on the ground in hazardous weather. Although, technologically 

advanced graphical weather information products have entered the general aviation (GA) market in the recent 

decade, the percentage of accidents that has an attributed the cause to weather or weather-related pilot error has 

remained fairly stable (NTSB, 2006, 2008, 2009). The HF research will attempt to identify the shortcomings in 

current capabilities and to identify areas to focus weather technology advancements to optimize the safety and 

efficiency for Parts 91, 135, and 121 operators. 

The information management and the HF research deliverables will enable the development of Air Circulars and 

Orders for NextGen training, symbology, and information standards; support of development aircraft certifications 

standards for Minimum Aviation Safety Performance Standards (MASPS), Minimum Operations Standards (MOPS), 

and Technical Standard Orders (TSO) to support development, operations, and procedures for weather technologies 

in the cockpit. In addition, the WTIC program research will support the development of the communications 

information management to include storage and retrieval requirements and standards to acquire MET information 

from commercial and government provided graphical and textual databases. 

By 2015, demonstrate that technology and automation, combined with policy, procedures, and regulatory oversight, 

meets the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) goal to improve aviation safety in the presence of 

adverse weather not anticipated during preflight. Demonstrations will show the technology and automation used in 

the cockpit provides pilots and aircrews with the safest and most efficient route for aircraft traversing areas impacted 

by adverse weather conditions. 

The germane characteristics of the technology generally identified in the NextGen Concept of Operations (ConOps) 

are that it assists collaborative decision-making (pilot, controller, ATM, etc.), leverages both human and automation 

capabilities, and integrates weather data and information with other necessary operational information to provide 

decision support and increase situational awareness. In the near term, this technology will be implemented as 

machine-to-human interface requiring human analysis and processing of visual presentations. However, in the far 

term, the technology and automation envisioned in the NextGen ConOps is expected to migrate to automated 

processing via machine-to-machine interface between ground-based and aircraft systems (e.g., analysis and 

processing of data and information are performed automatically and recommendations are provided to the human 

overseeing the aircraft operation). As a result, the NextGen ConOps differs dramatically from current operations 

regarding weather procedures; therefore, an examination of the NextGen goals and related procedures is warranted. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-75 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

The NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit Program works with FAA organizations, other government 

agencies, and industry groups to ensure its priorities and plans are consistent with user needs. This is accomplished 

through: 

	 Guidance from the Joint Planning and Development Office NextGen initiative through involvement in the 

Aircraft, Weather, and Integration Working Groups. 

	 Inputs from the aviation community, including weather information providers, technology providers (e.g., 

avionics manufacturers, etc.), and simulator training centers (e.g., Flight Safety, etc.). 

	 The annual National Business Aviation Association conference, the Friends/Partners in Aviation Weather 

Forum, scheduled public user group meetings, and domestic and international aviation industry partners. 

	 Subcommittees of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – representatives 

from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review program activity, progress, and 

plans. 

	 Various RTCA Special Committees, including SC-206, and SAE G-10 subcommittees. 

The NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit Program leverages research activities with members of other 

government agencies, academia, and the private sector through interagency agreements, university grants, and 

Memoranda of Agreement. Partnerships include: 

 National Center for Atmospheric Research. 

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley and Glenn Research Centers.
 

 Public and private universities. 

 Center for General Aviation Research.
 

 Initiatives with airlines, pilots, and manufacturers. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

	 Develop mid-term ConOps and obtained partner, stakeholder, and user concurrence for weather technology 

in the cockpit based on foundational elements identified in the NextGen ConOps, including integration of 

weather-in-flight-deck decision-support tools, weather dissemination management, and GA operations. 

	 Validate Aerospace Recommended Practice 5740, Cockpit Display of Data Linked Weather Information. 

	 Determine the incremental weather information needed in cockpit operations for flight replanning and en 

route avoidance maneuvers, decision support, and situational awareness (for FAR Parts 121, 135, 91). 

	 Verify and validated NAS datalinks signal latency, bandwidth, and quality of service to disseminate icing and 

turbulence products to the flight deck within the NAS. 

	 Demonstrate the usefulness of an in-flight display of uplinked satellite-based product that outlined the 30kft 

and 40kft convective cloud top heights in a two-hour look-ahead display focused on the aircraft position and 

flight direction for Pacific Ocean transoceanic flights between California and Australia. 

	 Initiate the demonstration and evaluation of the usefulness of the uplinking turbulence eddy dissipation 

rates (EDR) to flight deck for aircrew mitigation procedures. 

	 Equip selected aircraft with certified EFBs to accomplish flight crew evaluations of convective oceanic cloud 

top flight, graphical turbulence and icing operational evaluation. 

	 Implement Turbulence EDR algorithms including joint effort with aircraft manufacturers. 

	 Investigate means for airborne network-enabled use of radar-derived weather data (collaboration with 

NASA). 

Performance Linkages 

The NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Economic 

Competitiveness by creating a competitive air transportation system which is responsive to customer needs through 

NAS on-time arrivals. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-76 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Research will enable the development of policy, standards, and guidance needed to safely implement weather 

technologies in the cockpit to provide shared situational awareness and shared responsibilities. The research goals 

are: 

	 By FY 2012, simulate and validate data-linked bandwidth, quality of service, security, and latency standards 

requirements for meteorological information to the cockpit. 

	 By FY 2012, develop MET Symbology use cases for human-in-the loop demonstrations. 

	 By FY 2012, demonstrate inflight cockpit display of data-linked hazardous weather for transoceanic aircraft. 

	 By FY 2013, develop human factors interfaces and automated prototype weather information integration 

modules for flight deck technologies (e.g., FMS, EFB, etc.). 

	 By FY 2014, simulate and validate cockpit use of data-linked weather decision support tools, including 

probabilistic forecasts. 

	 By FY 2014, high fidelity integrated weather technology in the cockpit simulation, test, and evaluation 

capability to facilitate new technologies assessments and human-in-the-loop evaluation of NextGen 

operational concepts. 

	 By FY 2014, evaluate concepts of use for weather information integrated in NextGen air and ground 

capabilities for airline operations centers and pilots. 

	 By FY 2014, develop guidance standards for airmen training and evaluation criteria for the use of 

probabilistic forecast products and pilot decision making support tools. 

	 By FY 2015, flight demonstration to evaluate the integration of four dimension flight path information 

including data-linked meteorological information into cockpit decision-making and shared situational 

awareness among pilots and dispatchers supported by NextGen air and ground capabilities. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Weather has been identified as a causal factor for 70 percent of delays and 20 percent of accidents as cited in “The 

Mission Need Statement for Aviation Weather (#339)”. Between 1994 and 2003, there were 19,562 aircraft 

accidents involving 19,823 aircraft. Weather was a contributing or causal factor in 4,159 (21.3 percent) of these 

accidents. Of the 4,159 weather-related accidents, 4,167 aircraft were involved. From 1994 to 2003, the annual 

number of weather-related accidents has declined. However, the annual number of weather-related accidents has 

remained roughly constant as a percentage of total accidents. An example of the limits of pilots’ ability to cope with 

severe weather is the crash of an Air France jet last year over the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 216 passengers and 12 

crew members. Pilots currently have little information as they fly over remote stretches of the ocean, which is where 

some of the worst turbulence occurs. Providing pilots with at least an approximate picture of developing storms 

could help guide them safely around potentially severe weather. 

Having access to more weather hazard information in the cockpit does not, however, necessarily translate into better 

pilot decision-making and performance. Although technologically advanced graphical weather information products 

have entered the GA market in the recent decade, the percentage of accidents that have an attributed cause due to 

weather or weather-related pilot error have remained fairly stable (NTSB, 2006, 2008, 2009). The intent of this 

program is to identify why the introduction of state-of-the-art weather information products have not dramatically 

improved the safety of GA operations concerning weather. This information will be leveraged for identifying 

shortcomings in current capability to support pilot weather decision making and identify areas to focus NextGen 

technology advancements to optimize the safety and efficiency of flight operations in hazardous weather for Parts 91, 

135 & 121. The key is to provide high quality weather decision support tools to enable efficient flight replanning and 

enroute avoidance maneuvers in the presence of adverse weather not anticipated during preflight with a focus upon 

NextGen operations. 

The WTIC Program research is to insure the adoption of cockpit, ground, and communication technologies, practices, 

and procedures that will provide pilots with shared and consistent weather information to enhance situational 

awareness, plus engage the aircrafts as a “network node” that autonomously exchanges weather information with 

surrounding aircraft and systems. The aircraft industry is moving toward Electronic Flight Bags (EFB) to enable 

secondary flight data information management and display. The shift in processing from the ground to the air 

requires significant increase in computing power which potentially can be supported with EFB technologies. The 

Research, Engineering and Development A-77 
 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

WTIC Program research will address the technologies, standards, requirements, and procedural gaps to enable a 

WTIC capability to be implemented in NextGen. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in the WTIC FY 2012 total funding will impact the WTIC Airborne Sensor Technologies effort. A two 

percent reduction would have a minor impact to define a path for further development of airborne network-enabled 

utilization of radar-derived weather data capabilities. The impact will require NASA to adjust the FY 2012 planned 

deliverable schedule. 

A further reduction will require NASA to rescope the total effort to develop a network-enabled utilization of airborne 

radar-derived weather data capabilities. This reduction will impact flight demonstration of the capabilities in the out 

years (FY 2014 and 2015); therefore, the program will not be able to test the fully network-enabled utilization of 

airborne radar-derived weather data capabilities. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-78 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A13.a Environment and Energy 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 –Environment and Energy 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A13.a Environment and Energy $15,522,000 $15,327,000 -$195,000 

For FY 2012, $15,327,000 is requested for Environment and Energy. Major activities and accomplishments planned 

with the requested funding include: 

Noise and Emissions Analyses and Interrelationships 

 Complete annual assessment of noise exposure and fuel burn. 

 Develop integrated architecture for noise and emissions modules communications. 

 Develop model for assessing global exposure to noise from transport aircraft. 

 Validate methodologies used to assess aviation noise exposure and impacts as well as emissions and their 

impacts on air quality and climate change. 

 Publish updates for airport air quality analysis handbook. 

 Develop guidance document for estimating and reducing emissions from airport ground-support equipment. 

 Continue integration and harmonization of databases and code management protocols. 

 Continue upgrades to and assessment of Environmental Design Space Tool (EDS), and Aviation Portfolio 

Management Tool (APMT) models and use these models for integrated noise and emissions analyses, costbenefit analyses and to support the CAEP work program. 

 Develop and disseminate a preliminary planning version of Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) that 

will allow integrated assessment of noise and emissions inventories at the local, regional, and global levels. 

 Develop methodology for use in AEDT to analyze open rotor aircraft noise and tradeoffs. 

Aircraft Noise 

 Continue to update and/or develop, as well as publish: procedures and technical guidance for noise 

certification of aircraft (transport category and subsonic jet airplanes that are both harmonized 

internationally and simplified. 

 Assess land use practices and investigate mitigation strategies beyond 65 dB DNL. 

 Continue investigation of feasibility of more stringent international noise certification standards for transport 

category and subsonic jet airplanes. 

 Initiate studies to develop a new international noise standard for small prop engines and helicopters. 

 Conduct pilot studies to develop relationships between noise exposure and health and welfare impacts. 

 Advance methodologies to model noise propagation and structural response for current and potential future 

unconventional aircraft configurations. 

 Investigate metrics for noise exposure from non-conventional open rotor and supersonic aircraft. 

 Apply methodologies to incorporate potential health impacts of aircraft noise exposure within APMT. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-79 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

 Assess potential global benefits of using newly developed noise-reduction technologies and identify 

technology goals for long-term reduction of aircraft noise. 

 Update noise research roadmap. 

 With the Aviation Emissions activity, conduct two COE-focused sessions at a national and an international 

conference. 

 Publish COE PARTNER research findings. 

Aviation Emissions 

 Assess technological and scientific basis to support future ICAO engine emission standards. 

 Advance science and develop metrics and reduce uncertainties in assessment of regional and global climate 

impacts of aviation. 

 Advance and exercise multiscale air quality analysis models for impacts of airport and full flight aircraft 

emissions. 

 Evaluate and publish sampling, measurement and analyses techniques and procedures for aircraft emissions 

testing and certification that are both harmonized and simplified. 

 Develop measurement and sampling protocols and expand databases for aviation emissions of Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (HAPs) and PM. 

 Validate modeling capability for dispersion of chemically reactive aircraft plume. 

 Apply methodologies to incorporate air quality and health impacts of aircraft emissions within APMT. 

 Assess potential global benefits of using newly developed emissions-reduction technologies, and identify 

technology goals for long-term reduction of aircraft engine emissions and fuel burn. 

 With the Aircraft Noise activity, conduct two COE-focused sessions at a national and an international 

conference. 

 Publish COE PARTNER research findings. 

In FY 2012, the Energy and Environment Program will continue to focus on multiple fronts to support the Flight Plan 

goals of Greater Capacity and International Leadership. These include (1) development, harmonization of module 

and databases and integrated noise and emissions as well as cost-benefit analyses using aviation environmental suite 

of tools (AEDT, EDS and APMT); (2) advance science and develop metrics to characterize aviation noise and 

emissions at the source level, their dispersion as well as environmental, health and welfare impacts; and (3) update, 

simplify and harmonize procedures and technical guidance for aircraft noise and emissions certification of aircraft. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The program is developing and validating methodologies, models, metrics, and tools to assess and mitigate the 

effects of aircraft noise and aviation emissions in a manner that balances the interrelationships between emissions 

and noise and considers economic consequences. It is also developing computer models and impact criteria for use 

by civil aviation authorities in assessing proposed actions. Researchers are also developing a better science-based 

understanding and characterization of the impacts of aircraft noise and aviation emissions. 

The Environment and Energy (E&E) Program helps achieve FAA’s environmental compatibility goal and supports the 

FAA Flight Plan. The program also provides fundamental knowledge and tools to support the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen) research and development plan. The efforts complement activities in aircraft 

technology, alternative fuels, and efficient operations based mitigation solutions, environmental operational 

assessments, and environmental management systems development under NextGen investments. 

The program specifically supports the following outcomes: 

	 The Flight Plan Noise Exposure Performance Target to reduce the number of people exposed to significant 

noise by four percent compounded annually through FY 2013 from the calendar year 2005. 

	 The Flight Plan Aviation Fuel Efficiency Performance Target to improve aviation fuel efficiency by one 

percent per year through FY 2013 to 11 percent, as measured by a 3-year moving average of the fuel 

Research, Engineering and Development A-80 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

burned per revenue mile flown, from the 3-year average for calendar years 2000-2002. FY 2012 Target is 

10 percent. 

Specific activities include: 

	 Conducting research and develop analytical tools to understand better the relationship between noise and 

emissions and different types of emissions, and to provide the cost-benefit analysis capability necessary for 

data-driven decision-making. 

	 Leveraging a broad cross-section of stakeholders through the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and 

Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) Center of Excellence (COE) to foster breakthrough scientific, operations, 

policy, and work force advances to mitigate noise and emissions impacts. 

	 Minimizing the impact of aircraft noise – actions include: advancing the state of science/knowledge 

concerning effects of aircraft noise and emissions; and assessing the need to refine noise and emissions 

impact criteria and metrics; and improving operational procedures and technical guidance for aircraft noise 

and emissions certification standards. 

The Flight Plan International targets to foster international environmental standards, recommended practices, and 

guidance material that are technically feasible and economically reasonable to provide a measurable environmental 

benefit while taking interdependencies between noise and emissions into account. Specific activities include: 

	 Working with the international aviation community to reduce aircraft noise and emissions. 

	 Improving aircraft noise and engine exhaust emissions certification standards and operational procedures. 

	 Promoting compatible land use. 

	 Characterizing the benefits of abatement measures to reduce population impacted by aircraft noise and 

analyzing measures to improve fuel efficiency and reduce aviation emissions, and the potential to reduce 

health and climate impacts. 

	 Assessing the interrelationships and tradeoffs between measures to reduce aircraft noise and engine 

exhaust emissions. 

The program also contributes to providing the foundation for the NextGen investments that help achieve and manage 

the NextGen goal to promote environmental stewardship by reducing significant community noise and air quality 

emissions impacts in absolute terms, limiting or reducing the impact of aviation greenhouse gas emissions on global 

climate, and balancing aviation’s environmental impact with other societal objectives. Specific activities include: 

	 Developing fundamental knowledge to aid in better science-based understanding of impacts of aircraft noise 

and aviation emissions on air quality and climate change to enable the NextGen goal of sustained aviation 

growth by 2025, while reducing significant community noise and air quality emissions in absolute terms. 

	 Achieving carbon neutral growth by 2020 relative to aviation CO2 emissions in year 2005 as the base year. 

	 Developing tools to assess the ability of technologies for airframes, more efficient engines, advanced 

propulsion concepts, new fuels, new materials, market-based options, environmental standards and policies 

to reduce source noise and emissions. 

FAA works closely with other federal agencies (including NextGen Joint Planning and Development Office 

Environmental Working Group or JPDO/EWG), industry, academia, and international governments and organizations 

(e.g. ICAO/CAEP, International Civil Aviation Organization/Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection) to design 

research and development (R&D) efforts that can mitigate the environmental impact of aviation. This unified 

regulatory approach to research identifies and influences technologies, models, regulations, certification criteria, and 

policies that can improve our present and future global environment. 

The E&E program activities are closely coordinated with support from industry and federal agencies. FAA signed a 

series of Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with NASA and DOD to understand and mitigate aviation noise and 

emissions. FAA is also pursuing collaborative agreements with the Department of Energy and EPA to leverage 

resources to address aviation’s environmental impact. A number of E&E projects are executed by a consortium of 

PARTNER (Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction — is a leading aviation cooperative 

research organization, and an FAA/NASA/Transport Canada-sponsored Center of Excellence) universities. The Volpe 

Research, Engineering and Development A-81 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

National Transportation Systems Center continues to provide substantial technical assistance in the areas of aircraft 

noise and engine emissions measurement and assessment. 

The E&E program supports the JPDO/EWG comprising FAA, NASA, EPA, DoD, DOC, Council on Environmental Quality, 

and OST, as well as industry, academia, local government, and community groups. The EWG is pursuing an 

intensive, balanced approach, emphasizing alignment across stakeholders in developing needed business and 

technology architectures and policy options and approaches, as well as other relevant tools, metrics, and products to 

address aviation’s environmental impact. FAA is working closely with FICAN (Federal Interagency Committee on 

Aviation Noise) to better understand, predict and control the effects of aviation noise. 

FICAN also offers a forum for partnership, as it comprises all federal agencies concerned with aviation noise. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Noise and Emissions Analyses and Interrelationships 

	 Continued upgrades to AEDT, APMT and EDS including enhanced methodologies for noise, emissions and 

fuel burn calculations, harmonization of databases and modules for tools communication, integration and 

assessment as well as application of these aviation environmental tools for annual noise exposure and fuel 

burn assessments for Flight Plan and for cost-benefit and other analyses to support CAEP program. 

Aircraft Noise 

	 Continued to update procedures and technical guidance for aircraft noise certification. Initiate feasibility 

studies for more stringent international aircraft noise certification standards. Work continued on many 

fronts including assessment of land-use practice and investigation of mitigation strategies beyond 65dB 

DNL; characterization of aircraft noise and its propagation; and improved understanding and representation 

of metrics for noise exposure and related health and welfare impacts. 

Aviation Emissions 

	 Continued to develop and publish procedures and technical guidance materials for engine emissions testing 

and certification, improved characterization of aircraft emissions and modeling analysis capability for air 

quality and climate impacts; assessed related health and welfare impacts; and advanced best practices for 

aircraft emissions measurements. 

Performance Linkages 

The Environment and Energy Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Environmental Sustainability by reducing 

transportation related pollution and impact on eco systems through the mitigation of noise exposure. 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By FY 2013, develop and field a fully validated Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). 

	 By FY 2013, advance further development of Aviation Portfolio Management Tool (APMT) and Environmental 

Design Space Tool (EDS) and employ them for cost-benefit analyses and aircraft technology evaluation, 

respectively. 

	 By FY 2013, use collected Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and PM emissions data, directly measured from 

aircraft engines to replace, to the extent possible, approximation methods and factors used in modeling 

tools. 

	 By FY 2014, initiate development of simulation-based environmental models. 

	 By FY 2015, advance capability for aviation noise; emissions; and fuel-burn-related, integrated-impact 

assessment. 

	 By FY 2015, initiate development of environmental models components to enable intermodal analyses. 

	 By FY 2015, demonstrate a first version of a simulation-based environmental model. 

	 By FY 2015, constrain uncertainties associated with aviation climate impacts, develop refined aviation 

climate impacts estimates and employ them for environmental cost-beneficial analyses. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-82 
	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 By FY2015, advance multiscale air quality modeling capability for aviation health impacts and employ for 

environmental cost-benefit analyses. 

	 By FY2015, advance characterization of aviation noise and related health and welfare impacts and employ 

for environmental cost-benefit analyses. 

	 By FY2016, Advance scientific approaches and methodologies for improved integrated analysis of noise and 

emissions inventories and impacts. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Despite the technological advancements achieved during the last forty years, aircraft noise still affects people living 

near airports, and aircraft emissions continue to be an issue, locally, regionally and globally. While energy efficiency 

and local environmental issues have traditionally been primary drivers of aeronautics innovation, the current and 

projected effects of aviation emissions on our global climate is a serious long-term environmental issue facing the 

aviation industry. Aside from their associated health and welfare impacts, aircraft noise and aviation emissions are a 

considerable challenge in terms of community acceptance of aviation activities and this challenge is anticipated to 

grow. Environmental impacts are often the number one cause of opposition to airport capacity expansion and 

airspace redesign. We must deal with these impacts to enable aviation to meet increased demand and operate with 

flexibility. 

To deal with aviation climate impacts entails an understanding and quantifying the potential environmental impacts 

of aviation to help policymakers address environmental health and welfare impacts associated with aviation. This 

research will ensure identifying the right issues, measuring their impact, and designing appropriate measures to 

mitigate their effects. In the 1990s, this research effort was focused on noise regulatory issue, and later on 

emissions. However, these were treated as separate subjects. In trying to assess health and welfare impacts, 

optimize energy efficiency and develop environmental mitigation strategies, it has become evident there are 

important interrelationships and potential trade-offs. Taking an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing energy 

efficiency and minimizing aviation environmental impacts by developing data, analytical tools, and models that 

characterize and quantify the interdependencies between energy use, aircraft noise and various air pollutant 

emissions is a key element of the way forward for this research program. The goal is a more complete 

understanding of the complex interdependencies that exist among aircraft noise, fuel burn and emissions required for 

designing and regulating aircraft. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in funding to the Environment and Energy program would delay release of model capable of computing 

greenhouse gas emissions at airport level from six months to 18 months. This model is needed to address new 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for environmental assessments; absent this capability, projects to enhance 

capacity would be delayed. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-83 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A13.b NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A13.b NextGen – Environmental 

Research – Aircraft Technologies, 

Fuels, and Metrics 

$26,509,000 $20,523,000 -$77,000 

For FY 2012, $20,523,000 is requested for NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics. Major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Technology Maturation 

 Fabricate advanced aircraft component level flight test hardware. 

 Integrate advanced low NOx combustor on engine demonstrator. 

 Begin integration flight management system for flight demonstration. 

 Conduct component level engine rig tests. 

 Complete preliminary design review of advanced engine configuration for demonstration. 

 Advance turbine blades and ceramic matrix composite turbine component for integration and testing. 

Alternative Turbine Fuels 

 Conduct demonstration testing for renewable alternative fuels. 

 Conduct safety assessment for renewable alternative fuels. 

 Conduct performance and environmental assessment of additional candidates for “drop-in” renewable 

alternative fuels. 

 Assess production capacity and commercial fleet infusion of aviation alternative fuels. 

 Initiate transition plans for alternative fuels. 

 Identify additional candidates for “drop-in” aviation alternative fuels. 

Metrics, Goals and Targets 

 Evaluate noise and emissions impacts metrics for use in Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) environmental analysis. 

 Perform integrated NextGen noise and emissions impacts analysis. 

 Initiate second phase of Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) for assessment of aviation 

climate impacts. 

 Refine and assess intermediate targets towards meeting NextGen environmental goals. 

In FY 2012, the NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics Program will continue 

to advance system design, integration and testing of Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) aircraft 

technologies for accelerated progress towards flight demonstration and system-wide assessments. For alternative 

Research, Engineering and Development A-84 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

fuels, activities will focus on safety, performance and environmental assessments for qualification of renewable 

alternative fuels. Activities will also initiate to assess production capacity and fleet infusion as well as to develop 

transition plans for alternative fuels. On the Metrics, Targets and Goals front, activities will continue to refine and 

evaluate metrics for NextGen environmental impacts, advance capability for and assessment of environmental noise, 

air quality and climate impacts. This also includes improved climate impacts assessment under second phase of 

ACCRI activities. The work will also continue to refine estimates of environmental targets and assess gaps towards 

meeting NextGen environmental goals. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The program is protecting the environment by reducing significant aviation environmental impacts associated with 

noise, exhaust emissions, and increasing energy efficiency and availability to enable mobility and scalable capacity 

growth. Collaborating with industry, the program will advance and mature engine and airframe technologies to 

reduce aviation noise, air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use. It will also provide data and 

methodologies to assess environmental sustainability including life-cycle environmental impact and support 

certification of alternative aviation fuels that could serve as drop-in replacements for today’s petroleum-derived 

turbine engine fuels. This will lead to faster deployment of these fuels, and accompanying reductions in greenhouse 

gas and aviation emissions that impact air quality. Ultimately, the program will demonstrate advanced technologies 

and alternative fuels in integrated ground and flight demonstrations. The program is also helping to achieve NextGen 

goals by improving metrics to define and measure significant aviation environmental impacts. The program will 

improve the fundamental understanding of aviation environmental health and welfare and climate impacts, and 

translate impact into improved metrics that can be used to better assess and mitigate aviation’s contribution. This 

program will identify the gaps in scientific knowledge to support NextGen; focus research in areas that will reduce 

key uncertainties to levels that allow action; and develop enhanced metrics to enable sound analyses. Ultimately, the 

program will enable the refinement of goals and targets to support the NextGen EMS to better manage and reduce 

aviation’s environmental impacts to enable mobility and scalable capacity growth. 

The NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics Program helps achieve NextGen 

goals to increase mobility by reducing environmental impacts of aviation in absolute terms, including significant 

community noise, air quality and global climate change. The program is focused on reducing current levels of aircraft 

noise, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use and advancing sustainable alternative aviation jet 

fuels. 

The Program specifically supports the following outcomes: 

Demonstrate aircraft and engine technologies that reduce noise and air quality and greenhouse gas emission at the 

source level, to a developmental level that will allow quicker industry uptake of these new environmental friendly 

technologies to produce a fleet that will operate more efficiently with less energy usage and permit expansion of 

airports and airspace capacity in a scalable manner consistent with the environmental goals of the NextGen plan. 

Specific activities include developing and demonstrating: 

	 Certifiable aircraft technology that reduces aircraft fuel burn by 33 percent compared to current technology, 

reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions; 

	 Certifiable engine technology that reduces landing-and-takeoff-cycle nitrogen-oxide emissions by 60 

percent, without increasing other gaseous or particle emissions, over the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) standard adopted at the sixth meeting of the ICAO Committee on Aviation 

Environmental Protection; 

	 Certifiable aircraft technology that reduces noise levels by 32 decibels at each of the three certification 

points, relative to Stage 4 standards; and 

	 Determination of the extent to which new engine and aircraft technologies may be used to retrofit or reengine aircraft so as to increase the level of penetration into the commercial fleet. 

Demonstrate alternative fuels for aviation to reduce emissions affecting air quality and greenhouse gas emissions and 

increase energy supply security for NextGen. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-85 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Specific activities include developing and demonstrating: 

	 The feasibility of the use of alternative fuels in aircraft systems, including favorable environmental 

qualification, successful demonstration and quantification of benefits and internationally agreed criteria to 

quantify relative carbon content; and 

	 Processing capability and technical data to support certification and assured safety of a drop-in replacement 

for petroleum-derived turbine engine fuels. 

Determine the appropriate enhancements of goals and metrics to manage NextGen aviation environmental impacts 

that are needed to support Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) and achieve environmental protection that 

enables sustained aviation growth. 

Specific activities include: 

	 Evaluate, establish, and implement advanced metrics to better assess and control noise, air quality impacts, 

and greenhouse gas emissions that may influence climate impacts from anticipated NextGen commercial 

aircraft operations. 

	 Evaluate and refine required technology and operational goals and targets to mitigate the environmental 

impact of NextGen and support NextGen EMS implementation. 

FAA works closely with other federal agencies (including NextGen Joint Planning and Development Office 

Environmental Working Group or JPDO/EWG and U.S. Global Change Research Program), industry, academia, and 

international governments, organizations (e.g. ICAO/CAEP, International Civil Aviation Organization/Committee on 

Aviation Environmental Protection) and coalitions (e.g. CAAFI, Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative) to 

design research and development (R&D) efforts that can mitigate the environmental impact of aviation and explore 

alternative gas turbine fuels. 

As does the Environment and Energy Research Program and other NextGen activities, the NextGen – Environmental 

Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics Program relies on a series of Memoranda of Agreement to work 

closely with NASA and DoD. FAA is also pursuing collaborative agreements with the Department of Energy, and EPA 

to leverage resources to address aviation’s environmental impact. 

Through the JPDO, the program supports the EWG comprising FAA, NASA, EPA, DoD, DOC, Council on Environmental 

Quality, and OST, as well as industry, academia, local government, and community groups. The EWG is pursuing an 

intensive, balanced approach, emphasizing alignment across stakeholders in developing needed business and 

technology architectures, as well as other relevant tools, metrics, and products to address aviation’s environmental 

impact. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Noise, emissions, and fuel burn reduction technologies maturation 

	 Advanced CLEEN systems analyses for most promising technologies. 

	 Continued CLEEN component-level tests for most CLEEN promising technologies. 

	 Initiated Round 2 ground rig tests and continued design of CLEEN demonstration experiment. 

Alternative turbine engine fuels 

	 Completed detailed feasibility study, including economic feasibility, environmental impacts, and assessment 

of potential for gas turbine renewable alternative fuels. 

	 Developed federally-agreed methodology to conduct environmental impact life cycle analyses for a range of 

renewable alternative turbine fuels. 

	 Initiated efforts to experimentally assess environmental impacts and benefits and costs of renewable 

alternative turbine engine fuels. 

NextGen environmental metrics, goals, and targets 

	 Continued analysis of targets to achieve NextGen environmental goals. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-86 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Continued efforts to determine how projected NextGen operations-generated emissions and noise impact 

human health and welfare and global climate and identify key uncertainties. 

	 Continued comprehensive, integrated assessment of NextGen air quality and noise impacts. 

Performance Linkages 

The NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics program supports DOT strategic 

goal of environmental sustainability by increasing the use of environmentally sustainability practices in the 

transportation sector. Those practices will improve capital projects that include environmental management systems, 

context sensitive solutions, or use a sustainable transportation project evaluation to manage the environmental 

impacts of construction and operations. 

By FY 2016, complete design, fabrication and integration as well as system level analyses and testing of near-and 

mid-term CLEEN airframe and engine technologies to reduce noise, emissions, and fuel burn for civil subsonic jet 

aircraft; and develop plans for potential second phase of CLEEN program. 

Airframe and engine technologies supporting milestones: 

	 By FY 2012, fabricate advanced aircraft component flight test hardware and complete flight tests. 

	 By FY 2012, integrate advanced low NOx combustor on engine demonstrator and conduct engine tests. 

	 BY FY 2012, Begin flight management system (FMS) demonstration. 

	 BY FY 2012, conduct preliminary design review for advanced engine configuration testing. 

	 By FY 2012, perform acoustic validation testing and analysis to verify noise reduction predictions. 

	 By FY 2012, characterize and test aircraft material properties for noise reduction. 

	 By FY 2013, perform detailed design review of advanced turbine blade cooling configuration and materials. 

	 By FY 2013, perform testing of exhaust system components. 

	 By FY 2013, perform detailed design review and component manufacture for advanced engine configuration 

testing. 

 By FY 2013, perform acoustic validation testing and analysis to verify noise reduction predictions. 

 By FY 2014, characterize and test aircraft material properties for noise reduction. 

 BY FY 2014, perform ground test for advanced engine configurations. 

 By FY 2014, complete testing of Flight Management System. 

 By FY 2015, perform flight tests for advanced engine configurations. 

 By FY 2015, develop plans for analyses and demonstration of evolving technologies in a potential second 

phase to CLEEN. 

 By FY 2016, develop plans for analyses and demonstration of evolving technologies in a potential second 

phase to CLEEN. 

By FY 2015, complete comprehensive assessment and research to support certification of drop-in and renewable 

alternative turbine engine fuels and develop implementation plan to foster implementation in the commercial fleet. 

Alternative fuels supporting milestones: 

	 By FY 2012, conduct demonstration testing for renewable alternative fuels. 

	 BY FY 2012 conduct safety assessment for renewable alternative fuels. 

	 By FY 2012, conduct performance and environmental assessment of additional candidates for “drop-in” 

renewable alternative fuels. 

 By FY 2012, assess production capacity and commercial fleet infusion of aviation alternative fuels. 

 By FY 2012, initiate transition plans for alternative fuels. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-87 
 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

 By FY 2012, identify additional candidates for “drop-in” aviation alternative fuels. 

 By FY 2013, conduct safety assessment of renewable fuels. 

 By FY 2013, conduct significant demonstration of additional drop-in alternative turbine engine fuels. 

 By FY 2013, complete renewable alternative turbine engine fuels safety, environmental, and business case 

assessments. 

 By FY 2014, complete transition plans for drop-in alternative fuels. 

 By FY 2014, complete renewable fuels safety assessment. 

 By FY 2015, complete transition plans for renewable alternative fuels. 

 By FY 2016, identify and initiate assessment of non-drop-in fuels. 

 By FY 2015, conduct initial feasibility study, including economic feasibility, environmental impacts, and 

assessment of potential for non-drop-in alternative aviation fuels. 

 By FY 2016, conduct a demonstration of the performance characteristics of a non-drop-in alternative 

aviation fuel. 

By FY 2016, investigate metrics, uncertainties on aviation emissions health and welfare and climate impact to 

facilitate NextGen EMS implementation. 

Metrics supporting milestones: 

 By FY 2012, initiate the second phase of Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative to reduce uncertainties 

in aviation climate impacts and refine associated magnitude. 

 By FY2012, Evaluate noise and emissions impacts metrics and perform NextGen environmental analyses 

 By FY 2013, continue refinements of aviation environmental impacts and metrics. 

 By FY 2013, reduce key uncertainties of aviation impacts to levels that better inform appropriate action. 

 By FY 2013, refine estimates of interim NextGen environmental targets and perform gap analyses. 

 By FY 2014, refine metrics that more accurately capture aviation emissions health and welfare and climate 

impact and goals to facilitate EMS implementation. 

 By FY 2014, refine estimates of interim NextGen environmental targets and perform gap analyses. 

 By FY 2014, complete second phase of ACCRI program with improved estimates of aviation climate impacts. 

 By FY 2015, continue refined assessment of aviation environmental, health, and climate impacts. 

 By FY 2015, complete an updated assessment of aviation environmental, health, and climate impacts. 

 By FY 2015, refine estimates of interim NextGen environmental targets and perform gap analyses. 

 By FY 2016, advance capabilities for integrated analysis for aviation noise and emissions impacts. 

 By FY 2016, develop improved estimates for targets and assess scenarios towards meeting the NextGen 

environmental goals. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Protecting the environment is at the heart of the NextGen plan. Ensuring energy availability and protecting the 

environment will be critical elements to enable the mobility (capacity and efficiency) our nation needs. The NextGen 

environmental strategy includes efforts to better understand the extent of the problem associated with aviation 

emissions and the development and fielding of new operational enhancements, aircraft and ATM technologies, 

alternative fuels, and policies to achieve near-term and long-term solutions. The NextGen Environment and Energy 

R&D program supports research to develop new aircraft technologies and sustainable fuels and to develop metrics to 

quantify NextGen’s environmental impacts and inform performance targets. 

The vast majority of improvements in environmental performance over the last three decades have come from 

enhancements in engine and airframe design. Although major contributors, improved technologies and air traffic 

Research, Engineering and Development A-88 
 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

management will not be enough to reduce aviation’s carbon dioxide (CO2) footprint. Sustainable alternative fuels 

with lower overall carbon foot prints are critical to reducing aviation’s climate impact in order to enable mobility. The 

main focus of this R&D effort is the CLEEN program. The CLEEN program is focused on reducing current levels of 

aircraft noise, emissions that degrade air quality, GHG emissions, and energy use, and it advances sustainable 

alternative fuels for aviation use. 

Embedded in energy and environmental issues are several scientific uncertainties concerning aviation energy issues 

and aviation environmental impacts, particularly on climate. There are large uncertainties in our present 

understanding of the magnitude of climate impacts due to aviation non-CO2 emissions. Understanding the relative 

impacts of different emission (including altitude emissions impacts on air quality) is vital for informing NextGen EMSs 

implementation. The ACCRI is an element of the R&D program focused on addressing these uncertainties. In 

addition, noise is the most immediately objectionable impact of aviation, and the impact demanding the most Federal 

resources (i.e., minimum AIP grant set aside of $300M annually). Research is outdated that underpins 

determinations of aircraft noise impacts, land use compatibility guidelines, and federally funded noise mitigation. 

New noise metrics research effort is needed to reflect public sensitivity and current air traffic conditions, guide 

mitigation funding and local land use planning near airports, and assure the U.S. response to aircraft noise keeps 

pace with NextGen needs and international efforts. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Any reduction in the requested budget will reduce and slow our ability to mature aircraft technologies for reduction in 

noise, emissions and fuel burn, qualification of alternative fuels for commercial aviation as well as limit our efforts for 

analysis of environmental impacts and metrics including ACCRI. Delay in advancing progress in these areas will 

severely limit our ability to meet NextGen environmental goals, prepare for international negotiations and efforts for 

sustainable and secure supply of alternative sources of jet fuels. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-89 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A14.a System Planning and Resource Management 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – System Planning and Resource Management 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A14.a System Planning and Resource 

Management $1,766,000 $1,718,000 -$48,000 

For FY 2012, $1,718,000 is requested for System Planning and Resource Management. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

R,E&D Portfolio Development 

	 Prepare the FY 2014 R,E&D budget submission 

	 Manage FAA’s R,E&D portfolio to meet efficiency goals 

	 Obtain Research Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) recommendations on planned 

R,E&D investments for FY 2014. 

	 Support the REDAC in its preparation of other reports, as requested by the Administrator. 

	 Deliver the 2012 National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) to the Congress with the President’s FY 2013 

Budget. 

Research Partnerships 

	 Coordinate R&D activities with internal and external partners. 

	 Begin planning for the 2013 U.S.A./Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar on NextGen and Single 

European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR). 

Performance Measurement 

	 Measure quality, timeliness, and value of international research collaboration. 

FAA will continue supporting the work of the REDAC in its task to advise the Administrator on the R&D program. In 

particular, it will seek the counsel and guidance of the committee for the FY 2014 program, review the proposed FY 

2014 program prior to submission of the budget requirements to the DOT, and seek the committee’s guidance during 

the execution of the R&D program. The agency will publish, as required by Congress, the NARP and submit it to 

Congress concurrent with the FY 2013 President’s Budget Request. 

The program will review the President’s R&D criteria, ensuring that the agency’s R&D program remains viable and 

meets national priorities. It will also publish program activities and accomplishments, as well as foster external 

review of and encourage customer input to the R&D program. 

The program will manage the FAA R&D portfolio, identify high value products being produced by the R&D program, 

and promote the use of these products globally to benefit the international market. In FY 2012, this initiative will 

begin to measure quality, timeliness, and value of collaboration, expanding upon work done in FY 2011. 

2. What Is This Program? 

This activity produces the National Aviation Research Plan (NARP), an annual strategic plan for FAA R&D; administers 

the congressionally mandated R,E&D Advisory Committee (REDAC); conducts external program coordination; fosters 

future research opportunities; and provides program advocacy and outreach. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-90 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

In FY 2012, FAA will perform the following: 

R,E&D Portfolio Development 

 Publish the annual NARP. 

 Manage the R,E&D portfolio development. 

 Prepare the annual R,E&D budget submission. 

 Host two REDAC meetings and multiple subcommittee meetings. The Committee provides advice on and 

reviews plans for the annual FAA R&D budget, and produces periodic and special reports providing advice 

and recommendations to FAA on its R&D portfolio. 

Research Partnerships 

	 Establish and cultivate research partnerships both domestically and internationally to leverage programs, 

laboratories, and facilities to support the implementation of Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) operational improvements. 

	 Manage the formulation and execution of interagency agreements and action plans with external research 

partners such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Air Force Research Lab, the 

European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL), and Single European Sky Air 

Traffic Management Research (SESAR) Joint Undertaking. 

	 Identify, validate, and catalog existing and needed research and technology activities internal and external 

to FAA to support the operational needs of the FAA’s National Airspace System Enterprise Architecture. 

	 Jointly plan and conduct the USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar on NextGen and SESAR. 

Performance Measurement 

 Develop a strategic mapping for international collaboration. 

 Identify a process to measure quality, timeliness, and value of collaboration. 

The value of working with international partners to leverage research programs and studies to improve safety and 

promote seamless operations worldwide is an outcome for this program. 

Ongoing activities will manage FAA’s Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) portfolio, meet the President’s 

criteria for R&D, increase program efficiency, and maintain management and operating costs. 

The REDAC reviews FAA research commitments annually and provides guidance for future R,E&D investments. The 

members of this committee and its associated subcommittees are subject matter experts drawn from various 

associations, user groups, corporations, government agencies, universities, and research centers. Their combined 

presence in the REDAC fulfills a congressional requirement for FAA R&D to be mindful of aviation community and 

stakeholder input. 

R&D partnerships include the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Joint Planning and Development Office 

(JPDO), NASA, other federal agencies, and EUROCONTROL. 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

R,E&D Portfolio Development 

 Prepare the FY 2013 R,E&D budget submission. 

 Manage FAA’s R,E&D portfolio to meet efficiency goals. 

 Obtain REDAC recommendations on planned R,E&D investments for FY 2013. 

 Support the REDAC in its preparation of other reports, as requested by the Administrator. 

 Deliver the 2011 NARP to the Congress with the President’s FY 2012 Budget. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-91 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

 Develop a strategic mapping for international research collaboration. 

 Identify a process to measure quality, timeliness, and value of international research collaboration. 

Research Partnerships 

 Coordinate R&D activities with internal and external partners. 

 Conduct the 2011 U.S.A/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar on NextGen and SESAR. 

 Update the Integrated Plan for Research Transition Teams with NASA. 

Performance Measurement 

 Develop strategic mapping for international research collaboration. 

 Identify a process to measure quality, timeliness, and value of international research collaboration. 

Performance Linkages 

The System Planning and Resource Management Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Organizational 

Excellence in maintaining cost control and audit on R&D budget portfolio. 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 In FY 2012, FAA will maintain an R,E&D management workforce of no more than 10 percent of the total 

R,E&D workforce and will sustain the System Planning and Resource Management budget at 2 percent or 

less of the total R,E&D budget. 

	 In FY 2012, publish the NARP, which documents the annual R&D budget portfolio, describes activities of the 

REDAC, and contains the FY 2012-2016 R&D plans. 

	 By FY 2016, determine the value of international research collaborations. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

This program provides the support for the FAA to formulate their annual R,E&D portfolio as well as to submit to 

Congress each year, the mandatory plan for the FAA research and development. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Funding decreases would have negligible impacts on these efforts. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-92 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

A14.b William J. Hughes Technical 

Center Laboratory $4,588,000 $3,777,000 -$811,000 

For FY 2012, $3,777,000 is requested for the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) Laboratory Facility. Major 

activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Simulation Facilities 

	 The Simulation Team will achieve four fully functional cockpit simulators in the Cockpit Simulation Facility. 

	 The Simulation Team will fully integrate Target Generator Facility (TGF) into the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen) Integration and Evaluation Capability (NIEC) simulation environment. 

	 The Simulation Team will support FAA involvement in the Research Park located near the William J. Hughes 

Technical Center. 

Flight Program’s Airborne Laboratories 

	 The Flight Program will be enhancing test aircraft(s) to allow participation in Weather in the Cockpit 

development and testing. 

	 The Flight Program anticipates the installation of an Enhanced Vision System into the Bombardier Global 

5000 aircraft in support of the Airport Lighting Program. 

	 It is anticipated that the Flight Program will be support “Self Separation” procedure development and flight 

testing. 

Concepts and Systems Integration 

	 Support 4DT profiles 

	 Integrate Traffic Flow Management Auxiliary Platform into the NIEC. 

	 Develop a robust capability to create multi-dimensional scenarios. 

FAA sustains research facilities located at the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) in support of its R&D 

program goals. These facilities consist of the Flight Program’s Airborne Laboratories; Simulation Facilities, including 

the Target Generation Facility and the Cockpit Simulators; and the Concepts and Systems Integration Facilities, 

including the Human Factors Laboratory and the NIEC. 

The FAA will continue to modify, configure, and sustain these research facilities located at the WJHTC to support its 

R&D program goals. 

2. What Is This Program? 

R&D programs require specialized facilities to emulate and evaluate field conditions. Human factors projects require 

flexible, high-fidelity laboratories to perform full-mission, ground-to-air human-in-the-loop simulations. Researchers 

measure baseline human performance using existing air traffic control (ATC) configurations, and changes in 

performance when new systems or procedures are introduced in order to evaluate human factors issues. These 

laboratories are comprised of integrated cockpit and ATC workstation simulators, and the performance issues they 

Research, Engineering and Development A-93 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

delve into reflect the perspectives of the pilot and flight crew. Airborne and navigation projects require flying 

laboratories, aircraft utilized for research and development, which are specially instrumented and reconfigurable to 

support a variety of projects. 

FAA sustains research facilities located at the WJHTC in support of its R&D program goals. These facilities consist of 

the Flight Program’s Airborne Laboratories; Simulation Facilities, including the Target Generation Facility and the 

Cockpit Simulators; and the Concepts and Systems Integration Facilities, including the Human Factors Laboratory and 

the NIEC. 

The WJHTC facilities directly support agency projects and integrated product teams in the following areas: 

	 FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) – The WJHTC laboratories support the ATO in the areas of capacity and 

air traffic management; communications, navigation, and surveillance; NextGen concept validation; 

weather; airport technology; aircraft safety; human factors; information security; and environment and 

energy. 

	 Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance – The Flight Program Team supports on-site flight tests of 

the GPS Local Area Augmentation System in Newark to aid in the development of the precision landing 

system. 

	 NextGen – The WJHTC laboratories support concept validation and system integration. 

	 Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) – Numerous flight test hours have been expended in 

support of field testing the new ITT system in southern Florida. Each test leads to improvements made to 

enhance the overall system. 

	 Terminal Instrumentation Procedures (TERPS) – Routine flight tests are ongoing in the development of 

Global Positioning System (GPS) Helicopter precision approaches to a heliport. 

	 Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) – The Flight Program Team has been working with the WAAS 

program, Bombardier Aircraft, Canadian Marconi, and Honeywell to design, test and certify a WAAS 

installation into a Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft. 

In addition to FAA’s research programs, WJHTC laboratories partnerships include: 

 U.S. Air Force – The Flight Program Team has performed numerous test of the GPS signal security with the 

U.S. Air Force. 

	 National Transportation Safety Board – The Flight Program Team has, in the past, participated in the 

recreation of aircraft accidents for the purpose of collecting data in an attempt to determine the underlying 

cause. 

	 European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation - The simulation team exchanges aircraft modeling 

data for use in TGF. 

	 Industry – Flight tests are on-going to help develop and deploy the ITT ADS-B system in southern Florida, 

the Gulf of Mexico and Juneau as well as the work being done with Bombardier, Canadian Marconi, and 

Honeywell in the design, installation, and certification on GPS WAAS onboard a Bombardier Global 5000 

aircraft. 

	 Industry - The Simulation team has partnered with UFA, Inc., to quantify voice recognition and response 

system performance in Technical Center Human in the Loop (HITL) simulations. 

Facilities supporting R&D Goals at FAA’s WJHTC: The following laboratory facilities provide the reliable test bed 

infrastructure to support these R&D customers, program goals, and outputs for FAA: 

Simulation Facilities – TGF and Cockpit Simulators 

	 Approach Procedures 

	 NextGen 

	 Airspace Design 

	 Operational Evolution Plan Concept Validation 

Research, Engineering and Development A-94 

 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

 Dynamic Vertical Reduced Separation Minima
 

 UAS
 

 ADS-B Concept Evaluation
 

Research & Development Flight Program – Airborne Laboratories 

 Satellite Communications and Navigation Programs 

 Separation Standards 

 WAAS 

 TERPS 

 Safety 

 Runway Incursion 

 NextGen 

 Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) 

 ADS-B 

 Common Automated Radar Terminal System 

Concepts and System Integration Facilities 

 ATC Human Factors 

 Airway Facilities Human Factors 

 NextGen Concept Validation Studies 

 Unmanned Aerial Systems 

 ADS-B 

 Data Communications (Data Comm) 

In FY 2011, major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

Simulation Facilities 

	 TGF fully realized its capability to support ATC tower visualization and surface movement studies. This 

capability supports research in the areas of runway incursions, and taxi clearances. 

	 The Cockpit Simulation Facility achieved a fully integrated simulation environment with its B-737-800/900, 

EMB-175, and A-320 simulators. 

Flight Program’s Airborne Laboratories 

	 The Flight Program worked to enhance the flying laboratories to meet the anticipated future needs of our 

flight test customers. These included the capability to capture all “Flight Data Recorder” information and 

make it available to project personnel in a variety of formats. The first aircraft to be equipped with this 

capability was the Global 5000. 

	 The Flight Program will be participating in Alternate Fuels testing, modifying test aircraft and performing 

various flight tests. 

Concepts and Systems Integration 

	 The Human Factors team continued to merge results from three ongoing projects: Future En Route 

Workstation, FTWS and TODDS. Lessons learned will be applied to continued development work on the 

common automation platform to create one UI for all ATC environments. 

	 The NIEC team will continue to improve laboratory capabilities and integrate new tools and systems to 

support NextGen studies. Staffed NextGen Study Phase 2 will run early FY11. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-95 
 

 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2012 President’s Budget Submission 

Performance Linkages 

The William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility supports the Department of Transportation Strategic 

Goals of Safety, Economic Competitiveness, and Environmentally Sustainability. Safety is supported through 

integration of the Target Generator facility for runway incursion testing, which reduces transportation related injuries 

and fatalities; Economic Competitiveness by leading U.S. transportation interest in target markets around the world 

through full-mission demonstrations on NextGen technology integration; and Environmentally Sustainability through 

testing of transportation evaluation tools to manage the environmental impacts of construction and operations. 

FAA will work to provide an integrated laboratory platform for the purpose of demonstrating operational procedures, 

defining human and system performance requirements, full-mission demonstrations integrating NextGen air and 

ground capabilities for pilot separation responsibility and controller efficiencies, and analysis, evaluation, and 

validation of R&D milestones. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

This particular program sustains research facilities located at the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) to 

support R&D program goals. These programs require specialized facilities to emulate and evaluate field conditions. 

The R&D programs require flexible, high-fidelity laboratories to perform full mission, ground-to-air, human-in-theloop simulations. The R&D laboratories are comprised of a human factors laboratory, integrated cockpits and ATC 

workstation simulators, and flying laboratories consisting of aircraft specially instrumented and reconfigurable to 

support a variety of projects. 

It is necessary to modify, upgrade, and sustain the R&D laboratory infrastructure and provide support services to 

support the R&D program goals. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction of funding to this program will reduce the number of fully functional cockpit simulators from four to three 

available in FY2012 to support complex human-in-the-loop, end-to-end airspace simulations for research, 

development, operational test and evaluation, and integration of NextGen into the NAS, including Trajectory Based 

Operations development support. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-96 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

1A01 Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

Advanced Technology Development 

and Prototyping $28,100,000 $19,000,000 -$9,100,000 

R&D Activities FY 2012 Estimated Cost 

Runway Incursion Reduction Program $5,000,000 

System Capacity, Planning and Improvements 6,000,000 

Operations Concept Validation 4,000,000 

NAS Weather Requirements 1,000,000 

Airspace Management Program 3,000,000 

Total $19,000,000 

2. What Is This Program? 

Runway Incursion Reduction Program 

The Runway Incursion Reduction Program (RIRP) will continue research, development, and operational evaluation of 

technologies to increase runway safety. Consistent with standing National Transportation Safety Board 

recommendations and initiatives identified in the FAA Flight Plan, research emphasis will remain on technologies that 

provide for direct safety warnings to pilots and aircrews, as well as those that can be applied cost effectively at small 

to medium airports. The program will test alternative small airport surface detection technology and the application 

of these technologies for pilot, controller, and vehicle operator situational awareness tools. Current initiatives include 

Runway Status Lights technology enhancements such as Runway Intersection Lights logic, Light Emitting Diode (LED) 

technology, Low Cost Ground Surveillance (LCGS) Pilot, and Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal for high 

density airports. When appropriate, investment analyses will be performed to support acquisition and 

implementation of selected solutions. 

System Capacity, Planning, and Improvements 

The System Capacity, Planning, and Improvements program identifies, evaluates, and formulates system capacity 

improvements for the NAS. This program sponsors NAS capacity and airport capacity studies where experts from the 

FAA, academia and industry collaborate to analyze and develop recommendations for improving capacity and system 

efficiency, and reducing delays at specific airports in alignment with FAA Flight Plan targets. In conjunction with 

providing recommendations for airport improvements, procedural updates, and simulation studies, this program 

delivers performance measurement systems and operations research to quantify the efficiency of the NAS and form 

the basis of proposals for system improvements. The Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) is a 

fully integrated performance measurement tool designed to help the FAA improve the NAS by tracking the daily 

operations of the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system and their environmental impacts. The tracking and monitoring 

capabilities of PDARS support studies and analysis of air traffic operations at the service delivery or national level. 

Also, the capacity and efficiency of the NAS is further expanded through capacity modeling which analyzes the 

impact of Next Generation air transportation system (NextGen) operational improvements. By recording the design 

Facilities and Equipment A-97 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2011 NARP	 Appendix A 

and performance of the legacy NAS PDARS establishes a de facto base case for before and after comparisons of 

NextGen accomplishments. 

Operations Concept Validation 

Developing operational concepts is an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommended first step in 

developing an Enterprise Architecture. This program develops and validates operational concepts that are key to the 

Air Traffic Organization’s (ATO) modernization programs and the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen). This work includes developing and maintaining detailed second level concepts that support validation and 

requirements development. Second level concepts identify the personnel and functional changes necessary for the 

ATO to provide customer service in ways that increase productivity and reduce net cost. Recent work includes 

developing second level concepts for En Route, Traffic Flow Management (TFM), NextGen Towers, and Integrated 

Arrival and Departure Operations. This information helps the aviation community anticipate what changes are 

needed in aircraft equipment in order to operate with the new technology being implemented in the NAS and develop 

new procedures. 

The Operational Concept efforts look at the changing roles and responsibilities of the Air Traffic workforce and the 

design of Advanced Facilities to derive the associated functional requirements imposed on the NAS infrastructure. 

Concept development includes preparing system specifications, roles and responsibilities, procedures, training, and 

certification requirements. These development and validation activities support NAS modernization through: (1) 

concept / scenario development; (2) concept validation; (3) simulation and analysis; (4) system design; (5) metric 

development; and (6) modeling. 

National Airspace System Weather Requirements 

The National Airspace System (NAS) Weather Requirements program develops aviation weather mission analysis, 

users’ needs analysis, and NAS and domain level functional/performance requirements; allocates requirements to the 

National Weather Service and FAA components; and harmonizes U.S. aviation weather requirements and standards 

globally. 

This work is done to address the high cost of weather to today’s NAS where weather is responsible for 70 percent of 

delays over 15 minutes and contributes to 24 percent of accidents and 34 percent of fatalities. Up to 2/3 of weather 

delays are avoidable, but despite a continuous flow of improvements available through aviation weather science and 

implementation solutions aimed at providing better weather information, the significant impact of weather on 

aviation remains. 

The NAS Weather Requirements program supports the goals of: 

	 Safety, Reduced Congestion, and Global Connectivity in the Department of Transportation Strategic Plan, 

	 NAS Capacity, NAS Safety, and Global Harmonization goals of the FAA Flight Plan, and 

	 NAS and Domain Level Weather Requirements Data Base for NextGen under a Core Activity in the 2012 

Business Plan entitled “12S.108C1 - Core Activity: National Airspace System Requirements Development.” 

The NAS Weather Requirements program is composed of five components: 

1. Core weather requirements development and allocation, 

2. Global standardization of NAS weather requirements, 

3. Integration of weather information into capabilities needed by ATC Decision Support, 

4. Fast track development of concept and requirements documentation for targeted NowGen operational 

needs, and 

5. Core safety assessment capability under the Safety Management System (SMS) for required new weather 

capabilities. 

1. The core weather requirements development component gathers and assesses users’ needs for weather 

information by FAA ATC, pilots, Flight Operations Centers (FOCs), and airport operators and converts those 

users’ needs into NAS and domain level functional and performance requirements for weather information. The 

program data bases the NAS weather requirements and allocates them to providers including the National 

Weather Service (NWS), elements of FAA, and/or commercial providers. Work includes completing requirements 

Facilities and Equipment A-98 
2011 NARP	 	 	 Appendix A 

allocation to map requirement to organizations and systems; performing a user need analysis for convective 

forecasting, turbulence, ceiling and visibility and in-flight icing; performing a gap analysis between current and 

NextGen timeframes; developing plans for how weather requirements will be validated; updating the Preliminary 

Portfolio Requirements document with NNEW and NWP requirements; and developing governance rules for the 

process to approve and allocate weather requirements. 

2. The global standardization component arises out of FAA’s official role as the U.S. Meteorological (MET) Authority 

to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The role of the MET Authority to promote adoption of 

U.S. meteorological information requirements, standards and practices for global use through International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS). This work is accomplished 

through about 12 ICAO planning, study, and operations groups. Work will consist of mitigating U.S. differences 

to ICAO Annex 3 Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation after Amendments are approved; 

developing US positions on issues arising from the ICAO Volcanic Ash Task Force; developing various working 

papers for the World Area Forecast Systems Operations Group; developing a user needs analysis and functional 

requirements for Space Weather; and work to amend ICAO Annex 3 to incorporate the NextGen concept of the 

4-D Weather Data Cube. 

3. The objective of the NAS Weather Requirements program is to effectively integrate weather information into 

capabilities needed by ATC Decision Support. The weather information requirements of operational decision 

support processes and tools (e.g. CATM) are assessed and incorporated into overall NAS Weather Requirements 

data base. This program is responsible for base-lining the integration requirements while NextGen funded 

programs will assess the NextGen requirements for integration. 

4. The NAS Weather Requirements program funds deep-dive concept and requirements development and 

documentation of targeted NowGen operational needs. These are operational needs that can be addressed in 

the near term, prior to the NextGen solution, to meet urgent needs, and that can transitioned smoothly into 

NextGen solutions at a later time. Examples include (1) improved airborne observations of weather (icing, 

turbulence, winds, temperatures, and water vapor) for immediate use by controllers, FOC’s, ATC, and pilots and 

(2) provision of near-real-time wind information needed to reduce the impact of adverse winds aloft 

(compression problem) on arrivals and departures at major hubs such as NYC. This program will fund the 

necessary ConUse and requirements development/allocation of weather information to support these NowGen 

needs. 

5. The NAS Weather Requirements program is maintenance of a core safety assessment capability under the Safety 

Management System (SMS) for required new weather information products and capabilities. As changes are 

proposed as FAA updates weather systems and incorporates new weather product, safety risk assessments are 

conducted to ensure that the changes do not introduce unacceptable risk into the NAS. 

Airspace Management Program 

This Airspace Management Program (AMP) supports increased capacity by funding the physical changes in facilities 

necessary to accommodate airspace redesign. Redesign projects will take on increased emphasis at both the 

national and regional levels to ensure that FAA is able to effectively manage the projected growth in demand at FAA 

facilities and airports. 

Implementation of airspace redesign efforts frequently results in changes in the number and shape of operational 

positions or sectors, including changes to sector, area or facility boundaries. Transition to a new configuration after 

airspace redesign is implemented requires changes in the supporting infrastructure. These infrastructure changes 

can include communications modifications such as changes in frequencies, connectivity of radio site to the control 

facility, controller-to-controller connectivity; surveillance infrastructure modifications to ensure proper radar 

coverage; automation modifications to the host data processing or flight data processing; interfacility transmission 

modifications; additional consoles and communications backup needs; and modifications to the facility power and 

cabling. 

Facilities and Equipment A-99 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

a. Runway Incursion Reduction Program 

Multiple RIRP initiatives are currently being formulated as a result of strong interest from Congress, industry and 

other oversight agencies. Prioritization of those initiatives is likely to evolve during the FY 2010 cycle as a result of 

“Call to Action” mandates and runway incursion incident trends. All five Low Cost Ground Surveillance prototype 

sites will be funded under RIRP, along with the documentation to prepare the program for JRC 2A. 

b. System Capacity, Planning, and Improvements 

This program will facilitate the modeling and analysis of new runways, airfield improvements, air traffic procedures, 

and other technological implementations to improve airport capacity and system efficiency. Study Teams evaluate 

alternatives for increasing capacity at specific airports that are experiencing or are projected to experience significant 

flight delays. Capacity studies provide recommendations and solution sets for improving airspace and airport 

capacity. 

c. Operations Concept Validation 

The FAA is proceeding with NAS modernization based on the NextGen Operational Concept for 2025. Concept 

development and validation is necessary to investigate specific concept elements, and to drive out operational and 

technical requirements and implications for human factors, training and procedures. This project assesses the 

interaction of changing roles and responsibilities of NAS service providers and pilots, airspace changes, procedural 

changes and new mechanized systems for distributing weather, traffic and other flight related information. It tests 

the assumptions behind common situational awareness and distributed information processing. 

d. NAS Weather Requirements 

This program is necessary because (1) the needs for weather information in the operation of the NAS are not being 

adequately met today, (2) those needs will grow exponentially with the growth in traffic planned for in NextGen, and 

(3) weather science itself is changing rapidly. These three factors point to the need to continually reassess NAS 

aviation weather requirements, and this program is the only capability in FAA that addresses weather requirements 

at the NAS and domain levels. These high level requirements are an essential foundation of system level 

requirements needed to guide NWS production, FAA weather systems development, and U.S. leadership in global 

harmonization of aviation weather requirements with ICAO. 

e. Airspace Management Program 

Airspace Redesign is the FAA initiative to ensure that all airspace related capacity benefits facilitated by AMP, facility 

changes and automation improvements are achieved. AMP serves as the FAA’s primary effort to modernize the 

nation’s airspace. The purpose of this national initiative is to review, redesign and restructure airspace. 

Modernization of airspace through AMP is characterized by the migration from constrained ground based navigation 

to the freedom of a Required Navigation Performance (RNP) based system. 

Airspace redesign efforts seek to optimize Terminal, En Route and Oceanic airspace by redesigning airspace in 

NY/NJ/PHL, CAP, Western Corridor, HAATS, and Las Vegas. F&E funding is planned for NY/NJ/PHL, CAP, Western 

Corridor, and national integration efforts of the program office. Airspace redesign efforts will modernize airspace in 

support the new flows associated with new runways in Chicago (ORD) and in Las Vegas. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

a. Runway Incursion Reduction Program (RIRP) 

The demonstration, evaluation and transition of mature runway safety technologies have proven to reduce the 

incidence of high-hazard (Category A/B) incursions and ultimately reduce the risk of a runway collision. Early 

development, testing and maturation of viable technologies result in reduced technical, cost and acquisition schedule 

risk, with early delivery of runway safety benefits. 

Facilities and Equipment A-100 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

b. System Capacity, Planning, and Improvements 

Capacity studies identify the operational benefits and delay-reduction cost savings of capacity enhancement 

alternatives. Program output includes: flight operational data for use in performance analysis; system safety, delay, 

flexibility, predictability, and user access performance measures on a daily basis; and travel times within geometric 

areas and for route segments (arrival fix to runway, runway to departure fix, etc.). Output also includes 

methodologies and prototypes for measuring the benefits of airport, airspace, and procedural enhancements. PDARS 

is the Air Traffic Control System Command Center’s (ATCSCC) primary tool for accessing radar data and provides an 

objective tool for operational planning, assessment and support of flow management initiatives. Integration of 

PDARS with Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-X); Out, Off, On, and In time data; restrictions data; and 

playbook scenarios will help to reduce ground delays. These enhancements, which encompass the final phase of 

PDARS development and are an ATO community requirement, are critical for analyzing surface operations and 

baselining OEP performance. PDARS is a well-accepted and often used tool at all major ATC facilities. The impact 

will be realized on assessments of such issues as wake turbulence mitigation, New Large Aircraft (NLA), Very Light 

Jets (VLJs), reduced separation criteria, and alternative flow management methods. 

c. Operations Concept Validation 

This program uses a variety of validation techniques to explore, develop, and mature NAS operational concepts. The 

program undertakes research, study, and analysis to explore new opportunities for service delivery, solve problems 

with current operations, and define high level operational and performance requirements. The Advanced Technology 

Development and Prototyping (ATD&P) Operational Concept Validation program is doing the early concept research 

for advanced operational concepts to ensure they are well understood and are based on valid assumptions. 

Concepts such as High Altitude Airspace and Integrated Arrival Departure Airspace were researched and validated 

under this Program prior to transition to NextGen Pre-Implementation Programs to ensure the operational impacts 

were well understood. 

d. NAS Weather Requirements 

The principal users of NAS weather information are people and decision support systems in the various components 

of air traffic services, FOC’s, pilots, and airport operators. Their needs for weather information are identified from 

analysis of (1) what decisions they make for which weather information is needed (users needs analysis) and (2) 

what and how good that 2B05 information must be (functional and performance requirements). Requirements are 

allocated to research in cases where the information is not available or directly to providers where capabilities are 

already developed. This program funds core capability for these allocation functions with substantial supplemental 

funding from NextGen programs for future capabilities. 

We know that the program works to establish NAS weather requirements in the manner described above. We also 

know from extensive commercial and government system engineering history and practices that requirements set in 

this manner are essential to development of complete and efficient systems and procedures. 

e. Airspace Management Program 

AMP has successfully managed airspace projects throughout the NAS. Without the coordination of AMP, multiple 

projects supporting the same airspace could arise. By having a central location all airspace changes and efforts are 

coordinated ensure project efficiency and success to the NAS. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Funding of $19,000,000 is required to continue all activities within the ATD&P budget line item. 

A reduction to ATD&P will have to be developed carefully so that significant damage is not done to important 

milestones on which considerable importance is attached. Any reduction could have the effect of slowing down the 

progress of precursor programs or the effort of studying technical outcomes in the various solution sets. We urge 

that any cuts necessary be provided in a general sense so that they can be managed so that the least impact would 

occur in the ATD&P program. 

Facilities and Equipment A-101 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2011 NARP	 Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

1A08 Next Generation Transportation System (NextGen) – System Development 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Next Generation Transportation System (NextGen) – System Development 

Activity/Component FY 2010 

Enacted FY 2012 Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

Next Generation Transportation 

System (NextGen) – System 

Development 

$66,100,000 $109,000,000 $42,900,000 

R&D Activities	 FY 2012 Estimated Cost 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) $10,000,000 

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 37,000,000 

NextGen - Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling 10,000,000 

NextGen - Environment and Energy – Environmental Management System 

and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction 15,000,000 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization 3,000,000 

NextGen - Operational Assessments 10,000,000 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 18,000,000 

NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) 6,000,000 

Total $109,000,000 

For FY 2012, $109,000,000 is requested for Next Generation Transportation System (NextGen) – System 

Development. Major activities and accomplishments planned with the requested funding include: 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) 

	 Continue Human Factors program to support System Development and Enterprise Architecture during 

Service Analysis 

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 

	 Develop an integrated approach between separation assurance and collision avoidance, with special 

attention to the safety case 

o	 Develop and execute implementation plan for NextGen Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 

(TCAS) 

o Develop standards and guidance for advanced safety assurance methods and simulation 

 Common Trajectory Requirements and Implementation Strategy 

o	 Continue analysis to allocate functions to systems, ground and airborne 

o	 Lab demonstration and fast time modeling of common trajectory 

o Continue risk assessment 

 RNAV/RNP via Data Communications 

o	 Delivery across data communications 

Facilities and Equipment A-102 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2011 NARP	 Appendix A 

o On the fly development, evaluation and delivery 

 New Radar Requirements (Surveillance and Weather) 

o	 Surveillance & Weather Radar Replacement (SWRR) - Analyze Phase 1 technology maturity and 

deliver recommendation 

o	 SWRR - Phase 2 concept demonstrator procurement preparation and contract award 

o	 SWRR - provide for best practices 

o Complete CRDR artifacts for wind-shear detection services work package 1 (NAS EA DP WxA) 

 Development of industry standards/requirements and to evaluate the benefits associated with the current 

phase 

 Availability of ADS-B data matching or exceeding coverage from the five current Long Range Radars along 

the proposed RNAV routes 

 Development of ADS-B only RNAV routes along the East Coast and the Caribbean 

NextGen - Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling 

	 Initial set of detailed operational scenarios for the far-term 

	 Concept Benefits Modeling (230% increase modeled by the end of 2013) 

	 Simulation and Analysis of Integrated Time Based Flow Management 

	 Initial version of NextGen end-to-end concept for the far-term (2025) for internal review 

NextGen - Environment and Energy – Environmental Management System and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction 

 Implement enterprise level EMS framework 

 Integrate environmental information into key decision processes 

 Initiate targeted EMS Communications and outreach initiatives 

 Conduct second phase of pilot studies based on outcomes from the first phase 

 Initiate NextGen EMS implementation efforts at priority stakeholder organizations with significant near-term 

environmental issues 

 Assess the impacts on NAS wide operations (including environmental performance) of aircraft standards for 

noise and emissions 

 Significant exploration and demonstration of environmental control algorithms for surface and terminal 

operational procedures 

 Analyze environmental impacts of CLEEN technologies on the NAS and assess approaches to optimize 

aircraft system environmental performance 

 Analyze environmental impacts of alternative fuels on the NAS and assess approaches to optimize aircraft 

system environmental performance 

 Investigate impact on NAS wide operations of market based options, including Cap and Trade and carbon 

charges, to limit aircraft greenhouse gas emissions 

 Perform analysis for EMS Environmental Impacts and Metrics 

 Finalize NextGen EMS implementation in initial FAA organizations 

 Analyze NEPA compliance within the EMS framework 

 Coordinate NextGen data management with NextGen planners and developers 

 Significant exploration and demonstration of environmental control algorithms for en route operational 

procedures to reduce aircraft fuel burn, emissions and noise 

Facilities and Equipment A-103 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2011 NARP	 Appendix A 

	 Investigate potential operational changes required to optimize aircraft operations for greenhouse gas 

reductions 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization 

 Engineering and analysis necessary to determine system implementation feasibility of the Leader/Follower 

wake turbulence mitigation separation processes and procedures that being developed by the project 

 Continued data collection of aircraft wake turbulence to achieve statistical confidence in the leader/follower 

separations being proposed 

 Determine best methods for incorporating key weather and aircraft performance parameters into 

determination of safe and capacity efficient separation processes and procedures 

 Develop framework structure for dynamic wake mitigation processes and procedures 

NextGen - Operational Assessments 

 Continue Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) and Aviation Portfolio Management Tool (APMT) 

enhancements for NextGen local to NAS-wide environmental analysis 

 Refine analysis and assessment of NAS-wide NextGen environmental mitigation and cost-beneficial options 

for decision support 

 Continue exploration of options to integrate environmental assessment capability with NextGen NAS models 

 Enhance Operational Performance Model to support NextGen Operational Assessments 

 Enhance Safety Model to support NextGen Operational Assessments 

 Apply models to assess NAS wide impacts of Task Force recommendations 

 Perform NAS-wide environmental assessment of the current aviation system 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 

 Annual system-level safety assessment capability is productized, and validated 

 Transition to steady state operations for analysis of known risks, safety enhancements, and benchmarks 

 Continue to evolve ASIAS ability to automatically monitor for unknown risk based on complex text mining 

capabilities and seamless data sources 

 The FAA-wide SMS capability is matured with ASIAS and SSA providing operational and data support for 

interoperability among SMS programs within the FAA, and with stakeholders 

NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) 

 Business Case Analysis Report 

 Implementation Strategy and Planning 

 Basis of Estimate 

 Risk Metrics for final investment analysis 

 Updated Enterprise Architecture products and amendments 

 Completion of system safety documentation 

 Maintain SNT equipment at Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) (field test site) 

2. What Is This Program? 

The Joint Planning and Development Office’s (JPDO) 2004 Integrated Plan identified three key performance targets 

to achieve the desired capability by 2025. These are: (1) satisfy future growth in demand up to three times current 

levels; (2) reduce domestic curb-to-curb transit time by 30 percent; and (3) minimize the impact of weather and 

other disruptions to achieve 95 percent on time performance. Achievement of these targets by 2025 will be a 

Facilities and Equipment A-104 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

challenge. In addition, an increase in demand of three times the current levels could cause an equivalent increase in 

the number of accidents, aircraft noise and the volume of emissions, as well as the Air Traffic Control (ATC) 

workload. This line item provides the research and development required to resolve these potential problems: 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration) 

The significant features of this program are the development of a Human System Integration (HSI) Roadmap to 

complement the other roadmaps in the Enterprise Architecture, the development of a common air traffic workstation 

to accommodate the various NextGen technologies when providing services, and a series of integrated workstations 

that deliver the required services using the common workstation. The HSI Roadmap will explain the roles and 

responsibilities of the actors in the NAS (air traffic controllers, pilots, dispatchers, traffic managers, etc.), their 

interactions with NextGen technologies, linkage to required changes to staffing, personnel selection, training, and 

required research and development activities in the human factors area that are needed to realize the NextGen 

vision. 

Research will examine the roles of ANSP and facilities maintenance personnel to ensure safe operations at increased 

capacity levels and the way the roles would be best supported by allocation of functions between humans and 

automation. The success of new NextGen technologies hinge upon the actions of air traffic service providers using 

new decision support tools or automation to achieve the operational improvement. The effectiveness of each of 

these solutions is contingent upon the proper human engineering of the new capability. This human engineering is 

not just the visible interface, but the characteristics of the tool and how the tool is used in the context of the work. 

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 

The NextGen - New ATM Requirements Program addresses FAA's goal for capacity and the DOT reduced Congestion 

Strategic Objective to "Advance accessible, efficient, inter-modal transportation for the movement of people and 

goods." Furthermore, this program fits the NextGen goal of expanding capacity by satisfying future growth in 

demand (up to three times capacity) as well as reducing transit time. For FY 2012, new ATM requirements will focus 

on four areas: TCAS, Airborne SWIM, Weather/surveillance radar, and Trajectory modeling. 

TCAS had extraordinary success in reducing the risk of mid-air collisions. Now mandated on all large transport 

aircraft and installed on many smaller turbine powered aircraft, TCAS has been in operation for over a decade and 

has been credited with preventing several catastrophic accidents. TCAS is a critical decision-support system in the 

sense that it has been widely deployed (on more than 25,000 aircraft worldwide) and is continuously exposed to a 

high-tempo, complex air traffic system. 

TCAS is the product of carefully balancing and integrating sensor characteristics, tracker and aircraft dynamics, 

maneuver coordination, operational constraints, and human factors in time-critical situations. Missed or late threat 

detections can lead to collisions, and false alarms may cause pilots to lose trust in the system and ignore alerts, 

underscoring the need for a robust system design. NextGen airspace will have increased capacity due to decreased 

aircraft separation made possible by new technologies and new procedures, such as the increased use of RNAV/RNP 

routes and Closely Space Parallel Runways operations. As aircraft separation is decreased, it is critical that TCAS be 

made even more accurate and dependable to ensure continued pilot trust in the system. 

Airborne System-Wide Information Management (SWIM) - The current development of SWIM includes a gap in 

servicing airborne clients. European concepts of SWIM, built by SESAR, cover this. Thus there is a need for 

concepts that would harmonize the FAA and SESAR SWIM systems. There is a need to determine if airborne SWIM is 

a requirement or an optional feature. Airborne SWIM will identify performance and bandwidth requirements for 

airborne internet capability to support the exchange of ATM information such as weather, aeronautical information 

and flight information to support Traffic Flow Management. The program will develop standards and publish 

standards that will ensure harmonization with SESAR SWIM systems. 

Trajectory-based operations require multi-domain interaction with aircraft trajectories in the far-term future. As a 

step towards that end, trajectory operations (TOps) have been defined to focus on the NextGen midterm. The TOps 

activity defined an initial cross-stakeholder, common view of the utilization of Communications, Navigation and 

Surveillance (CNS) components related to TOps in the midterm. The Trajectory modeling project will develop NASwide trajectory-related requirements for Mid-Term automation systems. System level requirements will then be 

developed and allocated across the automation systems. The project focuses on defining what trajectory information 

Facilities and Equipment A-105 
 

2011 NARP Appendix A 

and exchange methods are required, which trajectory prediction types are required and what is required to achieve 

trajectory interoperability across multiple domains. 

The FAA plans to deploy Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) critical services (ATC separation 

services) in the New York terminal areas and on the surface at LaGuardia, Kennedy, and Newark airports in FY 2011. 

To support operational validation, this activity will support accelerating the equipage of New York-based JetBlue 

Airways to validate the Best Equipped/Best Served concept in the New York metro area and along the East Coast. 

JetBlue will equip aircraft with DO-260B-compliant ACSS ADS-B “In” & ADS-B “Out” avionics, certify the system, and 

demonstrate the operational benefits in revenue service. 

NextGen - Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling 

The NextGen - Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling Program addresses the development and 

validation of future end-to-end (flight planning through arrival) operational concepts with special emphasis on 

researching changes in roles and responsibilities between the FAA and airspace users (e.g., pilots and airlines), as 

well as the role of the human versus systems, that will increase capacity and improve efficiency and throughput. It 

will identify procedures that can decrease workload and increase reliance on automation for routine tasking to 

increase efficiency of the NAS. 

Furthermore, this program works toward developing operational methods that will meet the NextGen goal of 

expanding capacity by satisfying future growth in demand as well as reducing transit time (reduce gate-to-gate 

transit times by 30 percent and increasing on-time arrival rate to 95 percent). The research will provide an end-toend NAS Operational Concept and a complete set of scenarios that describe operational changes for NextGen solution 

sets including: Trajectory Based Operations (TBO); High Density Arrivals/Departures and Airports; Flexible Terminal 

and Airports; Collaborative Air Traffic Management; and Networked Facilities. These products will be developed first 

for the Midterm (2018) and subsequently for the NAS in 2025. 

NextGen - Environment and Energy – Environmental Management System and Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction 

Robust aviation growth could cause commensurate increases in aircraft noise, fuel burn, and emissions. 

Environmental impacts could restrict capacity growth and prevent full realization of NextGen. NextGen environmental 

goals are to reduce the system wide aviation environmental impacts in absolute terms notwithstanding the growth of 

aviation. The solution is to reduce the increased environmental impacts of aviation through new operational 

procedures, technologies, alternative fuels, policies, environmental standards and market based options to allow the 

desired increase in capacity. The environmental and energy development efforts under this program will lead to 

assessment of solutions to reduce emissions, fuel burn, and noise towards achieving NextGen environmental goals. 

The effort specifically focuses on explorations, simple demonstrations as well as methods to integrate these 

environmental impact mitigation and energy efficiency options with the NextGen infrastructure in a cost-beneficial 

and verifiable manner. 

There are two environmental projects that support this program: Environmental Management System (EMS) and 

Environment and Energy. 

The EMS will manage, mitigate and verify progress towards achieving the environmental goals in an iterative manner 

based on planning, implementing, measuring the effects of, and adjusting solutions that are based on well developed 

and demonstrated environmental impacts metrics. The EMS approach will allow optimization of advance options for 

noise, fuel burn, and emissions reduction to enable the air traffic system to handle growth in demand. 

Environment and Energy - Advanced Noise and Emission Reductions: This program will employ proven capabilities as 

well as NAS-wide implementation of mitigation solutions through advanced aircraft (both engine and airframe) 

technologies, alternative aviation fuels and improved environmental and energy efficient operational procedures. 

These are the keys to reduce significant environmental impacts while improving the energy efficiency of the system. 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization 

This program focuses on satisfying the capacity demands of future aviation growth. The last full review of wake 

separation standards used by air traffic control occurred nearly 20 years ago in the early 1990s. Since then, air 

carrier operations and fleet mix have changed dramatically, airport runway complexes have changed and new aircraft 

Facilities and Equipment A-106 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

designs (A-380, very light jets, unmanned aircraft systems) have been introduced into the NAS. The 20 year old 

wake separation standards still provide safe separation of aircraft from each other's wakes but it no longer provides 

the most capacity efficient spacing and sequencing of aircraft in approach and en-route operations. This loss of 

efficient spacing is adding to the gap between demand and the capacity the NAS can provide. 

This program is part of a joint EUROCONTROL and FAA program that has reviewed the current required wake 

mitigation aircraft separations used in both the USA's and Europe’s air traffic control processes and has determined 

the current standards can be safely modified to increase the operational capacity of airports and airspace that will 

have heavy operational demand in the NextGen era. Recently, work was done to accommodate the A380 class of 

aircraft and work continues to address introduction of other large aircraft into the NAS. This program builds on that 

joint work and is accomplishing a more general review to include regional jets, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, micro jets, 

etc. 

The next phase of the Wake Re-Categorization program is now underway. By 2014, this program will develop sets of 

tailored leader aircraft and follower aircraft wake separation standards whose application would depend on flight 

conditions and aircraft performance; resulting in being able to get more aircraft into and out of airports and in the 

same volume of airspace. 

NextGen - Operational Assessments 

The NextGen - Operational Assessment project focuses on three areas: Systems Analysis, Environmental Analysis, 

and Safety Assessments. 

In the Systems Analysis area, an initial concept of use has been developed and the stakeholder RTCA Trajectory 

Operations sub-work group has been formed under the RTCA ATMAC (Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee) 

Requirement and Planning Work Group. This group is to deliver a Concept of Use for Trajectory-Based Operations by 

April 2010. This Concept of Use will form the starting point from which ATM requirements for trajectory modeling 

will be derived. 

The Environmental Analysis program enables NextGen by providing comprehensive NextGen local to NAS-wide 

environmental assessment of the aviation system, analyzing the benefits of environmental impacts mitigation options 

and providing the guidance on environmentally effective and optimally cost-beneficial solutions to reduce the 

environmental constraints that might otherwise hinder capacity increases. 

NextGen environmental analyses require that external forecasts of operations, such as the FAA Terminal Area 

Forecast (TAF), be combined with fleet technology assumptions to generate future year fleet and operations 

sequences. The plan is to develop a fleet and operations sequence module that is leveraged for U.S. NextGen 

analysis and compatible with Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Regional and Aviation Portfolio 

Management Tool (APMT) Economics analysis requirements. This would include compatibility with the FAA TAF U.S. 

city-pair structure; and, once completed, would support the FAA Aviation Environmental Tools Suite and other 

aviation analysis tools. 

This Safety Assessments project will continue to conduct system safety assessments, environmental-specific 

assessments, system performance evaluations, and risk management activities. This research will include initial NASwide assessment of methods to mitigate NextGen environmental impact and developing cost-beneficial options to 

support decision making. This research will also continue to explore integration of advanced performance 

assessment capability with NAS models for other NextGen programs. 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 

This program provides research leading to a comprehensive and proactive approach to aviation safety in conjunction 

with implementation of NextGen capacity and efficiency capabilities. The implementation of these capabilities will 

require changes in the process of safety management, the definition and implementation of risk management 

systems, and management of the overall transformation process to ensure that safety is not only maintained but 

improved. A core foundation of the system safety transformation is the introduction of system-wide access and 

sharing of aviation safety data and analysis tools within the aviation community, providing safety resources that are 

integrated with operations of aviation industry stakeholders. 

Facilities and Equipment A-107 
 

	 

	 

	 

2011 NARP	 Appendix A 

Capabilities to merge and analyze diverse sets of aviation information will be provided to expose and track precursors 

to incidents/accidents, allowing safety analysts within the FAA and aviation industry to understand emerging risks 

before they become potential safety issues. This research also enables safety assessments of proposed NextGen 

concepts, algorithms, and technologies and provides system knowledge to understand economic (including 

implementation) and operational and performance impacts (with respect to safety) of NextGen system alternatives. 

A demonstration will be conducted at a National Level. System Safety Assessment working prototype that will 

proactively identify emerging risks as NextGen capabilities are defined and implemented. 

NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) 

With demand in air transportation expected to grow significantly in the NextGen timeframe from today's traffic levels, 

there is a need for new, innovative ways to provide tower services. In response to this challenge, the Joint Planning 

and Development Office (JPDO) outlined a future air traffic system in which tower services are provided from remote 

locations without requiring the air traffic provider to have direct visual observation of the airport environment. This 

concept is referred to as a NextGen - Staffed NextGen Tower (SNT). SNT plans to address airport capacity problems 

by increasing the capacity of high-density hub airports in low visibility and night conditions and by improving services 

at the satellite airports. Through a companion vision for Automated NextGen Towers (ANT), it also plans to increase 

the capacity of the presently non-towered airports. 

SNT is planned for medium and high density airports as these airports are likely to have most aircraft equipped with 

avionics that will support SNT operations. ANT is planned for non-towered and low density airports. The 

development of both the SNT and ANT automated tower capability are planned as part of this project. The SNT and 

ANT concepts will require substantial concept engineering funding as advanced decision support tools will be needed 

for such events as conformance monitoring using aircraft movement tracking; advanced Data Communications to 

ensure safe operations at non-towered airports; and use of aircraft derived data (ADD) for identification of offnominal events. 

This project is in the concept engineering phases providing the necessary requirements, specifications and supporting 

documentation leading to an investment decision on an FAA system that should increase throughput and safety; 

provide for cost-effective expansion of services to a larger number of airports; and reduce tower construction costs. 

Requirements, operational procedures, and cost benefit information will be generated and documentation refined in 

preparation for the initial investment decision. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The solution involves four areas of research and development – safety, capacity, human factors, and environment. 

The safety research includes expanding information sharing and data analysis to identify and mitigate risks before 

they lead to accidents. The capacity research develops new air traffic management systems to support NextGen 

measures and NextGen concepts to determine if they can achieve the targets for 2025; and develops flexible airspace 

categories to increase throughput. The human factors research provides higher efficiency levels in air traffic control 

and identifies the new role for controllers as more responsibility shifts to the flight crew. The environmental research 

explores new procedures, and adapts new technologies and fuels into the National Airspace System (NAS) to reduce 

emissions, fuel burn, and noise; and includes demonstrations, methods to adapt the current infrastructure, and 

estimates of costs and benefits. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

Projects in the NextGen - Systems Development solution set encompass the entirety of the airspace and airports 

within the NAS. Since its beginning, NextGen - Systems Development has made great progress expediting the 

integration of new technologies within these domains. Below are examples of such successes and planned activities 

that have and will continue to improve the overall operations within the NAS. 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) 

	 Developed Human Error Database Structure and Results of Preliminary Human Hazard Analysis 

	 Integrated NextGen Workstation – Initial midterm NextGen En route, TRACON and Tower Workstation 

Requirements 

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 

Facilities and Equipment A-108 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2011 NARP	 Appendix A 

 Define Baseline Requirements for Future TCAS Systems 

 Define required level of TCAS Independence for Future Systems 

 Develop Final Airborne SWIM Concept of Use 

 Initial trajectory information and exchange requirements 

NextGen - Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling 

	 Refined NextGen Midterm Concept of Operations for the NAS to provide the overall midterm operational 

framework for NextGen 

NextGen - Environment and Energy – Environmental Management System and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction 

 Assess the NAS-wide benefits of CLEEN aircraft technologies and alternative fuels 

 Identify opportunities for environmental gains for Taxi/Ramp, Terminal and En route area operations 

 Demonstration of environmental control algorithms used in Taxi/Ramp, Terminal, and En route procedures 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization 

	 Provide recommendation package to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) on new wake 

separation standards (Phase 1) 

NextGen - Operational Assessments 

 Systems Analysis - Deliver NextGen Performance Assessment Annual Report 

 Develop a framework and models to support environmental assessment of the NAS-wide system 

 Develop a framework and models to support economic assessment of the NAS-wide system 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 

 Expand ASIAS to achieve statistically significant coverage of NAS operations 

NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) 

 Complete standards and alternatives development in support of an initial investment decision and OMB 

Exhibit 300 preparation 

 Maintain SNT equipment at DFW (field test site) 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

$109,000,000 is required to allow for continued execution of work within the NextGen - System Development solution 

set. The FY 2012 work will satisfy future growth in demand up to three times current levels, reduce domestic curbto-curb transit time by 30 percent and minimize the impact of weather and other disruptions to achieve 95 percent 

on time performance. NextGen - System Development provides the research and development required to resolve 

these potential problems. In addition, an increase in demand of three times the current levels could cause an 

equivalent increase in the number of accidents, aircraft noise and the volume of emissions, as well as the ATC 

workload. With a reduction in funding, achievement of these targets and solving these issues by 2025 will not occur. 

With reduction in the NextGen - System Development budget the NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers program will 

not be funded. As a result the key benefits contained in this program will be affected. These benefits include the 

following: 

	 Increased capacity at airports in low visibility and night conditions 

	 Reduced risk of runway incursions 

	 Enhanced safety of the FAA’s air traffic systems 

Facilities and Equipment A-109 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

The reduction of facility operational and construction costs will not be realized, as well as the ability to provide air 

traffic services to additional airports with low incremental costs. 

A further reduction in the NextGen - System Development program both NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers and 

Operations Concept Validation, Validation Modeling will not be fully funded. As a result key benefits contained in 

these programs will be affected. Along with the benefits lost from NextGen - Staffed NextGen Tower mentioned 

above, loss of the NextGen - Operations Concept Validation -NextGen – Validation Modeling program will result in the 

failure to measure the proposed NextGen system alternatives to determine whether or not the system meets the 

capacity targets of NextGen. The development of methods, metrics, and models to measure capacity improvements 

will not be completed. 

A reduction to NextGen will have to be developed carefully so that significant damage is not done to important 

milestones on which considerable importance is attached. Any reduction could have the effect of slowing down the 

progress of precursor programs or the effort of studying technical outcomes in the various solution sets. 

Facilities and Equipment A-110 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 – Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development 

Program Activity FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

Center for Advanced Aviation 

Systems Development $24,124,000 $22,785,000 -$1,366,000 

For FY 2012, $8,157,000 is requested for the research and development portion of the Center for Advanced Aviation 

Systems Development (CAASD) Program. The research and development portion of the CAASD program is 

approximately 28.3% of the entire program. The Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) 

Executive Board has approved the sixth edition of the FAA CAASD Long Range Plan (FYs 2011 – 2015). 

What Is This Program? 

CAASD is a FFRDC, operating under a Sponsoring Agreement with The MITRE Corporation. CAASD has unique 

knowledge, skills, and capabilities in aviation research, systems engineering, and analysis. CAASD also conducts a 

continuing program of research, development, system architecture, and high-level system engineering to meet FAA’s 

long-term NAS requirements. MITRE has developed a broad and deep understanding of the entire installed NAS, 

including NAS systems and their interdependencies. MITRE’s unique experience and expertise has been 

indispensable to the FAA in helping define and validate key concepts and evolutionary paths to achieve NextGen. Its 

contributions will continue to be critical to FAA in transforming the nation’s air transportation system in an effective 

and timely manner. A Product Based Work Plan (PBWP) is developed within the context of the FAA Flight Plan and 

the NextGen Implementation Plan, National Airspace System (NAS) Enterprise Architecture, National Aviation 

Research Plan (NARP), other agency long-range plans, and the FAA CAASD Long Range Plan (FY 2011- 2015). The 

CAASD PBWP and Long Range Plan, both approved by the FAA’s FFRDC Executive Board, define an outcome-based 

program of technically complex research, development, and system engineering assignments designed to support the 

goals and requirements of the NAS and the NextGen. CAASD activities include: 

NAS and NextGen Systems Integration and Evolution - Improve understanding of the future environment, including 

anticipated demand at airports and for airspace; anticipate the impact of planned improvements on future capacity; 

develop and integrate the NextGen enterprise architecture, operational concepts, capability action plans, and 

roadmaps to achieve an integrated evolution and align agencies’ enterprise architectures; analyze NAS-wide strategic 

issues and ensure their alignment with the evolving NextGen architecture. 

Communications Modernization - Conduct engineering analysis, communications network definition, and transition 

strategy studies for the FAA’s Voice Communications and System-Wide Information Management programs; conduct 

spectrum analysis focusing on strategic issues related to the availability of adequate spectrum resources to support 

aeronautical communications for NextGen operational concepts. 

Performance Based NAS - Conduct technical analyses to identify airports and runways that will benefit from Required 

Navigation Performance and Area Navigation procedures allowing for increases in capacity and efficiency of traffic 

flows; develop algorithms and prototype performance case analyses to validate Flight Standards procedure 

development tools; analyze and model aspects of navigation assets, including Wide Area Augmentation System, Local 

Area Augmentation System, divestiture of navigation aids, modernization of Global Positioning System, and 

interoperability with other Global Navigation Satellite Systems. 

En Route Evolution - Perform system engineering analyses for new technologies, capabilities and procedures for the 

en route system architecture and operational applications that enables NextGen technologies to increase capacity and 

improve operational safety; conduct analyses to identify and mitigate key technical and operational risks for specific 

NextGen mid-term capabilities; validate the operational feasibility and expected efficiency and productivity gains for 

Facilities and Equipment A-111 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

the set of NextGen mid-term capabilities; conduct benefit and cost analyses of key NextGen mid-term capabilities, 

and assess the prioritization of these capabilities. 

Terminal Operations and Evolution - Provide technical and operational insight into terminal systems and operations 

that can be used to safely permit reduced separation standards and/or significantly increase overall system capacity 

and productivity; provide technical and operational expertise to enhance the quality and efficiency of Terminal Radar 

Approach Control (TRACON) controller training, to allow for reduced training time and cost, improve trainee success 

rates, and improved workforce capabilities (e.g., reduced operational errors, improved productivity). 

Airspace Design and Analysis - Structure and execute technical analyses that will inform FAA and Industry decisions 

on airspace design and management; investigate, innovate, and develop modeling, simulation, and analysis 

capabilities facilitating airspace design; explore issues that influence strategic airspace management and design 

policy, such as sectorization concepts. Integrate technical analyses and design management efforts to provide a 

national, system-wide optimization of airspace. 

NAS System Operations - Assess system performance; develop improved analytic techniques and capabilities for 

system operations analysis; develop improved measurement techniques for assessing operations; develop and 

evaluate new metrics to measure overall NAS operational performance; improve the FAA’s responsiveness to 

customer issues and improve traffic management strategies; design, model, and assess new system operations 

procedures for new capabilities and airspace changes that will be implemented in the near future. 

Traffic Flow Management (TFM) Operational Evolution - Provide assessment of concept maturity, operational 

feasibility and implementation risks, including identification of cross-domain dependencies; collaborate with NAS 

users, other TFM researchers, and FAA contractors to create consensus on new capabilities, procedures, and 

priorities for improving TFM safety, efficiency, predictability, and productivity; translate concepts into requirements 

and assess the impact of enhancement capabilities on the TFM modernization system. 

Aviation Safety - Perform technical analyses of NAS-wide accident and runway incursion risk to identify airports or 

specific types of operations with the highest risk, and prioritize implementation of appropriate operational and 

technological mitigations, leading to a reduction in accidents and runway incursions; develop metrics and processes 

that allow FAA to proactively identify potential safety issues. 

Mission Oriented Investigation and Experimentation (MOIE) - Develop tools and techniques for studying system 

capacity, throughput, performance, system dynamics and adaptation to technology and policy driven change; 

strengthen the systems engineering skills and tools of the FFRDC. 

NAS-Wide Information System Security - Develop technical guidance to engineer security capabilities into the NAS; 

provide guidance on security threats, technology, standards, and practices to evolve Information System Security to 

adapt to changing threats and technology advances; create an IT infrastructure that will be resilient, flexible, and 

adaptable, and provide a defense-in-depth strategy. 

Broadcast and Surveillance Services – Conduct research for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) 

ground and cockpit-based solutions; prototype basic and advanced ADS-B applications that will result in improved 

efficiency and capacity in the NAS and improve airspace access and national security; assess the impact of ADS-B on 

safety, capacity, and efficiency benefits; develop domestic and international requirements and engineering standards 

for future ADS-B applications. 

Special Studies, Laboratory and Data Enhancements - Provide an integrated research environment that ensures 

individual research activities, prototypes, and capabilities can be brought together with the appropriate mixture of 

fidelity and flexibility to facilitate integrated investigations, compressed spiraling of operational concepts and 

procedure development. 

Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The FAA, along with its aviation partners, faces a broad range of technically complex challenges to achieve the 

NextGen. Although FAA employees are highly knowledgeable about those technologies, it would be impossible to 

employ all of the research, science and engineering expertise needed to develop and improve them. The FAA 

requires highly specialized simulation and computer modeling capabilities that it does not have in-house and are only 

available through an FFRDC that has unique knowledge, skills, and capabilities in aviation research, systems 

Facilities and Equipment A-112 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

engineering and analysis. In addition, CAASD’s charter permits access to sensitive and confidential agency 

information and data that is not normally available to support contractors. CAASD’s expertise is critical to FAA in 

transforming the nation’s air transportation system in an effective and timely manner. 

How Do You Know The Program Works? 

While the relationship between the FAA and CAASD can be described as a well-functioning partnership, the FFRDC 

entity must be managed and focused to perform the most important work of the agency, while conserving scarce 

resources. Periodic program assessments are employed and a structured management framework is in place to 

ensure that completed work yields effective and efficient results. A major review is conducted every five years to 

validate and justify the continued need for the FFRDC as well as to assess its efficiency and effectiveness. Two key 

components of the FAA’s ongoing CAASD management program are the FAA’s FFRDC Executive Board (FEB) and the 

Outcome Management Team (OMT). The FEB meets semi-annually to approve Outcomes, formulate and review 

goals and objectives of CAASD programs, and determine broad policy matters. The OMT, chaired by the Director, 

Systems Engineering and Safety, is comprised of senior managers responsible for ensuring the optimal allocation of 

resources, maximizing benefits from CAASD products and services, and ensuring that work performed by CAASD is 

consistent with the mission and criteria approved for the FFRDC. This senior management involvement illustrates the 

importance the FAA places on CAASD. The CAASD PBWP, the traditional foundation for CAASD planning, defines the 

research, systems engineering, analysis activities, and products targeted to achieve defined Outcomes. The FAA 

CAASD Long Range Plan maps out projected requirements for five years. CAASD is evaluated periodically using 

several structured mechanisms to ensure FFRDC efficiency and effectiveness. 

Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

CAASD support over the past decade has proven to be an invaluable strategic asset to the Department of 

Transportation, the FAA, and the U.S. Government as a whole. Establishing a stable source of funding, along with a 

long-term contractual relationship, is in the best interest of the public and the FAA because it permits economies that 

can only be supported with an established work force and provides continuity of services for an efficient and effective 

use of an experienced professional staff. High quality research, systems engineering, and analytical capabilities help 

FAA meet the technically complex challenges in the NAS. CAASD efforts support all Flight Plan goals across the 

board and the FFRDC continues to play a key role in defining NextGen. Its expertise is critical to FAA’s efforts to 

transform the nation’s air transportation system in an effective and timely manner. 

Facilities and Equipment A-113 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2011 NARP	 Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

Airport Cooperative Research Program 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 Airport Cooperative Research Program 

Program/Component 

FY 2010 

Actual 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010 – FY 

2012 

Airport Cooperative Research Program $15,000,000 $15,000,000 $0 

R&D Activities	 FY 2012 Estimated Cost 

Airport Cooperative Research - Capacity $5,000,000 

Airport Cooperative Research - Environment 5,000,000 

Airport Cooperative Research - Safety	 5,000,000 

Total $15,000,000 

For FY 2012, FAA requests $15 million, 2 positions and 1.5 full-time equivalents (FTE) which is 0.5 FTE over the FY 

2010 enacted level. Position increases and inflationary costs will be absorbed within the requested level. 

Funding in FY 2012 will support the following key outputs and outcomes: 

	 Environmental research is conducted with an objective to reduce community exposure to noise, reduce 

aviation emissions, and address water quality; and 

	 ACRP will select approximately 30 research topics to fund in FY 2012. Research reports will be for research 

studies that develop handbooks and best practices and other research that will provide information for 

airport owners, operators, and consultants in the areas of airport safety, airport management and financing, 

airport environmental and sustainability, airport planning. 

2. What Is The Program? 

This program supports DOT’s Safety goal (Reduction in transportation-related injuries and fatalities), Economic 

Competitiveness goal (Maximum economic returns on transportation policies and investments), and Environmental 

Sustainability goal (Reduced transportation related pollution and impact on ecosystems). 

ACRP was authorized by section 712 of Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The Secretary of 

Transportation signed a Memorandum of Agreement among DOT, FAA, and National Academy of Sciences to 

implement the ACRP. The Secretary also appointed the 13 members of the board of governors of the ACRP. The 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academy is administering the program. The ACRP board of 

governors has met every six months to review progress and select additional topics to fund. Over 100 submitted 

topics will be reviewed at the July 2010 meeting and the most promising topics selected for subsequent contract 

award. The Board of Governors selects the highest rated topics, subject to the funds available, to proceed to 

contract solicitation and award. The TRB appoints expert technical panels for each selected project. The technical 

panels convert the topics into requests for proposals to select contractors to perform the research. The panels also 

monitor each project to ensure it stays on track and meets project deliverables. 

ACRP conducts research studies that provide information to airports in the form of handbooks and best practices 

among other research on issues of interest to airports in the areas of safety, airport management, airport financing, 

airport sustainability, and airport planning. Recent ACRP reports published included such studies as: 

	 Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity in Coastal Mega-Regions; 

	 Enhancing Land Use Compatibility; and 

	 Airport Sustainability. 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-114 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

Anticipated FY 2012 accomplishments include: 

 ACRP awards contracts that are selected for funding; 

 ACRP Board of Governors will meet to select projects to fund; and 

 TRB appoint project technical panels to monitor previous research projects awarded. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The Airport Cooperative Research Program was established by Congress to conduct research on issues common to 

airports but that is not being done under other federal research programs and is not capable of being done by 

individual airports. The research is selected from topics submitted by airports and the aviation community. The 

Board of Governors consists of airport executives, airport associations, and federal agencies that ensure the projects 

selected will benefit airports and will not duplicate ongoing federal research. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

We know the program works by the interest of the airport community that submits over 100 topics for research each 

year. We also track the ACRP performance by the number of research studies underway and the number of reports 

published. We have also initiated a dissemination project to improve the methods used to make the published 

reports available to airports and consultants using electronic methods and web based availability, and to develop 

statistics on the number of requests for ACRP reports. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

The airport community and the airport associations have been strong supporters of ACRP. Congress approved 

increasing ACRP in FY 2009 by $5 million to a total of $15 million with the additional money being focused on airport 

environmental research. A reduction would mean that the program would fund one to three fewer research studies 

being funding in FY 2012. 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-115 
 

2011 NARP Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

Airport Technology Research Program 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 Airport Technology Research Program 

Program/Component 

FY 2010 

Actual 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010 – FY 

2012 

Airport Technology Research $22,472,000 $29,250,000 $6,778,000 

R&D Activities FY 2012 Estimated Cost 

Airport Technology Research - Capacity 

Airport Technology Research - Environment 

Airport Technology Research - Safety 

Total 

$12,025,000 

1,500,000 

15,725,000 

$29,250,000 

For FY 2012, the Associate Administrator for Airports requests $29.25 million, 25 positions and 24 FTE to fund the 

Airport Technology Research program. This is an increase of $6.8 million (30 percent) over the FY 2010 enacted 

level. The request will fund research in the areas of airport pavement, airport marking and lighting, airport rescue 

and firefighting, airport planning and design, wildlife hazard mitigation, runway surface technology, and visual 

guidance. The results of this research are used in updating Advisory Circulars, manuals, and technical specifications 

that airports rely on when expending Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funds. We will also initiate a 

program to conduct noise measurements across airport communities and concurrent public surveys and sleep 

disturbance studies to collect data that will be used to guide national aviation noise policy, determinations of 

community impacts from aircraft noise, federal land use compatibility guidelines around airports, and noise mitigation 

funding. 

The table below summarizes the research activities funded by this request. 

FY 2012 Airport Technology Research (ATR) Projects ($000) 

Research Project FY 2010 

Actual 

FY 2012 

Request 

Increase/ 

Decrease 

Advanced Airport Pavement Design 468 300 -168 

Pavement Design & Evaluation Methodology 936 1,000 64 

National Airport Dynamic Tests 2,850 3,000 150 

Heavy vehicle simulator 0 500 500 

Field Instrumentation & Testing 750 750 0 

Improved Paving Materials and Lab 1,550 2,000 450 

Non-Destructive Pavement Testing 1,537 1,500 -37 

Center of Excellence 312 250 -62 

Airport Planning 364 500 136 

Airport Design 728 700 -28 

Operation of New Large Aircraft (NLA) 800 700 -100 

Composite Materials Firefighting 453 500 47 

Airport Wildlife Hazards Abatement 2,500 2,550 50 

Airport visual guidance/runway incursions reduction 1,200 3,900 2700 

Airport Visual Guidance test bed 2,000 1,100 -900 

Aircraft Braking friction 1,607 3,250 1643 

Aircraft Noise Annoyance Data and Sleep Disturbance Around 

Airports 

0 1,500 1500 

Surface Operations 312 300 -12 

Rescue and Fire Fighting 624 700 76 

Subtotal—Contracts 18,991 25,000 6,009 

In-House (FTEs, ) 3,481 4,250 769 

TOTAL 22,472 29,250 6,778 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-116 
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix A 

A new initiative on the Aircraft Braking and Friction performance was started in FY 2010 under the general heading of 

Surface Operations. This area covers runway surface maintenance during summer and winter months, improvements 

in the very successful arresting systems research and development (R&D), and investigating the braking performance 

of aircraft on contaminated runways. In FY 2012 we are requesting $3.25 million in the area of Aircraft Braking and 

Friction performance. This is a collaborative effort with the U. S. Air Force and several private engineering firms to 

evaluate the performance of current generation Auto Brake Systems with Antiskid (ASBS) in decelerating large 

commercial airplanes on contaminated runways. The product of the evaluation will be a Math Simulation Model 

capable of predicting landing distances for decelerating and stopping large commercial airplanes on contaminated 

runways. 

This R&D effort was necessitated by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety recommendations, 

dated October 16, 2007, in response to a commercial airplane accident which occurred at Chicago Midway 

International Airport (MDW) on December 8, 2005. The accident involved a Southwest Airlines (SWA) Boeing 737­

7H4 airplane that ran off the runway during landing. The actual landing distance of the airplane significantly 

exceeded the estimated landing distances calculated by the SWA On-Board Performance Computer. This accident 

illustrates the current lack of accurate data for predicting landing performance of large airplanes with ASBS on 

runways covered with water, ice, or snow. 

The research effort will be conducted to develop a Math Modeling Simulation which accurately predicts the 

performance of current generation ASBS in decelerating large commercial airplanes on contaminated runways. Data 

and performance characteristics extracted from Dynamometer Testing and Simulator Testing and Evaluation will be 

used in the validation of the Math Modeling Simulation. The Math Modeling Simulation will identify performance 

parameters required to predict airplane landing distances. 

The objective of this initiative is to identify measurable airplane performance parameters which can be utilized to 

accurately predict airplane landing distances on contaminated runways. It is anticipated that these parameters 

would be measurable using existing airplane instrumentation or recorded by the Flight Data Recorder, and 

communicated through data transmission systems. These parameters could be translated into estimated landing 

distances and conveyed to pilots approaching the particular runway. 

An increase of $1.5 million is requested for a new initiative to investigate the effects of aircraft noise near 

representative U.S. airports. Community annoyance, impacts on schools and other noise sensitive institutions, and 

land uses due to aircraft noise have historically driven public opposition to airport development and changes in flight 

procedures near airports. Measuring subjective reactions through social surveys is accepted as the most direct 

method for determining how people in a community respond to noise. The seminal work by Schultz published in 

1978 developed a correlation (exposure-response relationship) between transportation noise exposure levels in terms 

of the day-night average noise level DNL and the percent of the population highly annoyed by that transportation 

noise from social surveys. Schultz’ work was re-affirmed by the federal Interagency Commission on Noise (FICON) in 

1992. Currently available data shows that people react more adversely to aircraft noise than to noise from other 

transportation modes (e.g., highway, rail). Research that is specific to the aircraft noise dose-response relationship 

has largely been done in European and Asian countries1 . The most recent U.S. data have been acquired in 

conjunction with lawsuits against airports, which may not be reflective of normal situations. It is, therefore, unlikely 

that an aircraft noise exposure-response relationship based on current available data is sufficiently representative of 

current U.S. conditions. In summary, the U.S. is depending upon increasingly outdated research as the basis of 

federal determinations of aircraft noise impacts on residential communities and noise sensitive institutions, federal 

land use compatibility guidelines, and federally-funded noise mitigation. 

Another prominent public concern has been sleep disturbance from nocturnal aircraft noise. Developing a 

relationship between the degree of sleep disturbance and the level of nocturnal noise exposure is a prerequisite for 

identifying and protecting communities from adverse noise effects. There is currently no widely accepted exposureresponse relationship for sleep disturbance. 

1 “An Updated Catalog of 628 Social Surveys of Residents' Reaction to Environmental Noise (1943-2008)”, 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/research/science_integrated_modeling/ 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-117 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2011 NARP	 Appendix A 

Establishing up-to-date exposure-response relationships for community annoyance and sleep disturbance in the U.S. 

requires an extensive data acquisition campaign covering a wide variety of airport types and geographic locations. 

The results of this work will be used to guide national aviation noise policy, determinations of community noise 

impacts, land use guidelines around airports, and mitigation funding. 

This new program is a follow on effort to related research conducted under the Airport Cooperative Research 

Program. Specifically, the new effort will conduct social surveys to measure subjective reactions to aircraft noise, 

collect sleep disturbance data, and characterize community noise exposure across a broad spectrum of airports 

having different service missions, and at locations covering a broad range of aircraft noise exposure and responses. 

This request includes $5 million in the area of visual guidance/visual guidance test bed work to investigate new 

lighting technologies on our visual guidance test bed. This multiyear initiative is to develop a state of the art visual 

guidance technology test bed that would enable visual guidance engineers an opportunity to design, install, test, 

monitor, and report on what it will take to create a visual guidance infrastructure that will take full advantage of state 

of the art technologies in Signs, Lighting and Markings to provide a more efficient infrastructure and the best visual 

cues to the airport user. 

The research conducted utilizing this test bed will provide FAA and our nation’s airports a better understanding of 

what is needed to properly design and operate various airport lighting systems that use new state of the art lighting 

devices. The results will be published and may also be adopted into an FAA AC. Conducted properly, this effort will 

bring FAA to the forefront of airport visual guidance technology and better align our airports so that they can support 

demands expected with the NextGen of aviation. 

The trend in aircraft industry is to produce aircraft with extended range capability, which results in high gross weight 

and tire pressures. The effects of high tire pressure are localized and concentrated in the surface layers (like HMA). 

This makes it imperative to study the effects of high tire pressures on the HMA surface and also develop HMA mix 

design procedures to produce mixes that can withstand these anticipated high tire pressures. 

The Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) will be used to perform the testing. It will be easier and economical to insulate 

and heat the test pavement under the HVS. Also, heating is applied from the top which is more representative of an 

in situ pavement. For testing pavement rehabilitation techniques, the structurally failed pavement under NAPTF test 

vehicle during a construction cycle can be rehabilitated with different techniques (reflective cracking resistant HMA 

mixes, concrete overlays, etc.) and then tested with HVS. This request includes $500,000 to continue such testing. 

Funding in FY 2012 will support the following key outputs and outcomes: 

	 Evaluate the performance of current generation Auto Brake Systems with Antiskid (ASBS) in decelerating 

large commercial airplanes on contaminated runways. The product of the evaluation will be a Math 

Simulation Model capable of predicting landing distances for decelerating and stopping large commercial 

airplanes on contaminated runways; 

	 Initiate a new initiative to investigate the effects of aircraft noise near representative U.S. airports. 

Community annoyance, impacts on schools and other noise sensitive institutions, and land uses due to 

aircraft noise have historically driven public opposition to airport development and changes in flight 

procedures near airports; 

 Conduct research to study the effects of high tire pressures on the pavement surface and also develop 

pavement mix design procedures to produce mixes that can withstand these anticipated high tire pressures; 

 New technology and techniques that can improve airport lighting and marking to help reduce surface 

accidents and runway incursions while improving capacity; 

 Improved aircraft rescue and fire fighting to address double decked aircraft carrying up to 800 passengers; 

and 

 Modify the habitats of increasing numbers of wildlife on or near airports. 

2. What Is The Program? 

Research will be conducted in the areas of airport pavement, airport marking and lighting, airport rescue and 

firefighting, airport planning and design, wildlife hazard mitigation, runway surface technology, and visual guidance. 

The results of this research are used to update ACs, manuals, and technical specifications that airports rely on when 

expending AIP funds. 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-118 
	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 

	 

2011 NARP	 Appendix A 

The Airport Technology Research Program supports DOT’s Safety goal (Reduction in transportation related injuries 

and fatalities), State of Good Repair (Increased proportion of transportation infrastructure assets in good condition) 

and Environmental Sustainability (Reduced transportation related pollution and impact on ecosystems). 

Safety
 

The safety research conducted to improve airport safety and marking, airport lighting, aircraft rescue and firefighting, 

and wildlife hazard mitigation, leads to updates in ACs and airport equipment specifications that directly improve 

airport design, procedures and emergency response equipment. 

Wildlife habitat management research results are published in a widely distributed manual. The FAA’s wildlife strike 

database and website provides information about wildlife habitat management and hazardous species control and 

serves as a repository of incidents and accidents involving wildlife strikes around the nation. The FAA continues to 

evaluate emerging and adapted technologies, to detect and deter birds and provide timely alerts to airport personnel 

regarding hazardous bird activity. Research will continue to develop improved FOD detection and management 

techniques. Ongoing research is also conducted in aircraft rescue and firefighting technology leading to more 

efficient fire fighting techniques for post crash fire protection of both the conventional aluminum constructed aircraft 

as well as newer advanced composite material construction. 

Past research also led to the development of EMAS that have been installed at more than 40 airports and have safely 

stopped overrunning aircraft in at least five separate instances. 

State of Good Repair 

The pavement research leads to updates in pavement design and constructions standards and improvements in 

pavement maintenance techniques that keep airport runways and taxiways in good or better condition. 

The research conducted is producing significant benefits in increased safety and potential cost savings. In support of 

capacity, the research results from the National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF) are providing technical data 

needed to validate new design standards and to assure compatibility between aircraft and airport runways 

worldwide. The cooperative research and development agreement and collaboration with international research 

organizations has led to the creation of many innovative, FAA-developed software programs that have changed the 

way airport pavements are designed and evaluated. Some examples include: 

	 FAARFIELD, or FAA Rigid and Flexible Iterative Elastic Layer Design, provides a simpler way for airport 

designers to determine the needed thickness of airport pavements. It also helps meet the standards for 

different airplanes, and models the thicknesses needed to handle the mix of aircraft traffic. It has the 

potential to save FAA and airport authorities tens of millions of dollars in airport pavement redesign efforts; 

	 ProFAA, a runway profile data analysis software program, is an innovative method that allows users to 

calculate roughness and simulate aircraft response to obtain a better understanding of overall pavement life 

and aircraft fatigue; 

	 COMFAA computes Aircraft Classification Numbers following the internationally mandated ICAO standard. A 

library of common aircraft types is provided and the user can also define arbitrary gear configurations. The 

program is valuable for computing the Pavement Classification Number for any mix of aircraft traffic, which 

an airport may currently or in the future experience; and 

	 BAKFAA is a program designed to be used with falling-weight deflectometer (FWD) equipment as part of a 

pavement evaluation program. BAKFAA reads the data from a variety of FWD devices and returns back 

calculated layer properties. The computational engine in BAKFAA is LEAF (Layered Elastic Analysis – FAA). 

LEAF is built into FAARFIELD, but can also be downloaded and run separately under BAKFAA. The FAA has 

made the Visual BasicTM source code for BAKFAA and LEAF available for programmers to run LEAF from their 

own applications. 

Environmental Sustainability
 

As stated above, an increase of $1.5 million is for a new initiative to investigate the effects of aircraft noise near 

representative U.S. airports. The results of this work will be used to guide national aviation noise policy, 

determinations of community noise impacts, land use guidelines around airports, and mitigation funding.
 

Anticipated 2012 accomplishments include: 

	 Complete evaluation to characterize FOD found on airports; 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-119 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

 Initiate collection of taxiway deviation data at a design group I airport; 

 Initiate research program on cargo aircraft interior fire suppression to include full-scale live fire testing; 

 Complete Advanced Composite Material Cutting study; 

 Conduct evaluation of proposed new lighting infrastructure utilizing Visual Guidance test bed; 

 Conduct demonstration of baseline Low Cost Surface Surveillance Framework project; 

 Continue analyzing full-scale data from the NAPTF; 

 Continue improvements upon and update the pavement design procedures (FAARFIELD) based on full scale 

data from NAPTF and airport instrumentation sites; 

 Continue conducting technical workshops of all FAA analysis tools (PROFAA, FAARFIELD, BAKFAA, LEDFAA 

and FAA PAVEAIR); 

 Continue development of increasing pavement design life from 20 to 40 years for large hub airports; 

 Conduct full-scale tests on reflective cracking of flexible pavement at the NAPTF; 

 Conduct testing of Alkali-Silica Reactive (ASR) concrete pavement under full-scale loading; 

 Complete development of a web-based application for FAA APVEAIR as a suite of FAA analysis tools 

(PROFAA, FAARFIELD, BAKFAA, LEDFAA); 

 Analyze data collected from pavement instrumentation at assorted Airports throughout the Unites States; 

and 

 Start full scale testing of “green” paving materials with Accelerated Pavement Test machine. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The Airport Technology Research Program is essential as it leads to improvements in airport safety and marking, 

airport design, airport lighting, aircraft rescue and firefighting, mitigation of wildlife hazards and improvements in 

pavement design and construction. The new technology developed from the research such as the EMAS and the 

penetrating firefighting nozzles have been implemented and are improving airport safety. EMAS technology alone 

has safely arrested 6 overrunning aircraft with no fatalities or injuries. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Airport Technology Research Program is reviewed every six months by FAA’s Research, Engineering and 

Development Committee’s (REDAC) Subcommittee on Airports. The Subcommittee has members from airports, 

aircraft manufacturers, Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) and airport associations. The Subcommittee is briefed on 

both ongoing research and planned research and offers recommendations to ensure the research program is 

responsive to the needs of FAA and the airport community. 

Each research project is sponsored by a Headquarters engineer that prepares the research requirements, reviews the 

research plan, and approves the completed deliverables. The success of the research is reflected in our ability to 

issue updated and new program guidance. For example, the results of the research into the capability of Foreign 

Object Debris (FOD) radar resulted in publication of a FOD radar specification that airports can use to competitively 

procure FOD radars with AIP grant funds. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

The funds are requested to continue the ongoing research and the new research activities programmed for FY 2012. 

A reduction in funding would mean decreased contract support and would defer some project activities. 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-120 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2011 NARP	 Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety 

1.	 What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2012 Commercial Space Transportation Safety 

Program/Component FY 2010 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Request 

Change 

FY 2010-FY 

2012 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety $145,000 $1,000,000 +$855,000 

In FY 2012, the FAA AST R&D program plans to be executing approximately 25-35 individual R&D tasks based on 

actual numbers of research tasks of past years. 

Of that number, approximately 15-20 will be executed under the auspices of the FAA AST Center of Excellence for 

Commercial Space Transportation (COE CST). The rest will be performed though other contracts or grants conducted 

by AST. 

No new major R&D initiatives are anticipated to be started in FY 2012. 

FY 2012 Key Outputs and Outcomes 

	 Execute research and development projects awarded to the Center of Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation, with additional small research tasks through other entities. 

2.	 What Is The Program? 

The FAA AST R&D program includes multiple tasks in each of the four major Commercial Space Transportation R&D 

areas, including (1) Space Traffic Management and Launch Operations, (2) Launch Vehicles, Operations, 

Technologies & Payloads, (3) Human Spaceflight, and (4) Space Transportation Industry Viability. These tasks are 

conducted through contract work or the newly established Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation 

(COE CST). 

Currently, there are nine COE CST member universities, including (in alphabetical order): Florida Institute of 

Technology (FIT or Florida Tech), Florida State University (FSU), New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 

(NMT or New Mexico Tech), New Mexico State University (NMSU), Stanford University (SU), University of Central 

Florida (UCF), University of Colorado at Boulder (CU), University of Florida (UF), and University of Texas Medical 

Branch at Galveston (UTMB). 

The major accomplishments of FY 2011 include (1) completion of R&D research project milestones, and (2) 

publication and presentation of FY 2010 R&D research project results at technical conferences. 

The DOT RD&T Strategic Goals, FAA Flight Plan Goals, and FAA R&D strategic goals are all supported by the AST 

R&D program are shown in the graphic below: 

Operations A-121 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The beneficiaries, public, and customers of the AST R&D program are primary comprised of the U.S. public and 

members (i.e., economic entities deriving direct and indirect benefits) of the U.S. commercial space transportation 

industry. 

The intended benefits of the AST R&D program to its beneficiaries, public, and customers are (1) better 

understanding of the physiological and other effects on the human spaceflight participants (including crew) as a 

result of activities associated with commercial space flight, (2) increased understanding and application of the 

analytical, technological and operational methods and tools to increase the safety of commercial space vehicles, (3) 

improvements in safety, efficiency and environmental impact of space traffic management operations and integration 

with air traffic systems, including those aspects as applied to launch and reentry sites, and (4) better awareness and 

understanding of the impact of commercial, policy, international, legal, and regulatory factors on the viability of the 

commercial space transportation industry. 

There are no viable alternatives to the AST R&D activities that exist within the sectors of government, industry, or 

academia. Independent civil and military government R&D interests that intersect with the commercial space 

transportation industry are sharply focused on achieving their agency-specific mission goals. In-house R&D activities 

of the established aerospace industry is strongly focused on technologies needed by their government customers, 

and the combined R&D of the emerging commercial space industry is not sufficiently comprehensive to be considered 

a viable alternative to the AST R&D program. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

All AST R&D funded activities undergo multiple review processes within the Office by Technical Monitors and finally 

members of the Senior Staff. Annual funding reviews have been implemented to ensure sufficient efficiency, 

effectiveness and progress on all research tasks performed. 

Operations A-122 
2011 NARP Appendix A 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) has no evaluative role for AST R&D 

activities. Instead, the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) evaluates the AST R&D 

portfolio on an annual basis. 

For the portion of AST R&D activities that are performed within the Center of Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation (COE CST), internal review processes of research task proposals are conducted by their Principal 

Investigator Advisory Council with input from their Industry Advisory Board. These additional layers of academic and 

industry review help ensure high quality and relevant research that aligns closely with industry needs. 

5. Why Do We Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Because of the long-term commitment made by the FAA to the COE CST, any reductions in funding will limit the 

amount of R&D that can be performed by AST outside the COE CST program. 

The requested funds are required to continue ongoing research projects in FY 2012: 

 Magneto-Elastic Sensing for Structural Health Monitoring 

 Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking for Space Debris Mitigation 

 Establish a Framework to Capture a Body of Knowledge for Commercial Spaceport Practices through 2012 

 High Temperature, Optical Sapphire Pressure Sensors for Hypersonic Vehicles 

 Definition and Design of a Medical and Physiological Database System for Commercial Spaceflight 

 Application of Johnson Space Center’s Human System Risk Management Approach to Commercial Suborbital 

and Short Duration Orbital Flights 

 Flight Crew Medical Standards and Passenger Acceptance Criteria 

 Wearable Biomedical Monitoring Equipment for Passengers on Suborbital and Orbital Spaceflights 

 Testing and Training of Personnel and Hardware in High-G Profiles Using the NASTAR Center Centrifuge 

Operations A-123 
This Page Is Intentionally Blank 

 


 


 


 


 


 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Appendix B: Partnership Activities 

Table of Contents 

Introduction................................................................................................................................. B-1 

1. Working with Government............................................................................................... B-1

1.1 Memoranda of Understanding ........................................................................................ B-1 

1.2 Memoranda of Agreement .............................................................................................. B-2 

1.3 Interagency Agreements ................................................................................................. B-3 

1.4 Interagency Committee ................................................................................................... B-6



1.5 International Agreements ................................................................................................ B-7



2. Working with Industry ..................................................................................................... B-8

2.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements.................................................... B-8 

2.2 Patents Issued Through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ................................... B-10 

2.3 Small Business Innovation Research............................................................................ B-11 

3. Working with Academia ................................................................................................ B-11

3.1 Joint University Program for Air Transportation Research.......................................... B-12 

3.2 Aviation Grants ............................................................................................................. B-12 

3.3 Air Transportation Centers of Excellence..................................................................... B-14 

3.3.1 COE for Commercial Space Transportation ......................................................... B-15 

3.3.2 COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment .............................. B-16 

3.3.3 Joint COE for Advanced Materials....................................................................... B-18 

3.3.4 COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction ......... B-20 

3.3.5 COE for General Aviation Research..................................................................... B-23 

3.3.6 COE for Airport Technology................................................................................ B-25 

List of Tables 

Table B.1 - Active MOUs in FY 2010........................................................................................ B-2 

Table B.2 - Active MOAs in FY 2010........................................................................................ B-2 

Table B.3 - Active Interagency Agreement in FY 2010 ............................................................. B-4 

Table B.4 - Active International Agreements in FY 2010 .......................................................... B-7 

Table B.5 - Active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements in FY 2010.............. B-8 

Table B.6 - Patents Issued for DOT/FAA................................................................................. B-11 

Table B.7 - FAA Research Grants Started in FY 2010............................................................. B-12 

Table B.8 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the COE for Commercial Space 

Transportation ................................................................................................................ B-15 

Table B.9 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the COE for Research in the Intermodal 

Transport Environment................................................................................................... B-16 

Table B.10 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the Joint COE in Advanced Materials............... B-18 

Table B.11 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the COE Partnership for Air Transportation 

Noise and Emissions Reduction ..................................................................................... B-21 

Table B.12 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the COE for General Aviation Research ........... B-24 

Table B.13 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the COE for Airport Technology ...................... B-25 

B-i 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Introduction 

The FAA enhances and expands its R&D capabilities through partnerships with other 

government, industry, and academic organizations. Such partnerships help the FAA leverage 

critical resources and capabilities to ensure that the agency can achieve its goals and objectives. 

By reaching out to other government agencies, industry and the academic community, the FAA 

gains access to both internal and external innovators, promoting the transfer of technology, 

personnel, information, intellectual property, facilities, methods, and expertise. These 

partnerships also foster the transfer of the FAA technologies to the private sector for other civil 

and commercial applications and expand the U.S. technology base. The Agency uses a variety of 

partnership mechanisms to achieve its goals, as described in the following sections, working with 

government, industry, and academic organizations. 

1. Working with Government 

Researchers at the FAA collaborate with their colleagues in government, both foreign and 

domestic, through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), Memoranda of Agreement (MOA), 

Interagency Agreements (IAs), and International Agreements. 

Both MOUs and MOAs support joint research activities between departments or agencies. An 

MOU is a high-level agreement describing a broad area of research that fosters cooperation 

between departments or agencies and develops a basis for establishing joint research activities. 

An MOA is an agreement describing a specific area of research under a broader MOU. An 

MOA may include IAs, written agreements between FAA and other agencies, in which FAA 

agrees to receive from, or exchange supplies or services with, the other agency. International 

Agreements establish an R&D relationship between FAA and foreign governments or quasigovernmental entities. 

1.1 Memoranda of Understanding 

An MOU is a written document that establishes policies or procedures of mutual concern. An 

MOU does not require either party to obligate funds and does not create a legally binding 

commitment. Title 49 U.S. Code 106 (f) (2) (A) and 106(l) and (m) authorizes FAA to establish 

MOUs. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the FAA’s closest R&D 

partner in the federal government. The two agencies cooperate on research through an MOU. 

The FAA also works closely with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), especially in the environmental area. Table B.1 provides details of the 

MOUs currently in place. 

B-1
 
 

 

 


 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Table B.1 - Active MOUs in FY 2010 

Active MOUs in FY 2010 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program (POC) 

Agreement Type 

and Title Partner Objective 

9/30/10 

Environment and 

Energy (Lourdes 

Maurice) 

MOU (58-0202-0­

173N) 

Develop the Feedstock 

Readiness Tool 

USDA 

This MOU sets a framework of 

cooperation with the Department of 

Agriculture, facilitating research to 

assess the dependability of feedstock 

supplies for the production of 

advanced biofuels for jet aircraft. 

6/9/08 

Joint Planning and 

Development 

Office 

MOU 

Next Generation Air 

Transportation System 

Joint Planning and 

Development Office 

DOD 

DOC 

DHS 

NASA 

This MOU constitutes a formal 

agreement to implement the 

congressionally mandated Next 

Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen) joint planning and 

development pursuant to the Vision 

100 – Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108­

176) 

5/15/06 

Research & 

Technology 

Development 

(Richard May) 

MOU (FNA/11) 

A Partnership to 

Achieve Goals in 

Aviation and Space 

Transportation 

NASA 

This MOU seeks partnering in the 

pursuit of complementary goals in 

aviation and space transportation, 

including safety, airspace system 

efficiency, environmental 

compatibility, international 

leadership, and others. 

1.2 Memoranda of Agreement 

An MOA is a written document that creates a legally binding commitment and may require the 

obligation of funds. Title 49 U.S. Code 106 (f) (2) (A) and 106(l) and (m) authorizes FAA to 

establish MOAs. NASA and DoD are the FAA’s closest R&D partners. Table B.2 provides 

details of the MOAs currently in place. 

Table B.2 - Active MOAs in FY 2010 

Active MOAs in FY 2010 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program (POC) 

Agreement Type 

and Title Partner Objective 

10/13/10 

Environment and 

Energy (Lourdes 

Maurice) 

MOA 

Research on the 

Potential Effects of 

Aircraft Noise and 

Emission on Public 

Health and Welfare 

DHHS/ 

CDC 

The MOA establishes a working 

relationship to facilitate collaborative 

research on the potential effects of 

aircraft noise and emissions on public 

health and welfare, leading to 

potential program recommendations 

to reduce adverse impacts. 

B-2
 
 

 


 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Active MOAs in FY 2010 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program (POC) 

Agreement Type 

and Title Partner Objective 

12/18/08 

Traffic 

Management 

Advisor (TMA) 

(Bill Boyer) 

MOA (SAA2-402282) 

Interconnecting 

Information Systems to 

the FAA Traffic 

Management Advisor 

(TMA) WJHTC Test 

Subsystem 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This MOA provides NASA access to 

certain National Airspace System 

(NAS) data from the FAA's TMA 

WJHTC Test Subsystem to facilitate 

the development of air traffic 

management decision support tools. 

It prescribes the security policies and 

procedures for interconnecting NASA 

information systems to the FAA's 

TMA WJHTC Test Subsystem. 

6/23/05 

Environment and 

Energy (Lourdes 

Maurice) 

MOA 

Impact of Aviation Air 

Emissions on Climate 

and Global Atmospheric 

Composition 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This MOA establishes programs and 

plans to determine aviation emissions 

that have the potential to impact 

global atmospheric composition, 

stratospheric ozone and climate. 

4/25/05 

Environment and 

Energy (Lourdes 

Maurice) 

MOA 

Collaboration on 

Research and 

Development to 

Measure and Mitigate 

the Environmental 

Impacts of Aircraft 

Noise and Aviation Air 

Emissions 

DoD 

This MOA supports conducting and 

coordinating research and 

development projects and exchanging 

research and development data, 

analyses and related information and 

material concerning the 

environmental impacts of aircraft 

noise and aviation emissions. 

6/15/99 Flight Safety (John 

Frye) 

MOA (FNA/08-99-01) 

Aviation Safety 

Reporting System 

(ASRS) 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This MOA describes the basic 

relationship between the FAA’s 

Aviation Safety Reporting Program 

and the NASA ASRS, and outlining 

the roles and responsibilities of each 

agency. 

1.3 Interagency Agreements 

An IA is a written agreement between the FAA and another Federal agency, as defined in 

Section 551(a) of Title 5 of the United States Code, where one agency agrees to receive from, or 

exchange supplies or services with, the other agency, and the agreement includes an obligation of 

funds. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Title 49 U.S. Code 106(1) and 106(m), and Title 31 

U.S. Code 1535 authorize FAA to establish IAs. Title 49 U.S. Code 40121(c) 2 further 

authorizes FAA to establish joint activity with DoD. Table B.3 provides details of the active 

interagency agreements in FY 2010. 

B-3
 
 

 

 

 

 


 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Table B.3 - Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2010 

Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2010 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program 

(POC) 

Agreement Number and 

Title Partner Objective 

1/27/10 

Human Factors 

Research & 

Engineering 

(Tom McCloy) 

IA 

DTFAWA-10-X-80005 

NextGen Human Factors 

Air Traffic Control 

Research 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This IA establishes roles and 

responsibilities for the FAA and 

NASA to collaborative develop 

NextGen. The FAA and NASA will 

research, study, analyze, model, test 

and implement the advanced services 

and capabilities that will be required 

for NextGen 

9/22/09 Flight Safety 

(John Frye) 

IA 

DTFAWA-09-X-80016 

Aviation Safety Reporting 

System (ASRS) 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

The ASRS is designed to provide 

information to the FAA and the 

aviation community to identify and 

eliminate unsafe conditions to 

prevent accidents. NASA receives, 

processes, and analyzes the raw 

information ensuring confidentiality 

of the reporter 

8/19/09 

Human Factors 

Research and 

Engineering 

(Paul Krois) 

IA 

DTFAWA-09-X-80020 

NextGen Human Factors 

Air Traffic Control 

Research 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

The IA establishes a partnership 

between FAA and NASA to research, 

study, analyze, model, test and 

implement the advanced services and 

capabilities required for NextGen to 

be successful 

6/12/09 

Human Factors 

(William 

Johnson) 

IA 

DTFAWA-09-A-80018 

Enhancement of 

Aeronautical Research and 

Technology Development 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This IA provides a framework under 

which NASA and the FAA can 

collaborate in aeronautics research 

and technology 

9/24/08 

ATS Concept 

Development 

and Validation 

(Michele 

Merkle) 

IA 

DTFAWA-08-X-80031 

Research and Technology 

Development 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This IA between the FAA’s Air 

Traffic Concept Development Group 

and NASA establishes roles and 

responsibilities for each organization 

in a collaborative effort to develop 

the Next Generation Air Traffic 

Control System (NextGen) 

9/5/08 

Human Factors 

Research and 

Engineering 

(Tom McCloy) 

IA 

DTFAWA-08-X-80023 

Human Factors Research 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This IA fosters collaboration between 

FAA HFRE and NASA Ames on 

human factors research that support 

the FAA’s goals of greater capacity 

and increased safety 

8/12/08 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Systems 

(Xiaogong Lee) 

IA 

DTFACT-08-X-00005 

P-STAR Radar Systems 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This IA establishes collaborative 

research activities on manned and 

unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), 

and in particular, on utilization of 

ground based radar systems to 

support the FAA UAS safety studies 

B-4
 

 

 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2010 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program 

(POC) 

Agreement Number and 

Title Partner Objective 

7/9/08 

Atmospheric 

Hazards (James 

T. Riley) 

IA 

DTFACT-08-X-00007 

Characterization of High 

Ice-Water Content 

Environments 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This IA fosters collaborative icing 

research with NASA Glenn Research 

Center with main, but not exclusive, 

focus on propulsion icing in high ice 

water content environments 

potentially hazardous to engines 

7/7/08 

Airworthiness 

Assurance 

(Felix Abali) 

IA 

DTFACT-08-X-00004 

Software Enhancement, 

Standardization and 

Material Database 

Generation for Damage 

Tolerance Analysis 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This IA establishes a cooperative 

procedure to enhance the NASA 

Crack Growth Program software and 

generate material database for 

damage tolerance analysis 

6/25/08 

Data 

Communication 

(Rafael Apaza) 

IA 

DTFAWA-08-X-80021 

Research for Aviation 

Communications/ 

Navigation/Surveillance/ 

Information Systems 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This IA fosters coordination and 

cooperation between FAA and 

NASA to leverage both agencies’ 

strengths to enable the most efficient 

CNSI research and technology 

development and implementation of 

the NextGen vision 

6/2/08 

Airworthiness 

Assurance 

(Traci 

Stadtmueller) 

IA 

DTFACT-08-X-00002 

Support substantiation of 

FAA Advisory Circular 

AC 29-2C Section MG-15 

Airworthiness Approval of 

HUMS 

DoD 

This IA obtains technical information 

related to HUMS AC compliance and 

validation – flight testing, operational 

HUMS development, and 

commercial HUMS validation 

9/21/07 

Wake 

Turbulence (Jeff 

Tittsworth) 

IA 

DTFAWA-07-X-80026 

Wake Turbulence and 

Associated Reduced 

Separation Research. 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This IA builds upon and expands the 

long-standing research relationship 

between the FAA and NASA in the 

areas of wake turbulence and 

required separation between aircraft 

to insure flight safety 

8/13/07 PDARS (Rich 

Nehl) 

IA 

DTFAWA-07-X-00033 

Performance Data Analysis 

and Reporting System 

(PDARS) 

Under MOU (FNA/11) 

NASA 

This IA enables continued 

collaboration in research and 

development efforts by NASA and 

the FAA on the utilization and 

enhancement of PDARS 

6/14/07 

Continued 

Airworthiness 

(Traci 

Stadtmueller) 

IA 

DTFACT-07-X-00008 

Rotorcraft Health Usage 

Monitoring System 

(HUMS) 

DoD 

This IA supports FAA research 

efforts in HUMS operational 

development, commercial HUMS 

validation, and HUMS Advisory 

Circular compliance validation and 

demonstration 

B-5
 
 

 

 

 


 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2010 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program 

(POC) 

Agreement Number and 

Title Partner Objective 

4/24/07 

Continued 

Airworthiness 

(David Galella) 

IA 

DTFACT-07-X-00005 

Continued Airworthiness 

Assurance – Flight Safety 

DoD 

This IA provides access to 

DOE/Sandia National Laboratory’s 

independent test and evaluation 

capabilities for nondestructive 

inspection systems; structural 

integrity maintenance & information 

systems; and aging non-structural 

systems 

1/10/07 

Atmospheric 

Hazards (James 

T. Riley) 

IA 

DTFACT-07-X-00002 

Ground Deicing/Anti-icing 

Program 

NSF 

This IA fosters technical participation 

with and financial support for 

National Center for Atmospheric 

Research (NCAR) on ground icing 

research 

8/03/06 

Continued 

Airworthiness 

(Xiaogong Lee) 

IA 

DTFACT-06-X-00008 

Rotorcraft Health Usage 

Monitoring System 

(HUMS) 

DoD 

This IA provides engineering support 

for the FAA rotorcraft structural 

integrity research program 

4/13/06 

Aircraft 

Catastrophic 

Failure 

Prevention 

Program 

(Donald 

Altobelli) 

IA 

DTFACT-06-X-00005 

Aircraft Catastrophic 

Failure Prevention – Flight 

Safety 

DoD 

This IA provide technical support in 

these areas: 1) Uncontained Engine 

Failure Research; 2) Dry Bay Fire 

Protection; 3) Fuel System Explosion 

– Protection; 4) Engine Malfunction 

plus Inappropriate Crew Response; 

and 5) Engine and Other Aircraft 

System Impending Failure 

Diagnostics Research 

10/6/05 

Continued 

Airworthiness 

(Xiaogong Lee) 

IA 

DTFACT-06-X-00001 

Damage Tolerance 

Methodologies in 

Rotorcraft Structures and 

Dynamic Components 

DoD 

This IA enhances collaboration 

between FAA and U.S. Army 

Research, Development, and 

Engineering Command to support 

FAA rulemaking and the 

implementation of damage tolerance 

methodology in the design and 

certification of rotorcraft and 

dynamic components 

6/27/05 

Human Factors 

(Charles C. 

Johnson) 

IA 

DTFACT-05-X-00011 

Flight Deck Illumination 

by Unauthorized Lasers 

DoD 

This IA evaluates laser eye protection 

during human-in-the-loop simulation 

studies; develops database models to 

enhances airmen training; and 

develops and evaluate procedures for 

flight crew awareness and recovery 

action 

1.4 Interagency Committees 

The FAA creates partnerships with other agencies through a variety of inter-agency committees 

and groups. For example, the FAA and other interested federal agencies established the Federal 

Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise to encourage debate and agreement over needs for 

future aviation-noise abatement, and new research efforts. The committee conducts annual 

B-6
 
 

 

 

 


 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

public forums in different geographic regions with the intent to align noise abatement research 

with local public concerns. 

1.5 International Agreements 

The FAA uses International Agreements with foreign governments or quasi-governmental 

entities to establish a technical assistance or R&D relationship between the FAA and the foreign 

entity. Title 49 U.S. Code 40113(e) authorizes FAA to establish International Agreements. 

Table B.4 presents the active international agreements in FY 2010. 

Table B.4 - Active International Agreements in FY 2010 

Active International Agreements in FY 2010 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program (POC) 

Agreement Title 

and Type Partner Objective 

12/09 

Aircraft Icing 

Program (Jame T. 

Riley) 

Aircraft and Propulsion 

System Icing Research 

Annex 1 to MOC 

NAT-I-8417 

National 

Resources 

Council of 

Canada 

This agreement forms cooperative 

research on simulation of ice crystal 

environments for the investigation of 

effects of such environments on 

engines. 

09/15/09 

System Safety 

Management 

(John Lapointe) 

Aviation System 

Safety 

MOC AIA/CA-52 

Civil 

Aviation 

Authority – 

The 

Netherlands 

This agreement establishes a method 

of cooperation in R&D programs in 

the area of aviation system safety 

including the risks to the public 

connected with civil aviation 

activities and operations in the 

vicinity of airports. 

9/24/04 

Wake Vortex 

Research (Paul 

Fontaine) 

Air Traffic 

Management Research 

MOC NAT-I-3454-1 

EURO 

CONTROL 

This agreement is to collaborate and 

share experiences on various ATM 

research topics that are of interest to 

both the United States and Europe. 

9/24/04 

Environmental 

Modeling for 

ATM and Safety 

Management 

Techniques 

(Lourdes 

Maurice) 

Harmonizing Safety 

and Environmental 

Factors 

Annex to MOC 

NAT-I-3454-5 

EURO 

CONTROL 

This agreement is to collaborate and 

share on methods for evaluating 

safety management, ATM security 

and ATM environmental factors. 

4/02/04 Fire Safety (Gus 

Sarkos) 

Aircraft Cabin and Fire 

Safety 

Appendix 7 to Annex 

III of MOC AIA/CA41 

Civil 

Aviation 

Authority – 

United 

Kingdom 

This agreement establishes a method 

of cooperation in performing 

research to improve passenger 

survivability during aircraft 

emergencies or accidents involving 

fire. 

B-7
 

 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Active International Agreements in FY 2010 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program (POC) 

Agreement Title 

and Type Partner Objective 

6/18/70 

Aircraft Icing 

(Warren 

Underwood) 

Deicing and Anti-Icing 

Research 

Memorandum of 

Cooperation (MOC) 

NAT-I-0831 (PA-17) 

Transport 

Canada 

The investigation of aerodynamic 

flow-off characteristics of anti-icing 

fluids contaminated with different 

types of frozen precipitation; the 

investigation of the effectiveness of 

proposed laboratory test procedures 

in evaluating aircraft anti-icing 

fluids’ failure modes in mixed icing 

conditions; and the investigation into 

other associated aircraft deicing 

problems and issues. 

2. Working with Industry 

The FAA complies with all applicable federal guidelines and legislation concerning the transfer 

of technology. The FAA’s goal is to transfer knowledge, facilities, equipment, or capabilities 

developed by its laboratories and R&D programs to the private sector. This helps expand the 

U.S. technology base and leverage federal R&D investments. 

2.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRDAs) allow the FAA and its partners to 

share facilities, equipment, services, intellectual property, and personnel resources with industry, 

academia, and state and local governments in collaborative R&D activities. CRDAs are a highly 

effective way to meet congressionally mandated technology transfer requirements. In FY 2010, 

the FAA issued amendments to nine existing CRDAs and established two new ones, bringing the 

total of active agreements to twenty-two. Table B.5 provides details on the active CRDAs in FY 

2010. 

Table B.5 - Active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements in FY 2010 

Active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

CRDA 

Number Industry Partner Subject 

08/10/10 

Airport and Aircraft 

Safety (Nelson 

Miller) 

2010-A0269 RFID TagSource LLC 

Camden, NJ 

Radio frequency identification 

technologies 

05/13/10 

Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research 

(Xiaogong Lee) 

2010-A0266 Insitu, Inc. 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Safety 

Research, Modeling, and 

Simulation 

07/15/09 

Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research 

(Kerin Olson) 

2009-A0258 

General Atomics 

Aeronautical Systems, 

Inc. San Diego, CA 

Modeling and simulation to assess 

the impact of Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems 

06/26/09 

Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research 

(Kerin Olson) 

2009-A0259 AAI Corporation, Hunt 

Valley, MD 

Modeling and simulation to assess 

the impact of Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems 

B-8
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

CRDA 

Number Industry Partner Subject 

06/19/09 

Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research 

(Kerin Olson) 

2009-A0260 

GE Aviation Systems 

LLC, Grand Rapids, 

MI 

Modeling and simulation to assess 

the impact of Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems 

01/27/09 

Laboratory Future 

Development (Joseph 

DiLuzio) 

2009-A0257 

Diakon Solutions, 

LLC Cape May Court 

House, NJ 

Aircraft Geometric Height 

Measurement Element 

01/6/09 Human Factors (Ben 

Willems) 

2008-A0252 

The Richard Stockton 

College of New Jersey, 

Pomona, NJ 

Index of cognitive activity and 

characteristics of the air traffic 

control task 

12/10/08 

Laboratory Future 

Development (Joseph 

DiLuzio) 

2008-A0251 

Diakon Solutions 

LLC, Cape May Court 

House, NJ 

For the advancement and 

commercialization of Sun 

Keyboard System Translator 

10/23/08 Weather (Thomas 

Ryan) 

2008-A0255 

Center for Network 

Centric Product 

Support Research 

LLC, East Hartford, 

CT 

Network centric airborne 

microserver 

08/5/08 

Technical Strategies 

and Integration (John 

Wiley) 

2008-A0249 

HiTec Systems Inc., 

Egg Harbor Township, 

NJ 

Aviation-related research in 

support of DoD rapid responsethird generation activities 

02/19/08 

Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research 

(James Sizemore) 

2008-A0245 

New Mexico State 

University, Las 

Cruces, NM 

Unmanned aircraft system research 

10/30/07 

Continued 

Airworthiness (John 

Bakuckas) 

2007-A0236 The Boeing Company, 

Huntington Beach, CA 

Composite repair of aircraft 

structures 

09/21/07 SERC/NextGen 

(Trung Nguyen) 

2007-A0235 

Network Centric 

Operations Industry 

Consortium Inc., 

Newport Beach, CA 

Provide guidance for NetCentric 

standards and protocols that may be 

incorporated by the NextGen 

Program. 

07/18/07 Surveillance (Michael 

McNeil) 

2007-A0233 CNS Aviation, Vienna, 

VA 

Flight testing for ADS-B separation 

standards 

02/20/07 

Human Factors & 

Aviation Medicine 

(Ben Willems) 

2006-A0219 Drexel University, 

Philadelphia, PA 

Air Traffic Controller Cognitive 

Modeling 

12/13/06 Surface Surveillance 

(Jeffery Livings) 

2006-A0223 RVision LLC, San 

Diego, CA Airport Surface Surveillance 

07/25/06 

Air Traffic Models 

and Evaluation Tools 

(Mike Paglione) 

2006-A0216 Rowan University, 

Glassboro, NJ 

Development and improvement of 

a graphical user interface for the 

display of recorded air traffic data 

01/17/06 

Air Traffic Models 

and Evaluation Tools 

(Graham Elliott) 

2005-A0213 Ordinate Corporation, 

Menlo Park, CA 

Machine-graded aviation English 

test for pilots for measuring levels 

of English language proficiency 

07/17/02 

Capacity and Air 

Traffic Management 

Technology (Albert 

Rehmann) 

2002-A0171 The Boeing Company, 

McLean, VA 

Develop modeling and simulation 

tools to assist in tech 

implementation of capacity 

enhancing capabilities for the 

National Airspace System 

B-9
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

CRDA 

Number Industry Partner Subject 

04/05/02 

Airport Technology 

Research – Safety 

(Jim Patterson) 

2001-A0164 The Boeing Company, 

Seattle, WA 

Utilization of statistical analysis for 

determining airplane contact risks 

of varying-span airplanes on 

taxiways of varying separation 

07/29/96 

Airport Technology 

Research – Capacity 

(Satish Agrawal) 

1996-A0097 The Boeing Company, 

Seattle, WA 

Development of the National 

Airport Pavement Test Machine 

09/07/94 

Airport Technology 

Research – Safety 

(Ryan King) 

1994-A0065 

Engineered Arresting 

Systems Corp., Logan 

Township, NJ 

Testing of a soft ground arresting 

system developed to safely stop 

aircraft that overrun the available 

length of runway 

2.2 Patents Issued Through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

The FAA encourages its inventors to patent new technologies through the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office. A patent is a grant of a property right and gives the owner the right to 

exclude anyone else from making, using, or selling the invention. Inventions patented by FAA 

inventors are available for commercial licensing with royalty payments shared with the inventor 

and the agency. Legislation allows inventors to receive up to $150,000 a year over their salary 

from royalty payments. The agency’s Technology Transfer Program Office promotes the 

agency’s patents for commercialization. Table B.6 lists the current U.S. patents issued to the 

U.S. DOT, FAA. 

Two licensing agreements are in effect for Patent No. 5,981,290 “Microscale Combustion 

Calorimeter” and Patent No. 6,464,391 “Heat Release Rate Calorimeter for Milligram Samples.” 

Under the patent provisions of government funding agreements, recipients must disclose each 

subject invention that they make to the federal agency and may elect to retain title to any 

patentable subject matter. If the recipient retains title, the government receives a broad license to 

use the invention for government purposes throughout the world. 

The FAA has identified approximately 60 active patents resulting from FAA funded agreements. 

These patented technologies are available for use by the government, and its contractors, on a 

cost-free basis when used for government purposes. For more information, see 

http://www.tc.faa.gov/technologytransfer/ttpatentsthru_grant.html. 

B-10
 
 


 
 
 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Table B.6 - Patents Issued for DOT/FAA 

Patents Issued for DOT/FAA 

Date 

of Patent 

Patent 

No. Title Description 

09/22/09 7,592,816 Localizer cable fault analyzer An analyzer that memorizes which antenna in a 

Localizer antenna array caused a fault 

11/02/04 6,812,834 Reference sample for generating 

smoky atmosphere 

A reference sample for testing fire detectors and 

a method for testing using the reference samples 

10/29/02 6,470,730 

Dry transfer method for the 

preparation of explosives test 

samples 

A method of preparing samples for testing 

explosives and drug detectors of the type that 

search for particles in air 

10/22/02 6,467,950 

Device and Method to Measure 

Mass Loss Rate of an 

Electrically Heated Sample 

A device and a method for measuring the mass 

loss rate of a sample of combustible material 

placed on a mass-sensitive platform 

10/15/02 6,464,391 Heat Release Rate Calorimeter 

for Milligram Samples 

A calorimeter that measures heat release rates of 

very small samples (on the order of 1 to 10 

milligrams) without the need to separately and 

simultaneously measure the mass loss rate of the 

sample and the heat of combustion of the fuel 

gases produced during the fuel generation 

process 

09/12/00 6,116,049 Adiabatic Expansion Nozzle 

A nozzle for producing a continuous gas/solid 

or gas/aerosol stream from a liquid having a 

high room temperature vapor pressure 

11/09/99 5,981,290 Microscale Combustion 

Calorimeter 

A calorimeter for measuring flammability 

parameters of materials using only milligram 

sample quantities 

2.3 Small Business Innovation Research 

These contracts encourage the private sector to invest in long-term research that helps the federal 

government meet its R&D objectives. Eligible small business contractors compete for Phase I 

contracts to conduct feasibility-related experimental or theoretical research. The government 

awards a Phase II contract based on the results of Phase I, which is the actual research phase. 

The government encourages contractors to pursue other funding sources for Phase III and to 

attract venture capitalists to commercialize the innovation. 

3. Working with Academia 

The FAA works with academia in three ways, focusing on building a cadre of engineers and 

scientists who will form the next generation of aeronautical experts throughout our nation in 

industry, academia, and government. The Joint University Program (JUP) is a partnership 

between FAA and three universities to develop a safer and more efficient air transportation 

system. The aviation research grants program is open to the nation’s colleges, universities, and 

other non-profit research institutions. In the Air Transportation Centers of Excellence (COEs) 

national universities compete to participate in a 10-year program to conduct research and 

develop aviation technologies in a specific area. Within that period of time, the center becomes a 

self-sufficient national aviation resource. 

B-11
 
 

 


 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

3.1 Joint University Program for Air Transportation Research 

The JUP is a research partnership between the FAA and three universities (Ohio University, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Princeton University). The program aids in the 

development of a safer and more efficient air transportation systems by identifying promising 

targets for development, conducting long-term research, and educating technological leaders. 

The FAA and NASA benefit directly from the results of the research and, less formally, from 

valuable feedback from university researchers regarding the goals and effectiveness of 

government programs. An additional benefit is the creation of a talented cadre of engineers and 

scientists who will form a core of advanced aeronautical expertise in industry, academia, and 

government. For more information, see http://u2.princeton.edu/~jup/. 

3.2 Aviation Grants 

Public Law 101-508 authorized the FAA to establish research grant programs that encompass a 

broad spectrum of aviation research activities. These programs encourage and support 

innovative and advanced research with potential benefit to the FAA mission. All colleges, 

universities and other non-profit research institutions qualify for research grants. This FAA 

program supports the long-term growth of the aviation industry by encouraging academic 

institutions to establish and nurture aviation research programs that increase the aviation talent 

base. Table B.7 lists the FAA research grants started in FY 2010. The FAA awarded $5,840,482 

in new research grants in FY 2010, and an additional $16,395,404 to grants started in prior fiscal 

years for a total of $22,235,886 in grant awards in FY 2010. 

Table B.7 - FAA Research Grants Started in FY 2010 

FAA Research Grants Started in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title Recipient Institution Award Amount 

09/01/10 

Airport Technology 

Research – Capacity 

(David Brill) 

2010-G-012 

Evaluate the Impact of 

Concrete Material 

Properties, Joint Type, and 

Support Condition on 

Airport Pavement Design 

Rowan University $76,983 

09/01/10 

NextGen - Air Ground 

Integration Human Factors 

(Dan Herschler) 

2010-G-021 

Synthetic Speech and Visual 

data Communication for 

Flight Deck Use 

Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University $96,497 

09/01/10 

NextGen - Self-Separation 

Human Factors (Dan 

Herschler) 

2010-G-022 

Guidance for the Location 

and Grouping of NextGen 

Displays on Future Flight 

Decks 

Regents of the 

University of Michigan $414,214 

08/23/10 WAAS Program (Wade 

Terrell) 

2010-G-023 

Process to Identify 

Candidate Instrument 

Approaches for Cancellation 

Flight Safety 

Foundation $50,000 

B-12
 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

FAA Research Grants Started in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title Recipient Institution Award Amount 

08/16/10 

Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (UAS) (Traci 

Stadtmueller) 

2010-G-019 

Development of Probability 

Models for UAS 

Performance 

Auburn University $300,000 

08/16/10 Continued Airworthiness 

(Traci Stadtmueller) 

2010-G-020 

Validation of FAA AC-29­

2C for Usage Credits 

Helicopter Association 

International $487,684 

08/09/10 

Airport Technology 

Research - Safety (Donald 

Gallagher) 

2010-G-013 

Lighting and Visual 

Guidance Research for 

Airport Applications 

Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute $488,836 

08/09/10 Continued Airworthiness 

(Dr. Felix Abali) 

2010-G- 014 

Data and Methodologies for 

Structural Life Evaluation of 

Small Airplanes 

Wichita State 

University $340,948 

08/09/10 Joint University Program 

(JUP) (Paul Tan) 

2010-G-015 

FAA Joint University 

Program for Air 

Transportation: Proposal for 

Activities for Princeton 

University 

The Trustees of 

Princeton University $150,000 

08/09/10 Continued Airworthiness 

(John Bakuckas) 

2010-G-016 

Analytical and Experimental 

Studies on Airworthiness 

and Sustainment of Aircraft 

Structures 

Drexel University $501,433 

08/09/10 GPS Civil Requirements 

(Thomas Nagle) 

2010-G-017 

Civil Monitoring of GNSS 

Performance 

The University of 

Texas at Austin $382,004 

08/09/10 Joint University Program 

(Paul Tan) 

2010-G-018 

Integrated Avionics 

Technology Development 

Ohio University $150,000 

07/27/10 

Airport Technology 

Research – Safety (Ryan 

King) 

2010-G-009 

Radiant heat (Geothermal) 

prototype for Airfield 

Pavements 

Southern Tier 

Economic Partnership, 

Inc. 

$374,000 

07/20/10 Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (UAS) (Tong Vu) 

2010-G-010 

Architecture for Cognitive 

Radio Operations in US 

The Regents of the 

University of Colorado $386,294 

07/20/10 

Airport Technology 

Research - Safety (Ryan 

King) 

2010-G-011 

Implementing Conductive 

Concrete with Renewable 

Energy to Develop Antiicing Airfield Runways 

University of Arkansas 

Board of Trustees $155,341 

07/09/10 

Air Traffic 

Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors 

(Carol Manning) 

2010-G-008 

Neuroimaging Study of 

Mental Fatigue 

The Board of Regents 

of the University of 

Oklahoma 

$429,506 

06/01/10 

Technical Operations 

Navigational Services 

(Jason Burns) 

2010-G-006 

Risk Analyses to Enhance 

GBAS Performance for 

NextGen Applications 

Tufts University $99,949 

B-13
 
 

 


 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

FAA Research Grants Started in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title Recipient Institution Award Amount 

05/26/10 Satellite-based Navigation 

(John Warburton) 

2010-G-007 

Wideband Satellite 

Anomaly Research 

Ohio University $75,000 

05/04/10 

Atmospheric 

Hazards/Aircraft Icing 

(James T. Riley) 

2010-G-004 

Effect of Ice Accretion on 

Full-scale, Swept-wing 

Aerodynamic Performance 

and Control Effects 

Board of Trustees of 

University of Illinois $154,687 

05/01/10 Fire Research and Safety 

(Robert Ochs) 

2010-G-003 

Development of Next 

Generation Burner 

Operation Settings for Fire 

Testing of Powerplant 

Components 

University of 

Cincinnati $199,999 

04/29/10 

NextGen - Air Ground 

Integration Human Factors 

NextGen - Self Separation 

Human Factors (Dan 

Herschler) 

2010-G-005 

Research Plan to Evaluate 

Single-pilot Synthetic and 

Enhanced Vision Systems 

Operations 

Board of Regents, 

University of Nevada at 

Reno 

$48,771 

03/25/10 Continued Airworthiness 

(David Galella) 

2010-G-002 

Fundamental Engineering 

Studies of Magnetic Particle 

Inspection and Impact on 

Standards and Industrial 

Practice 

Iowa State University $218,336 

02/04/10 Advanced Qualification 

Program (Elena S. Edens) 

2010-G-001 

Broadening the Scope of 

AQP Through Training 

Evaluation and 

Development 

University of Central 

Florida $260,000 

Total of awards originating in FY 2010: $5,840,482 

3.3 Air Transportation Centers of Excellence 

The FAA recognizes the need to develop the nation’s technology base and support the nation’s 

next generation of engineers and scientists. To accomplish this, the FAA establishes Centers of 

Excellence (COEs) through long-term cooperative agreements with the nation’s universities to 

conduct research and develop expertise in specific aviation-related technologies. The 

agreements encourage collaboration between government, academia, and industry to advance 

aviation technologies, and they require the universities to match FAA grants dollar for dollar 

through partnerships with industry affiliates and state and local governments. Centers may also 

receive funds through cost-share contracts. The cooperative agreement allows funding for the 

center over a period of 10 years after which the FAA intends for each partnership to meet COE 

requirements by becoming a self-sufficient national aviation resource. By being self-sufficient, 

the COE university members may continue to be utilized by the FAA but the agency will no 

longer commit to annual base funding. Because of its developed expertise, COE members will 

generate support from others and be able to compete for and conduct research activities for 

industry and other government entities. 

B-14
 
 


 
 
 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Since the inception of the COE program, the FAA has competitively established nine COEs. 

Three of the centers, including Computational Modeling of Aircraft Structures, Aviation 

Operational Research (NEXTOR), and Airworthiness Assurance, satisfied the 10-year 

requirements. Currently, the FAA sponsors six active centers with academic institutions 

throughout the United States. These include: 

 COE for Commercial Space Transportation 

 COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment 

 Joint COE for Advanced Materials 

 COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction 

 COE for General Aviation Research 

 COE for Airport Technology 

3.3.1 COE for Commercial Space Transportation 

On August 18, 2010, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced the selection of 

the new COE for Commercial Space Transportation. The R&D efforts of the COE will address 

four major areas: space launch traffic management and launch operations; launch vehicles, 

operations, technologies and payloads; human spaceflight; and industry viability, including 

commercial, policy, international, legal, and regulatory viability. New Mexico State University 

will serve as the administrative lead with eight university members, including Stanford 

University, the University of Florida, the Florida Institute of Technology, the New Mexico 

Institute of Mining and Technology, Florida State University, the University of Central Florida, 

University of Colorado, and the University of Texas: Medical Branch. The FAA entered into 

nine cooperative agreements with member universities to establish the COE for an initial period 

that will extend through 2015. The cooperative agreements that initiated the center in FY 2010 

included the awards listed in Table B.8. 

Table B.8 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the COE for Commercial Space Transportation 

COE for Commercial Space Transportation Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title Recipient Institution Award Amount 

9/20/10 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

(Ken Davidian) 

10-C-CST-NMT: 

FAA Air Transportation Center of 

Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation 

New Mexico Institute 

of Mining and 

Technology 

$150,000 

9/20/10 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

(Nick Demidovich) 

10-C-CST-UCF: 

FAA Air Transportation Center of 

Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation 

University of Central 

Florida $100,000 

9/15/10 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

(Kelvin Coleman) 

10-C-CST-UC: 

FAA Air Transportation Center of 

Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation 

Colorado University, 

Boulder $300,000 

B-15
 
 


 


 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

COE for Commercial Space Transportation Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title Recipient Institution Award Amount 

9/15/10 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

(Kelvin Coleman) 

10-C-CST-FIT: 

FAA Air Transportation Center of 

Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation 

Florida Institute of 

Technology $150,000 

9/15/10 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

(Nick Demidovich) 

10-C-CST-FSU: 

FAA Air Transportation Center of 

Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation 

Florida State 

University $100,000 

9/15/10 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

(René Rey) 

10-C-CST-NMSU: 

FAA Air Transportation Center of 

Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation 

New Mexico State 

University $400,000 

9/15/10 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

(Dan Murray) 

10-C-CST-SU: 

FAA Air Transportation Center of 

Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation 

Stanford University $400,000 

9/15/10 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

(Nick Demidovich) 

10-C-CST-UFL: 

FAA Air Transportation Center of 

Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation 

University of Florida $100,000 

9/15/10 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

(Doug Graham) 

10-C-CST-UTMB: 

FAA Air Transportation Center of 

Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation 

University of Texas 

Medical Branch, 

Galveston 

$300,000 

Total awarded in FY 2010: $2,000,000 

3.3.2 COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment 

In 2004, the Administrator selected the COE for Airliner Cabin Environment (ACER) with 

Harvard University and Purdue University as the technical leads and Auburn University as the 

administrative lead. Following the Phase I evaluation, the COE expanded scope from airlinercabin research activities to include the intermodal transport environment. In 2008, it was 

renamed the COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment (RITE). This COE 

conducts R&D on cabin air quality, chemical and biological threats, and related topics. The 

FAA expects this COE to become self-sufficient by 2014. In FY 2010, in addition to the grant 

awards provided in Table B.9, the FAA entered into seven final cooperative agreements with 

each of the COE leads and members in preparation for the COE becoming self-sufficient by 

2014. Member universities include Boise State University, Kansas State University, University 

of California at Berkeley, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. This 

center generated $2.8M in matching contributions in FY 2010. For additional information see: 

http://www.acer-coe.org/. 

Table B.9 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the COE for Research in the Intermodal 

Transport Environment 

COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment Awards in FY 2010
 

B-16
 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title Recipient Institution Award Amount 

3/15/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-UMDNJ-008: 

Exposure to Flame Retardants 

in Commercial Aircraft 

University of Medicine 

and Dentistry of New 

Jersey 

$81,067 

3/15/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-PU-006: 

Further Studies of Infectious 

Disease Transmission in 

Airliner Cabins 

Purdue University $180,856 

3/15/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-HU-005: 

Exposure to Flame Retardants 

in Commercial Aircraft 

Harvard University $231,584 

3/15/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-HU-006: 

Studies of Infectious Disease 

Transmission in Airliner 

Cabins 

Harvard University $193,271 

3/15/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-KSU-010: Further 

Studies of Infectious Disease 

Transmission in Airliner 

Cabins 

Kansas State University $106,806 

3/15/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-KSU-011: 

Application of Hazard 

Analysis & Critical Control 

Points (HACCP) Methods to 

Disease Transmission on 

Fomites in Aircraft 

Kansas State University $110,440 

3/15/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-KSU-012: 

Sensors and Prognostics to 

Mitigate Bleed Air 

Contamination Events 

Kansas State University $192,220 

3/15/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-KSU-013: 

Exposure to Flame Retardants 

in Commercial Aircraft 

Kansas State University $27,957 

1/25/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-UMDNJ-007: 

Development of Risk 

Paradigm for Pesticides and 

Ozone/Ozone By-Products 

University of Medicine 

and Dentistry of New 

Jersey 

$469,828 

1/25/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-AU-002: 

Hazard Analysis and Critical 

Control Point Methodology 

Applied to Disease 

Transmission 

Auburn University $294,665 

1/25/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-AU-003: 

Sensors and Prognostics to 

Mitigate Bleed Air 

Contamination Events 

Auburn University $351,240 

1/21/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-PU-005: 

Developing a Risk Paradigm 

for Pesticides and VOC’s from 

Ozone Reactions in Aircrafts 

Purdue University $173,534 

1/21/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-BSU-002: 

Sensors and Prognostics to 

Mitigate Bleed Air 

Contamination Events 

Boise State University $153,367 

B-17
 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title Recipient Institution Award Amount 

1/21/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-BSU-003: 

In-Flight Sensor System and 

Database Deployment 

Boise State University $70,327 

1/21/10 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-KSU-009: 

In-Flight Sensor System and 

Database Deployment 

Kansas State University $29,999 

11/30/09 Aeromedical Research 

(Jean Watson) 

07-C-RITE-UMDNJ-006: 

Ozone and its Volatile 

Reaction Byproducts and 

Domestic and International 

Flights 

University of Medicine 

and Dentistry of New 

Jersey 

$150,000 

Total awarded in FY 2010: $2,817,161 

3.3.3 Joint COE for Advanced Materials 

In 2003, the Administrator selected the Joint COE for Advanced Materials (JAMS) with the 

University of Washington and Wichita State University as the lead members. This COE 

conducts R&D on material standardization and shared databases, bonded joints, structural 

substantiation, damage tolerance and durability, maintenance practices, advanced material forms 

and processes, cabin safety, life management of materials, and nanotechnology for composite 

structures. The FAA expects this COE to become self-sufficient by FY 2013. In FY 2010, in 

addition to the grant awards provided in Table B.10, the FAA entered into twelve final 

cooperative agreements, including each of the COE leads and members, in preparation for the 

COE to become self-sufficient by 2013, which is 10 years after its formation. Member 

universities include: Edmonds Community College, Northwestern University, Oregon State 

University, Purdue University, University of California at Los Angeles, University of Delaware, 

Florida International University, University of Utah, Tuskegee University, and Washington State 

University. This center generated matching contributions in excess of $2.7M in FY 2010. For 

additional information, see http://www.jams-coe.org/. 

Table B.10 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the Joint COE in Advanced Materials 

Joint COE in Advanced Materials Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title 

Recipient 

Institution 

Award 

Amount 

8/13/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Allan Abramowitz) 

08-C-AM-UU-004: 

Durability of Adhesively Bonded 

Joints for Aircraft Structures 

University of 

Utah $110,401 

8/13/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Allan Abramowitz) 

08-C-AM-WISU-017: 

Certification by Analysis 

Wichita State 

University $185,000 

8/12/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Lynn Pham) 

08-C-AM-UW-013: 

Integrated Aeroservoelastic 

Uncertainty/Damage 

Tolerance/Reliability of 

Composite Aircraft 

University of 

Washington $60,000 

B-18
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Joint COE in Advanced Materials Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title 

Recipient 

Institution 

Award 

Amount 

8/12/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Lynn Pham) 

08-C-AM-UW-014: 

Reliability Based Damage 

Tolerant Structural Design 

Methodology 

University of 

Washington $60,000 

8/12/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(David Westlund) 

08-C-AM-UW-015: 

Improving Adhesive Bonding of 

Composite through Surface 

Characterization 

University of 

Washington $85,000 

8/6/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(David Westlund) 

08-C-AM-FIU-001: 

Effect of Surface Contamination 

on Composite Bond Integrity and 

Durability 

Florida 

International 

University 

$85,000 

8/6/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(David Westlund) 

07-C-AM-FIU-004: 

Effect of Surface Contamination 

on Composite Bond Integrity and 

Durability 

Florida 

International 

University 

$85,000 

8/6/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(David Westlund) 

08-C-AM-WISU-016: 

Liquid Resin Molded Materials 

Guidelines and 

Recommendations: Update 

Wichita State 

University $150,000 

8/4/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Lynn Pham) 

08-C-AM-UCLA-001: 

Impact Damage Formation on 

Composite Aircraft Structures 

University of 

California at Los 

Angeles 

$344,500 

8/2/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Allan Abramowitz) 

08-C-AM-UW-012: Compliance 

Methodology with FAA 

Requirements for 

Crashworthiness of CompositeIntensive Structures 

University of 

Washington $100,082 

8/2/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Curt Davies) 

08-C-AM-WISU-015: 

Development and Safety 

Management of Composite 

Certification Guidance 

Wichita State 

University $100,000 

7/21/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Lynn Pham) 

08-C-AM-WISU-014: 

Effect of CACRC Depot Repairs 

on Composite Airframe 

Structures 

Wichita State 

University $180,000 

7/21/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Lynn Pham) 

08-C-AM-OSU-002: 

Failure of Notched Laminates 

Under Out-of-plane Bending 

Oregon State 

University $77,666 

7/12/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Curt Davies) 

08-C-AM-UW-011: 

Administration of the FAA 

Center on Advanced Materials in 

Transport Aircraft Structures 

University of 

Washington $75,532 

7/12/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Curt Davies) 

08-C-AM-WISU-011: 

Development and Safety 

Management of Composite 

Certification Guidance 

Wichita State 

University $200,000 

7/12/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Curt Davies) 

08-C-AM-WISU-012: 

Administration of the Center of 

Excellence for Composites and 

Advanced Materials at Wichita 

State 

Wichita State 

University $75,000 

B-19
 
 

 


 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

Joint COE in Advanced Materials Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title 

Recipient 

Institution 

Award 

Amount 

7/12/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Curt Davies) 

08-C-AM-WISU-013: 

Damage Tolerance Testing and 

Analysis Protocols for Full-Scale 

Composite Airframe Structures 

under Repeated Loading 

Wichita State 

University $260,000 

6/23/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Curt Davies) 

08-C-AM-UW-010: 

Certification of Discontinuous 

Composite Material Forms for 

Aircraft Structures 

University of 

Washington $135,133 

6/23/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Curt Davies) 

08-C-AM-UU-003: 

Development and Evaluation of 

Fracture Mechanics Test 

Methods for Sandwich 

Composites 

University of 

Utah $61,381 

6/21/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Curt Davies) 

08-C-AM-WISU-010: 

Development and Safety 

Management of Composite 

Certification Guidance 

Wichita State 

University $42,000 

6/21/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(David Westlund) 

08-C-AM-UW-009: 

Inverse/Optimal Thermal Repair 

of Composites 

University of 

Washington $34,220 

1/13/10 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Curt Davies) 

08-C-AM-WISU-009: 

Production Control Effect on 

Composite Material Quality and 

Stability 

Wichita State 

University $125,000 

10/20/09 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Curt Davies) 

08-C-AM-UW-007: 

Improving Adhesive Bonding of 

Composites Through Surface 

Characterization 

University of 

Washington $34,000 

10/20/09 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety 

(Curt Davies) 

08-C-AM-UW-008: 

Certification of Discontinuous 

Composite Material Forms for 

Aircraft Structures 

University of 

Washington $65,000 

Total awarded in FY 2010: $2,729,915 

3.3.4 COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction 

In 2003, the Administrator selected the COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and 

Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) with Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the lead 

member. This COE is co-sponsored by NASA and Transport Canada and conducts R&D to 

identify, understand, measure, and mitigate the impacts of aircraft noise and aviation emissions. 

PARTNER seeks to reduce uncertainty in issues dealing with climate impact and the health and 

welfare effects of emissions to actionable levels. The FAA expects this COE to become selfsufficient by FY 2013. In FY 2010, in addition to the grant awards provided in Table B.11, the 

FAA entered into eight final cooperative agreements with the COE lead and each member in 

preparation for the COE to become self-sufficient by 2013, which is 10 years after its formation. 

Member universities include: Harvard University, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue 

University, Stanford University, Missouri University of Science and Technology (formerly 

University of Missouri - Rolla), University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, and Georgia Institute 

B-20
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

of Technology. Membership expanded this year to include Boston University, University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the University of Pennsylvania. This center generated 

matching contributions in excess of $7.2M in FY 2010. For additional information, see 

http://www.partner.aero/. 

Table B.11 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the COE Partnership for AiR Transportation 

Noise and Emissions Reduction 

COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title 

Recipient 

Institution 

Award 

Amount 

9/22/10 

Environmental Protection 

Agency (Laszlo 

Windoffer) 

09-C-NE-GIT-008: 

Assessment of CO2 Emission 

Metrics for Commercial Aircraft 

Certification and Fleet Performance 

Monitoring from a NAS Perspective 

Georgia Institute 

of Technology $200,000 

9/22/10 

NextGen -– Environment 

and Energy -– 

Environmental 

Management System and 

Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction 

(Laszlo Windoffer) 

09-C-NE-GIT-009: 

NextGen En Route Traffic 

Optimization to Reduce Fuel Burn 

and Emissions Part 2 

Georgia Institute 

of Technology $35,217 

9/22/10 U. S. Air Force (Warren 

Gillette) 

09-C-NE-MIT-004: 

Alternative Jet Fuels Air Mobility 

Command Study 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$300,000 

8/4/10 Environment and Energy 

(Christopher Sequeira) 

09-C-NE-HU-002: 

Evaluation of Particulate Matter 

Differential Toxicity 

Harvard 

University $54,794 

8/2/10 Environment and Energy 

(Daniel Jacob) 

09-C-NE-MIT-003: 

Environmental Cost-Benefit 

Analysis of Ultra Low Sulfur Jet 

Fuels 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$169,070 

6/21/10 Air Traffic Organization 

(Joseph Post) 

09-C-NE-PU-004: 

Studies of Continuous Descent 

Arrival 

Purdue 

University $67,707 

6/4/10 

NextGen -– Environment 

and Energy -– 

Environmental 

Management System and 

Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction 

(Warren Gillette) 

09-C-NE-MIT-002: 

Environmental Cost-Benefit 

Analysis of Alternative Jet Fuels 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$650,000 

6/2/10 

NextGen -– Environment 

and Energy -– 

Environmental 

Management System and 

Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction (Pat 

Moran) 

09-C-NE-GIT-007: 

Evaluation of MFAST for 

TARGETS 

Georgia Institute 

of Technology $50,000 

B-21
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title 

Recipient 

Institution 

Award 

Amount 

5/24/10 

NextGen -– Environment 

and Energy -– 

Environmental 

Management System and 

Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction 

(Laszlo Windoffer) 

09-C-NE-GIT-006: 

NextGen En Route Traffic 

Optimization to Reduce Fuel Burn 

and Emissions Part 2 

Georgia Institute 

of Technology $726,234 

5/21/10 

NextGen Environmental 

Research -– Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics (Carl Ma) 

09-C-NE-MST-003: 

SAE Non-Volatile PM Methodology 

Component Demonstration During 

the Alternate Aviation Fuels 

Emissions Experiment (AAFEX) IIBiofuels 

Missouri 

University of 

Science and 

Technology 

$650,000 

5/21/10 Environment and Energy 

(Hua He) 

09-C-NE-PSU-003: 

Evaluation of the Impact of WholeHouse Construction on Aircraft 

Noise Perception 

Pennsylvania 

State University $15,000 

5/21/10 Environment and Energy 

(Hua He) 

09-C-NE-GIT-005: 

Sound Transmission Indoors Study 

of Whole Houses 

Georgia Institute 

of Technology $50,000 

5/17/10 Environment and Energy 

(Lourdes Maurice) 

09-C-NE-MIT-001: 

Program Management for Aircraft 

Noise and Aviation Emissions 

Mitigation Center of Excellence 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$425,000 

5/14/10 

Environment and Energy 

and NextGen 

Environmental Research ­

– Aircraft Technologies, 

Fuels, and Metrics 

(Christopher Sequeira) 

09-C-NE-UNC-001: 

An Enhanced Characterization of 

Aviation Emissions Impacts on Air 

Quality at Subgrid Scales 

University of 

North Carolina – 

Chapel Hill 

$225,000 

5/14/10 Environment and Energy 

(Hua He) 

09-C-NE-GIT-004: 

Open Rotor Noise Impact to Airport 

Communities 

Georgia Institute 

of Technology $99,999 

5/5/10 Environment and Energy 

(Laurette Fisher) 

09-C-NE-PSU-002: 

Noise Quest 

Pennsylvania 

State University $50,000 

5/5/10 Environment and Energy 

(Hua He) 

09-C-NE-PU-003: 

Sound Structural Transmission 

Soundproofing Residential 

Buildings in Noise Impacted Areas 

Near Airports with Ventilated 

Windows 

Purdue 

University $85,000 

4/26/10 Environment and Energy 

(Carl Ma) 

09-C-NE-MST-002: 

Technical Issue Resolution of a SAE 

Aerospace Recommended Practice 

for Aircraft Non-Volatile PM by 

December 2011 

Missouri 

University of 

Science and 

Technology 

$520,000 

4/26/10 Environment and Energy 

(Laurette Fisher) 

09-C-NE-PU-002: 

Noise Exposure Response -– Sleep 

Disturbance 

Purdue 

University $160,000 

B-22
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title 

Recipient 

Institution 

Award 

Amount 

4/26/10 

NextGen -– Environment 

and Energy -– 

Environmental 

Management System and 

Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction 

(Laszio Windhoffer) 

09-C-NE-GIT-003: 

Assessment of CO2 Emission 

Metrics for Commercial Aircraft 

Certification and Fleet Performance 

Monitoring from a NAS Perspective 

Georgia Institute 

of Technology $175,000 

4/26/10 Environment and Energy 

(Laurette Fisher) 

09-C-NE-PSU-001: 

Sonic Boom Mitigation 

Pennsylvania 

State University $85,000 

4/14/10 Environment and Energy 

(Mehmet Marsan) 

09-C-NE-PU-001: 

Human Response – Annoyance 

Purdue 

University $145,000 

4/14/10 Environment and Energy 

(Christopher Sequeira) 

09-C-NE-HU-001: 

Health Impacts of Aviation-Related 

Air Pollutants 

Harvard 

University $115,000 

4/14/10 Environment and Energy 

(Rangsayi Halthore) 

09-C-NE-SU-001: 

Studying the Effects of Aircraft 

Exhaust on Global and Regional 

Climate 

Stanford 

University $250,000 

4/2/10 

NextGen – Environment 

and Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System and 

Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction 

(Rhett Jefferies) 

09-C-NE-GIT-002: 

EDS Assessment of CLEEN 

Technology 

Georgia Institute 

of Technology $450,000 

3/15/10 

Environment and Energy 

and NextGen 

Environmental Research ­

– Aircraft Technologies, 

Fuels, and Metrics 

(Rangsayi Halthore) 

10-C-NE-UI-001: 

Development and Evaluation of 

Climate Metrics for Aviation Based 

on Climate-Chemistry Modeling 

Analyses 

University of 

Illinois at 

Urbana ­

Champaign 

$224,834 

3/15/10 Environment and Energy 

(Joseph DiPardo) 

09-C-NE-GIT-001: 

EDS Development and Application 

Georgia Institute 

of Technology $1,000,000 

12/20/09 Environment and Energy 

(Carl Ma) 

09-C-NE-MST-001: 

NIST Traceable PM Calibration 

Source for Aircraft 

Missouri 

University of 

Science and 

Technology 

$150,000 

12/20/09 Environment and Energy 

(Carl Ma) 

07-C-NE-UMR-011: 

SAE E31 Methodology 

Development and Associated PM 

and HAP Emissions Characteristics 

for a High-Bypass Turbofan Engine 

Missouri 

University of 

Science and 

Technology 

$150,000 

Total awarded in FY 2010: $7,277,855 

3.3.5 COE for General Aviation Research 

Established in 2001, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University serves as the lead member for the 

COE for General Aviation Research (CGAR). This COE conducts safety-related R&D with 

application to non-commercial aviation in the following areas: NextGen ADS-B, weather in the 

cockpit, safety management systems, remote airport lighting systems, training standards, and 

B-23
 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

unmanned aircraft systems. The FAA expects the COE to become self-sufficient by 2011, which 

is 10 years after its formation. In FY 2010, the FAA issued a two-year extension to each of the 

four cooperative agreements with the COE lead and members to allow adequate transition time 

for orderly phase down and to enable the COE to become self-sufficient by 2013. Core 

university members include Wichita State University, University of North Dakota, and the 

University of Alaska - Fairbanks and Anchorage. Table B.12 provides the grants awarded to the 

COE in FY 2010. This center generated matching contributions in excess of $1M in FY 2010. 

For additional information, see http://www.cgar.org/. 

Table B.12 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the COE for General Aviation Research 

COE for General Aviation Research Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title 

Recipient 

Institution 

Award 

Amount 

8/18/10 

NextGen- Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit 

(Ian Johnson) 

07-C-GA-ERAU-029: 

Weather Technology in the 

Cockpit – Pilot Training 

Requirements 

Embry Riddle 

Aeronautical 

University 

$33,152 

7/28/10 Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(John Zvanya) 

07-C-GA-UAF-005: 

Development of a 3­

Dimensional Radar Based 

Airspace Monitoring and 

Surveillance Instrument 

University of 

Alaska – 

Fairbanks and 

Anchorage 

$226,204 

7/16/10 System Safety Management 

(Huasheng Li) 

07-C-GA-ERAU-028: 

A Database Management 

System for General Aviation 

Safety 

Embry Riddle 

Aeronautical 

University 

$91,407 

7/12/10 

Airport Technology 

Research – Safety (Donald 

Gallagher) 

07-C-GA-ERAU-027: 

Pilot Awareness of Current 

and LED Elevated Runway 

Guard Lighting 

Embry Riddle 

Aeronautical 

University 

$16,445 

7/7/10 COE Management (Peter 

Sparacino) 

01-C-ERAU-1O: 

Year Ten, Management & 

Administrative Support – 

General Aviation Center of 

Excellence 

Embry Riddle 

Aeronautical 

University 

$186,419 

6/23/10 System Safety Management 

(Michael Vu) 

07-C-GA-UND-013: 

Flight Data Monitoring – 

General Aviation Safety 

Information Analysis and 

Sharing Phase II 

University of 

North Dakota $245,077 

6/23/10 System Safety Management 

(Michael Vu) 

07-C-GA-ERAU-025: 

Flight Data Monitoring: 

General Aviation Safety 

Information Analysis & 

Sharing 

Embry Riddle 

Aeronautical 

University 

$99,341 

3/1/10 System Safety Management 

(Michael Vu) 

07-C-GA-ERAU-021: 

General Aviation System 

Safety Management Research 

Embry Riddle 

Aeronautical 

University 

$12,957 

12/16/09 

Flightdeck/Maintenance/ 

System Integration Human 

Factors (Dan Hersheler) 

07-C-GA-ERAU-019: 

Synthetic Speech and Visual 

Data Communications for 

Flight Deck Use 

Embry Riddle 

Aeronautical 

University 

$80,805 

B-24
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix B 

COE for General Aviation Research Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program 

(FAA POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title 

Recipient 

Institution 

Award 

Amount 

Total awarded in FY 2010: $991,807 

3.3.6 COE for Airport Technology 

In 1995, the Administrator selected the COE for Airport Pavement Research with the University 

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as the lead member and North Carolina A&T University as a 

participating member. This COE initially focused on pavement issues. In 2005, Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute joined the COE and the FAA expanded the scope to include R&D on 

wildlife hazard mitigation, lighting, and other airport safety topics, and changed its name to the 

Center of Excellence for Airport Technology (CEAT). In FY 2010, in addition to grant awards 

provided in Table B.13, the FAA issued an extension to the final cooperative agreements in 

preparation for the COE becoming self-sufficient by 2012. This center has generated matching 

contributions in excess of $1M during FY 2010. For further information, see 

http://www.ceat.uiuc.edu/. 

Table B.13 - Grants Awarded in FY 2010 to the COE for Airport Technology 

COE for Airport Technology Awards in FY 2010 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D Program (FAA 

POC) 

Grant Number 

and Title Recipient Institution Award Amount 

7/20/10 

Airport Technology 

Research – Safety (Ryan 

King) 

05-C-AT-UIUC-028: 

Deployment and 

Assessment of Avian 

Radar Systems at JFK, 

ORD, NASWI, and SEA 

University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign $841,671 

4/16/10 

Airport Technology 

Research – Capacity (David 

Brill) 

Graduate Student 

Support FY 2010 

University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign $254,800 

Total awarded in FY 2010: $1,096,471 

B-25
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Appendix C: Research, Engineering and Development 

Advisory Committee 

Table of Contents 

Introduction................................................................................................................................. C-1
 

1. REDAC Guidance for the FY 2012 R&D Portfolio......................................................... C-2 

General Observations............................................................................................................... C-2 

Subcommittee on Human Factors ............................................................................................ C-4 

Subcommittee on Airports ....................................................................................................... C-6 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy ............................................................................ C-7 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety............................................................................................. C-9
 

NAS Operations Subcommittee ............................................................................................. C-16 

FAA Updated Response to the Separation Standards Working Group Report ..................... C-21
 

2. REDAC Recommendations on the FY 2012 R&D Portfolio ......................................... C-23 

General Observations............................................................................................................. C-23 

Subcommittee on Airports ..................................................................................................... C-26 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety........................................................................................... C-29 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy .......................................................................... C-40 

Subcommittee on Human Factors .......................................................................................... C-43 

NAS Operations Subcommittee ............................................................................................. C-47 

C-i 
	 


 

2011 NARP	 Appendix C 

Introduction 

The FAA values the ongoing involvement of the Research, Engineering and Development 

Advisory Committee (REDAC) in reviewing its current and planned R&D programs and has 

established a formal process for the agency to reply to Committee recommendations. 

The REDAC meets twice a year, in the fall and in the spring to review and provide advice on the 

R&D portfolio. In the fall of 2009, the committee provided guidance for planning the fiscal year 

(FY) 2012 R&D portfolio. During the spring of 2010, the committee reviewed and provided 

recommendations on the proposed FY 2012 R&D portfolio investments. 

There are five standing subcommittees that support the REDAC by conducting detailed program 

reviews in the summer and winter for the following research areas: Aircraft Safety; NAS 

Operations; Environment and Energy; Airports; and Human Factors. The REDAC reviews the 

reports from these subcommittees and approves their detailed guidance and recommendations for 

inclusion in the REDAC reports to the Administrator. 

This appendix summarizes the REDAC recommendations made during FY 2010, including FAA 

responses to the following reports: 

1. REDAC Guidance for the FY 2012 R&D Portfolio, October 19, 2009 

[Note that this report includes a status update on the Report of the Separation 

Standards Working Group dated September 20, 2006, a report from an ad hoc 

subcommittee of the REDAC that FAA responded to on May 14, 2007, originally 

appearing in the 2008 NARP.] 

2. REDAC Recommendations on the FY 2012 R&D Portfolio, May 10, 2010 

In FY 2011, FAA expects to receive the Committee’s recommendations on FAA’s planned 

research and development investments for FY 2013, including detailed recommendations from 

the standing subcommittees. 

C-1
 
 

 


 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

1. REDAC Guidance for the FY 2012 R&D Portfolio, October, 19, 2009 

The Committee Chairman Dr. John Hansman submitted the REDAC’s guidance for planning the 

FY 2012 R&D portfolio to the Administrator on October 19, 2009. The FAA provided 

responses to the recommendations on January 29, 2010. 

General Observations 

Excessive Safety Standards for New Systems - The safety standards and target levels of safety 

being applied to new systems, technologies, or demonstrations appear to be overly conservative. 

While it is important to maintain and improve the high level of safety in the system, excessive 

safety requirements put NextGen at risk and can actually degrade safety through increased 

complexity, cost, delay, and uncertainty in gaining operational approval. The responsibility for 

safety assessment is distributed throughout the agency and there does not appear to be a clear 

system level process for managing risk and arbitrating safety requirements for new systems or 

new procedures such as reduced separation standards. The REDAC recommends an independent 

review of the safety standards and processes being applied to new systems and recommendations 

for a balanced approach to safety. 

FAA Response: The Federal Aviation Administration appreciates the concerns the Committee 

expressed and agrees with the need for the effective management of safety processes. The FAA 

operates under a Safety Management System (SMS) that requires an assessment of all changes 

before they become operational. The Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Peggy 

Gilligan, and Chief Operating Officer, Hank Krakowski, chair an SMS implementation Steering 

Committee, which oversees the SMS process and its proper application. Recognizing the 

importance of safety assessments for implementation of NextGen, the FAA has also established a 

cross-agency team, lead by an Aviation Safety (AVS) representative detailed to the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Integration and Implementation (I&I) office. 

The cross-agency team is responsible for coordinating across all lines of business and performing 

organizations to ensure consistency in approach and the timely integration and execution of 

safety assessments. In addition, the FAA has initiated an internal review to apply lean processes 

to the development, implementation, and use of new instrument flight procedures, associated 

aircraft equipment, and operational approvals. This review will include the safety management 

aspects of this specific implementation. Thus, the FAA does not believe an independent review 

of safety standards and processes is necessary at this time. 

Growing Importance of Environmental Issues - Environmental issues, particularly those 

relating to greenhouse gas emissions, are emerging as key constraints on the air transportation 

system. The REDAC urges that environmental issues be given the same consideration as 

capacity issues in research and strategic planning as they are just as significant a risk to the 

future viability of the air transportation system. 

FAA Response: We agree with this recommendation that environmental issues be given high 

level attention. Environmental considerations are becoming integral to the FAA’s aviation 

capacity growth strategy. We have in fact adopted an FAA-wide Environmental Management 

System (EMS) approach to effectively manage aviation environmental goals. We are working 

C-2
 
 


 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

aggressively and implementing key activities (such as developing advanced aircraft technologies 

and fuels, advancing efficient operations, developing new modeling capabilities, etc.) that will 

help to inform, develop, and implement effective environmental impacts mitigation strategies 

and ensure the future viability of our air transportation system. 

NextGen Research Requirements - The REDAC was encouraged to see the beginning of a well 

defined process for generating NextGen research requirements from the Enterprise Architecture. 

The REDAC is concerned that the architecture may be more complex than necessary and 

cautions that the process could become unwieldy or intractable if not carefully managed. 

FAA Response: Thank you for the recognition of the work the FAA has done to define the 

process for generating NextGen research requirements. The FAA believes the Enterprise 

Architecture (EA) is a critical component in the process of generating NextGen research 

requirements, and we are pleased REDAC recognizes the positive steps made in linking the two. 

In generating research requirements, keep in mind that NextGen is an incredibly complex 

endeavor. For the integration, planning, and execution of NextGen, all interfaces must be 

identified and managed and, therefore, the EA must contain the appropriate level of detail to 

identify these linkages. While a significant level of detail and complexity exists, the FAA uses 

the level of detail warranted in order to define research requirements and manage NextGen 

implementation. 

Software and Digital Systems - The FAA has a unique need for expertise on critical software 

and digital systems both for its certification and acquisition responsibilities. The REDAC 

reiterates its concern that there has been inadequate progress in developing the core competency 

and technical workforce in this area. The REDAC recommends that this be given urgent 

priority. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that software and digital systems is a critical area of expertise, 

and the FAA continues to make hiring an urgent priority in this area. To date, the Aircraft 

Certification Service Headquarters has hired three software and digital systems engineering 

specialists in the last two years. The AVS organization continues to actively search to fill the 

Chief Scientific and Technical Advisory positions for both Aircraft Computer Software and 

Advanced Avionics. 

Within the NextGen and Operations Planning Service Unit (ATO-P), Office of Airport and 

Aircraft Safety (AJP-63) plans to hire additional staff in this area within the next year. We are 

seeking individuals who have knowledge of integrated and complex aircraft digital systems and 

have conducted safety assessments of civil airborne systems and equipment. 

Unmanned Air Systems - There continues to be pressure to develop a long term Con-Ops for 

UAS operations in the NAS for DOD and civil users. The current Certificate of Authorization 

processes are short term solutions and are unable to keep pace with the demand. While there has 

been some progress, the REDAC considers the current approach inadequate to meet the needs of 

government and industry. 

C-3
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

FAA Response: A joint FAA, Department of Defense (DoD), National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Senior Executive 

Committee has been established to develop an overall strategy for Unmanned Aerial System 

(UAS) integration into the National Airspace System (NAS) in the NextGen environment. The 

Committee will develop an integrated plan for interagency UAS research and development 

initiatives that will support development of UAS technical standards and corresponding 

regulatory policy and guidance for UAS-NAS integration. 

As part of the NextGen research portfolio, the FAA is working with industry, academia, and 

government agencies to identify and validate required capabilities and performance levels for the 

safe integration of UAS into the NAS. Specifically, through the use of modeling, 

human-in-the-loop simulations, demonstrations, and flight testing, the FAA is supporting nearterm tactical and strategic initiatives. Related supporting activities include operational 

assessments of site specific, proposed ground based and airborne based sense and avoid 

solutions, operational procedures validation, and evaluations of NextGen enabling technologies 

and concepts such as 4-dimensional trajectory based operations and ADS-B. 

Near-term needs of the UAS community are being addressed by the FAA through the Certificate 

of Authorization (COA) process which enables NAS access for public UAS based on a 

comprehensive safety assessment of proposed operations. The COA submittals have steadily 

increased and the FAA is developing process improvements to address the increase in demand. 

For civil access, the FAA has addressed NAS access needs through the review and update of the 

Experimental Certificate process. 

Weather in the Cockpit Research Program - The recently formed Weather in the Cockpit 

research program was found by several REDAC subcommittees to lack a clear mission, goals or 

connection to NextGen requirements. The program should be focused or terminated. 

FAA Response: FAA concurs with the recommendation to better focus the program. The 

Weather-in-the-Cockpit program was a new start in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 and did not receive 

funding or have adequate staff until late in the fiscal year. FAA will continue to work to clarify 

the goals and objectives of this program. 

Subcommittee on Human Factors 

Finding (1): In the previous cycle, the REDAC Human Factors Subcommittee had expressed 

some concern regarding the extent to which human factors was “being adequately addressed in 

NextGen programs beyond the efforts of AJP 61”. On the basis of the Administrator’s response 

to those concerns, released on 9/22, we were quite gratified with the extent to which attention is 

given to these issues. We also feel confident that this attention will be enduring as NextGen 

progresses, given the criticality of avoiding major human factors bottlenecks that have caused 

substantial setbacks in some previous FAA developmental efforts (e.g., the STARS system and 

the AAAS system in the 1990s). The briefing given by Kathy Abbott, CSTA for flight deck 

Human Factors, which the subcommittee received in our September meeting provided 

compelling evidence for the high priority offered to human factors in some units outside of 

C-4
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

AJP61. Furthermore, we are quite gratified with the appointment of the Chief Systems Engineer 

for Human Factors within the NextGen I&I program, which we assume will be a permanent 

position with the authority to properly influence NextGen decisions as required. In order to 

facilitate this influence, we would also hope that this would grow into a full-time position. 

Recommendation (1a): Continue to place strong emphasis on human factors issues, as reflected 

in the Human System Integration Roadmap. 

FAA Response (1a): We agree that the Human System Integration (HSI) Roadmap is pivotal to 

addressing human factors issues for NextGen. ATO-P Office of Human Factors Research and 

Engineering (AJP-61) is identifying and tracking areas for improvement in the next annual 

update to start in the second quarter of FY 2010, and will continue to keep the Human Factors 

Subcommittee abreast of these activities. 

Recommendation (1b): Assure in particular that human factors issues related to levels of 

automation in decision aiding, such as out-of-the-loop performance degradation, and human 

operator response to unexpected off-nominal events (e.g., automation failures) receive utmost 

priority and sustained funding, for both flight deck and air traffic research. 

FAA Response (1b): As briefed to the Human Factors Subcommittee as part of the NextGen 

presentation on budget line Self Separation and Air Ground Integration, research on human 

factors issues in flight deck automation and decision aiding includes pilot and air crew response 

to out-of-the-loop performance degradation and response to off-nominal events. Additionally, 

the NextGen Air Traffic Management (ATM) Human Factors Controller Efficiency program has 

initiated a Human Factors Safety project with a dedicated effort to address human error and 

human performance issues. The context of the human factors safety analysis is the total job of 

the controller including off-nominal events and automation failures. Performance and skill 

degradation as a result of reliance on automation is a specific area of attention in the Strategic 

Training Needs Analysis of this program to determine the recurring training needs for skill 

maintenance. 

Recommendation (1c): Following the excellent briefing from Flight Deck Certification, the 

subcommittee wishes to continue to receive briefings from other program elements within the 

FAA, which have direct human factors components, or involve human-in-the-loop simulation. 

These include, in particular, planned and completed simulations of concepts of operation within 

AJP66, and on all research on weather displays, and weather-related decision aids. 

FAA Response (1c): AJP-61 recognizes the importance of ensuring the Human Factors 

Subcommittee has all necessary information from other program elements within the FAA 

addressing NextGen research and development. We will coordinate relevant presentations for 

future meetings including human-in-the-loop simulations conducted by AJP-66 on NextGen 

concepts of operations, and research by ATO-P Office of Aviation Weather (AJP-68) on weather 

displays and decision aids. 

Finding (2): The subcommittee was very impressed with the proactive efforts made by AJP61 

to understand and collaborate with NASA human factors programs and harness NASA research 

C-5
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

expertise. We understand that the memorandum of agreement is about to be finalized and that 

efforts are already underway within the NASA Aviation Safety Program to develop research 

products of use for the FAA NextGen program. We observed that both flight deck and air traffic 

(within the FAA) have harnessed research within NASA’s Aviation Safety Program (specifically 

the Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck project, regarding which we were well briefed). We were 

however less certain of the degree of collaborative involvement of NASA’s airspace program in 

the FAA work. 

Recommendation (2a): Continue the excellent progress of collaboration with NASA’s 

Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck project, within the Aviation Safety Program. 

FAA Response (2a): We agree and AJP-61 will continue collaboration to ensure involvement 

with the NASA Aviation Safety Program’s Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck Project with 

particular emphasis on applications such as merging and spacing and closely spaced parallel 

operations. We will also emphasize transitioning NASA research products to FAA for 

integration as part of our NextGen Air Ground Integration research efforts. 

Recommendation (2b): Try to further engage human factors research within NASA’s Airspace 

Systems program in collaboration, particularly with regard to the work carried on by this group, 

in air-ground integration and collaborative decision making. 

FAA Response (2b): The NextGen Air Ground Integration Human Factors research program 

does collaborate with NASA’s Airspace Systems program in addressing applications such as 

merging and spacing, closely spaced parallel operations, and collaborative decision making. 

Additionally, the NextGen ATM Human Factors Controller Efficiency program has initiated an 

effort to review the NASA Research Announcements (NRA) in the Air Traffic Management 

domain including collaborative decision making. The NRAs and in-house NASA research 

efforts will be reviewed for mid-term NextGen application by the NASA Human System 

Integration Division as part of their collaborative effort with the FAA. The area of collaborative 

decision making is currently being addressed in the FAA program. 

Subcommittee on Airports 

Finding (1): The subcommittee is pleased with the progress shown by FAA on the projects that 

are currently underway. The Subcommittee is likewise pleased to see that the Airport 

Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) program is well established, fully funded, and is 

achieving the goals that were hoped for when it was initiated. We see no redundancies between 

the two programs as they are proving to be complimentary to one another. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA reach out to other Lines of 

Business for consideration of the inclusion of other lines of business (such as ATO) on 

appropriate ACRP project technical panels. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with this recommendation. We will work with the other Lines 

of Business to invite them to provide technical experts on appropriate ACRP technical panels. 

C-6
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Finding (2): The Technical Center’s research into bird radar systems, as part of the Wildlife 

Hazard and Mitigation research area, is progressing steadily. 

Recommendation: As other detection sensors and technologies are being explored (such as: 

laser; optical; thermal imaging; and sound, etc.), the subcommittee recommended that 

coordination be pursued with MIT Lincoln Lab on radar research and development, and also that 

the research team initiate coordination with ATO researchers to explore the integration of avian 

radar research with terminal surveillance activities into a concept of operations to communicate 

bird hazards identified by avian radar. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with this recommendation. We will initiate research to 

explore the feasibility of integrating avian radar into the tower and making the bird hazard data 

available to controllers and pilots. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee is pleased to see the continuing R&D activities on Aircraft 

Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF), especially the efforts on composite material fire fighting, 

improved RFF equipment and agents, and work regarding the operation of new large aircraft. 

Recommendation: Continue this research with a high priority. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with this recommendation and will continue this research with 

a high priority. 

Finding (4): The Subcommittee continues to have keen interest in the progress of research in 

the NextGen area. 

Recommendation: Keep the Subcommittee informed of NextGen tasks, especially as they 

relate to airports and airport issues. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs. We will provide appropriate NextGen airport related 

briefings at the next subcommittee meeting in March 2010. 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy 

Finding (1): The issue of global climate change is becoming a major driver of environmental 

policy. In spite of its importance, there is a lack of understanding of aviation’s impact on climate 

change, especially in the area of non-CO2 pollutants. A more robust research effort with respect 

to climate change is necessary to develop reasoned policy on this subject. 

Recommendation: Current Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) funding 

appears to be inadequate to fully study the non-CO2 impacts of aviation. The Agency should 

therefore ensure that future funding requests contain the resources necessary for emerging global 

climate change research. 

C-7
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

FAA Response: Climate concerns are indeed among the most pressing issues the aviation 

industry is facing today. Given tradeoffs among emissions and their climate impacts, solutions 

for mitigation of aviation climate impacts require improved scientific understanding of impacts, 

particularly for non-CO2, within the well defined uncertainty bounds. We have implemented the 

next phase of the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) program with support 

from other federal agencies. Progress made and lessons learned during this 3-year targeted 

program will provide direction for future work. We should look at these results first to determine 

future funding needs. We will continue to monitor progress, quality, and usefulness of ACCRI 

outcomes and evaluate funding requirements for ACCRI program against other environment and 

energy research priorities. 

Finding (2): Alternative aviation fuels are probably the most promising near-term tools for 

managing aviation’s impact on the environment. The CAAFI project to develop and certify such 

fuels represents a significant research effort and reflects the necessary industry/government and 

intra-government cooperation necessary to address this issue. 

Recommendation: Continued funding and support for the CAAFI initiative is absolutely 

necessary, as is the continuing partnership between industry and government and between the 

FAA and partner government agencies. To the extent possible, the FAA should ensure that 

efforts by other public entities (such as the military) are included in research efforts to avoid an 

unnecessary duplication of effort. 

FAA Response: We agree with this recommendation and believe that deployment of alternative 

commercial aviation fuels offers one of the most promising solutions to achieve NextGen 

environmental goals for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The role of alternative fuels is 

becoming more critical, not only given the increasing demand to address and mitigate climate 

change, but also for energy security. We are very aggressively pursuing the path for securing 

ASTM approval, environmental acceptability, and quick infusion of alternative fuels into the 

civil fleet. We are working very closely with Department of Energy and other Federal agencies 

such as NASA and DOD so that we all mutually benefit from the concerted efforts while 

following the guidelines prescribed by the Environmental Protection Agency for sustainability. 

Finding (3): On the local level, the issue of aircraft noise remains a major priority for many 

citizens. In addition, the nature of noise-related complaints has somewhat shifted its focus to 

areas well beyond traditional areas of substantial impact. 

Recommendation: The Office of Environment and Energy has embarked on a major new 

research effort to define the current noise landscape and to develop the actions needed to address 

any identified concerns. The Agency should endorse and encourage this effort by requesting 

adequate funding to continue this project. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with this recommendation. We fully support this major 

research effort on aircraft noise, impacts, and metrics. We are developing a roadmap for aircraft 

noise research based on the recommendations of experts from the international community. We 

have initiated implementation of key activities which have potential for high return and 

contributions to aviation’s noise mitigation efforts. We will continue to weigh allocation of 

C-8
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

resources for this effort against other environment and energy research priorities. We are 

pleased that the FY 2010 budget appropriation includes funding for operational aspects that will 

complement and support this research. 

Finding (4): The PARTNER Center of Excellence continues to occupy a central role in 

environmental research activities. 

Recommendation: The FAA should continue to request the funding necessary to support 

PARTNER activities. (Note: There was some concern expressed by Subcommittee members 

over the fact that current versions of the pending FAA Reauthorization bill include the formation 

of a new Center of Excellence for Alternative Aviation Fuel, when research in this area can be 

accomplished through PARTNER). 

FAA Response: The FAA continues to fund Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and 

Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) at an appropriate level to maximize benefits from its worldclass expertise and contributions. FAA support to PARTNER in year 2009 increased by 25 

percent relative to year 2008 support level. We agree and advocate that the PARTNER Center of 

Excellence is fully capable to take on challenges and additional responsibilities for Alternative 

Fuels Research. We will continue to provide this information to Congress in the reauthorization 

process. 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

Finding (1): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted that AVS FY 2012 Strategic Guidance 

requires that each Research Requirement describe the expected outcome desired by the sponsor 

and include an implementation plan describing how the outputs of the research will be used and 

implemented by the sponsoring organization in support of the desired outcome. The 

subcommittee noted that posing the research question is a best practice and an essential starting 

point for all projects. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the AVS FY 2012 strategic guidance 

referenced in the above finding be retroactively applied across the entire AVS Research 

Portfolio. Adoption of this recommendation will ensure that research projects start with a 

desired end state in mind. The Subcommittee recommends that the research question for each 

project be carefully posed by the researcher in close coordination with the sponsor. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the Subcommittee recommendation to retroactively apply 

the specification of the expected outcome and an implementation plan describing how the 

outputs of each research project will be used by the sponsor. We are working with the research 

sponsors and performers to implement this process improvement including its retroactive 

application. 

Finding (2): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee found the Fire Research and Safety Program to 

be relevant, well managed and directly responsive to aircraft safety requirements. 

C-9
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA ensure the Fire Research and 

Safety Program continue to be adequately staffed and funded. 

FAA Response: We agree with the Subcommittee’s finding that the Fire Research and Safety 

Program is relevant, well managed, and responsive to sponsor aircraft safety requirements. We 

also concur with the recommendation that the Fire Research and Safety Program continue to be 

adequately staffed and funded in accordance with FAA requirements and available resources. 

Finding (3): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee again noted the lack of a comprehensive and 

integrated Software and Digital Systems Project Plan and noted little progress in acquiring the 

specialized expertise required to support this critical research program. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee again recommends that a comprehensive and integrated 

program be developed and appropriate specialized expertise be acquired to spring board the FAA 

to a leading position in complex software and digital system safety. Inability to attract 

specialized talent should no longer be an acceptable excuse for lack of progress in establishing a 

core capability. 

FAA Response: The FAA will provide the Aircraft Safety Subcommittee with a deep dive 

briefing on its Aircraft Certification Software and Digital Systems (SDS) Research Plan at the 

March 2010 subcommittee meeting. The briefing will also include an overview of the Aircraft 

Certification Software and Electronic Hardware Program Management Plan, which guides the 

FAA’s regulatory policy activities in the area of software and digital systems. Both of these 

plans have been in existence for over a decade. Recently, the SDS Technical Community 

Representative Group drafted a comprehensive R&D Plan that identifies requirements specific to 

NextGen. This plan is currently under management review and will complement the existing 

Aircraft Certification Software and Electronic Hardware Program Management Plan. 

The FAA agrees that software and digital systems is a critical area of expertise, and the FAA 

continues to make hiring an urgent priority in this area. To date, the Aircraft Certification 

Service Headquarters has hired three software and digital systems engineering specialists in the 

last two years. AVS continues to actively search to fill the Chief Scientific and Technical 

Advisory positions for both Aircraft Computer Software and Advanced Avionics. Within 

ATO-P, AJP-63 plans to hire additional staff in this area within the next year. We are seeking 

individuals who have knowledge of integrated and complex aircraft digital systems and have 

conducted safety assessments of civil airborne systems and equipment. 

Finding (4): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee found the Aviation Safety Information Analysis 

Sharing (ASIAS) project is directly responsive to the need of safety analysts within the FAA and 

aviation industry to understand emerging risks before they become potential safety issues and 

applauds the progress made in increasing the number of airline ASIAS participants. The 

Subcommittee notes that the ASIAS program does not address general aviation at the present 

time. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recognizes that the attempt to automatically monitor for 

unknown risk based on complex data mining capabilities and seamless data sources is in fact the 

C-10
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

most difficult challenge in ASIAS and recommends that parameters be developed to indicate 

when the quest to accomplish this objective should be re-examined. 

FAA Response: ASIAS is implementing data and text mining algorithms to automatically 

categorize text reports by topic and identify novel and emerging topics; identify anomalous 

flights and groups of anomalous flights; correlate anomalies with known safety risks and 

contributing factors; and trigger additional action or analysis when anomalies indicate a new 

issue or significant change in a known risk. Developing and implementing data mining 

algorithms is an iterative, multi-step process. Performance parameters are being developed to 

determine when the objectives of the vulnerability discovery activity are met in the modeling, 

evaluation, and deployment phases of data mining. When these performance objectives are met, 

the focus will shift from development of data mining models to routine monitoring using these 

models. Strategies will be developed to trigger re-evaluation of the performance of the models 

during the monitoring phase since it is possible that changes in operations or governance will 

degrade the performance of the vulnerability discovery modeling. 

Finding (5): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee expressed concern about the realism of wake 

vortex and wind shear characteristics being used for research in advanced maneuver capable 

flight simulators. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA take particular care in validating 

wake vortex and wind shear models with real world aircraft response data. 

FAA Response: The FAA will collaborate with aircraft Original Equipment Manufacturer 

(OEM) to collect the requisite aircraft response data; however, this is a long-term effort. In the 

interim, we will continue to use published wake science results to further validate flight 

simulator wake and wind shear models. These models will be continually enhanced as actual 

OEM aircraft response data becomes available and wake science continues to mature. 

Finding (6): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted and applauds the progress made in 

achieving a limited amount of F&E funding in support of the Aerospace Medical Research 

Program. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee encourages the other research laboratories to pursue 

similar funding options applying the aeromedical approach. 

FAA Response: We concur with the recommendation. We will look in more detail at the 

approach used successfully by the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute and apply it, as appropriate, 

to the other safety laboratories in the Airport and Aircraft Safety Group. 

Finding (7): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted that the Volcanic Ash Project under the 

Aviation Weather Research Program is not consistent with previous SAS recommendations. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee again recommends that research be limited to a very 

focused approach on how to detect and avoid a volcanic ash encounter. The Subcommittee does 

not believe the research related to the development of onboard technologies to detect or harden 

C-11
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

an aircraft against volcanic ash is warranted. The Subcommittee recommends that the research be 

limited to the development of procedures for getting tactical information to flight crews so they 

can effectively avoid the hazardous areas. Finally the Subcommittee believes that even this 

limited scope for research is relatively low priority in the broad research portfolio. 

FAA Response: As reported in the Administrator’s letter to Dr. Hansman on September 22, 

2009, the FAA agrees that research on onboard technologies to detect or harden an aircraft 

against volcanic ash is not needed. Indeed, research on such on-board capabilities has not been 

part of our research program in the past nor is it now. With respect to ash plume detection and 

reporting to flight planners and flight crews for hazard avoidance, FAA has suspended research 

into those and other aspects of volcanic ash hazards pending a full review of the need for further 

research. 

Finding (8): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee expressed concern about the apparent lack of a 

comprehensive and integrated program plan for the NextGen Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

Program. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the REDAC NAS Operations 

Subcommittee do a “deep dive” review of the Weather in the Cockpit Program at their next 

review meeting. 

FAA Response: FAA concurs with the recommendation and we will provide a detailed briefing 

to the NAS Operations Subcommittee at their spring meeting. 

Finding (9): The NextGen Self Separation and Air Ground Integration Human Factors Program 

was briefed at a macro level. As a result the Subcommittee was unable to determine whether the 

program was focused on very specific and real research requirements. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the REDAC Subcommittee on Human 

Factors do a “deep dive” review of the NextGen Self Separation and Air Ground Human Factors 

Program at their next review meeting. 

FAA Response: The REDAC Human Factors Subcommittee has received detailed presentations 

at the past two meetings on NextGen. These presentations were on budget line items called 

NextGen Self-Separation and NextGen Air Ground Integration, and addressed the 11 program 

areas comprising these research investments. In Dr. R. John Hansman’s letter to the FAA 

Administrator dated May 18, 2009, the REDAC Human Factors Subcommittee found “the 

NextGen research work plans proposed by both Air Traffic Control and Technical Operations 

(NextGen Controller Efficiency) and Flight Deck (NextGen Self Separation and NextGen Air 

Ground Integration) domains were well crafted and reflect a good allocation of budget. The 

Subcommittee was pleased to see the efforts within NextGen Self-Separation and NextGen Air 

Ground Integration focused on flight deck automation and human-automation function 

allocations.” We will continue to ensure the Human Factors Subcommittee receives thorough 

briefings on these two NextGen flight deck research budget line items. 

C-12
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Finding (10): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted the positive progress made in the 

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Research Program related to UAS regulations and standards. 

Finding (11): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted good progress by the System Safety 

Management Team in the development of prognostic safety assessment models intended to 

predict the safety impact of proposed improvements to the NAS. When completed and validated, 

it is essential that FAA use the tools to guide NextGen implementation. 

Finding (12): Under the Flight Deck/Aviation Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors 

Program, the SAS found the 30 plus projects to be responsive to the research questions posed by 

the sponsor, but did not find a documented basis for the research questions. The Subcommittee 

also noted the lack of a priority process related to current projects in the program. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA perform a gap analysis of the 

current projects against data driven requirements for increased safety. 

FAA Response: Research requirements for AVS for flight deck human factors are organized 

using a Web site for the associated Technical Community Requirements (sic) Group (TCRG). 

This site identifies the sponsors, the requirements they have submitted, and the priorities 

assigned to the requirements by the TCRG. The sponsor requirements provide the rationale for 

the research questions. The site also provides information on the prioritization process that 

considers safety data, certification issues, and internal/external forces as factors influencing the 

prioritization of individual requirements. The process links research expenditures to these 

prioritized requirements to ensure that the most important requirements are funded first. The 

FAA believes that no additional gap analysis is needed. 

In FY 2008 and FY 2009, the AVS TCRG approved approximately 19 human factors (HF) 

requirements for funding. The number of projects approved aligned with AVS R&D strategic 

guidance which emphasized the HF research area since HF had been identified as a common 

contributor to aviation safety incidents and accidents. In FY 2010, the TCRG approved nine 

human factors requirements and in FY 2011, the TCRG prioritized six human factors 

requirements. We believe that this sharper focus on a narrower set of the highest priority HF 

research requirements at least partially addresses the finding. This reduction in the number of 

research requirements corresponds to an appropriate use of resources on the research topics that 

offer the greatest potential for improving safety. 

Finding (13): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted the good work being performed under 

the Maintenance and Inspection (M&I) Program and looks forward to the results being 

transmitted into practice. 

Finding (14): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee found the research conducted by FAA in 

cooperation with industry, under the Transport Structural Integrity Metallic R&D Program, to be 

relevant and a good example of self funding through industry cost sharing and engineering 

support complemented by the benefits from commercialization. 

C-13
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Finding (15): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee found the Electrical Systems Program to be a 

practical approach to advance the knowledge of FAA in anticipation of the introduction of new 

technology. The Subcommittee looks forward to seeing this knowledge translated into 

regulatory guidance. 

Finding (16): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee fully supports the FAA taking advantage of the 

Rotorcraft research work being done by the Department of Defense related to Health Usage 

Monitoring System. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA stay in lock step with the outputs 

of the U.S. Army rotorcraft R&D program. It is essential that FAA not fall behind. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with REDAC Finding 16 and will continue work to partner 

with the DoD on joint rotorcraft research related to Health Usage Monitoring System. The FAA 

will maintain close coordination of its rotorcraft research activities with the U.S. Army rotorcraft 

research and development program and take full advantage of the Army research outputs. 

Finding (17): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee appreciated the Propulsion Research Program 

review, particularly the field event history that provided the motivation for the research portfolio. 

The data presented shows a significant reduction in the number of aircraft threatening noncontained rotor fracture events over time. It is evident that the FAA team has formed a strong 

partnership with industry to develop and enact effective improvements in the design, 

manufacture and inspection methods for engine rotors. 

Finding (18): The Flight Controls and Mechanical Systems (FC&MS) activities presented had a 

clear focus with relevant objectives. Specific findings were as follows: 

The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee did not review the results of the FAA Rudder Study. 

However, it was presented as a FY09 accomplishment with the final report due in FY09. The 

Subcommittee is anxious to receive copies of the final report when available and believes it will 

provide useful training guidance to the transport pilot community. 

The General Aviation Basic Envelope Protection effort was reported as completing phase 1. The 

concept has the potential of protecting against GA loss of control in flight. However, the 

Subcommittee believes there are significant human factors issues that must be initially 

considered before designing a GA envelope protection system. For example, how does the 

system account for pilot in the loop control inputs when an automatic control device is also 

attempting to recover the aircraft from an upset? Under what circumstances should control be 

taken from the pilot? Should the automatic recovery system provide guidance cues to the pilot 

who then implements the recovery maneuver? 

The Fly-by-Wire Research is long past due given that fly-by-wire aircraft have been certified and 

in operation for several years. The focus of this activity is documenting what has already been 

done, rather than new research. The output from this activity will enable future designs to not 

require certification under special conditions. 

C-14
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: The General Aviation Envelope Protection activity must include human 

factor/performance issues, in particular pilot in the loop scenarios, when developing design and 

performance requirements for a GA Basic Envelope Protection Concept. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the recommendation. From the conceptual stages of this 

research effort, the FAA recognized human factors and human performance as critical aspects to 

developing design requirements and implementation strategies for any general aviation envelope 

protection system. This project will specifically consider and evaluate the pilot/machine 

interface for any proposed system during each phase of development. FAA human factors 

specialists and flight test pilots from the Small Airplane Directorate are currently reviewing the 

conceptual work done in Phase I and will participate in simulation and flight test studies of any 

proposed implementation strategy in future phases of the project. These evaluations will address 

system-pilot compatibility, engagement limits, control authority, and other design aspects related 

to human performance. 

Finding (19): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee was impressed with the research activities 

underway at the Centers of Excellence for: Airliner Cabin Environment; Advanced Materials 

and; General Aviation Research. The subcommittee believes that when complemented with 

FAA management competence and leadership, these cost sharing arrangements represent cost 

effective ways to conduct relevant research and advance the knowledge of FAA. The 

subcommittee found that to be the case in the programs reviewed. 

Finding (20): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted the good work being performed under 

the Aircraft Icing Program and looks forward to the research results being translated into 

regulatory guidance. The subcommittee does however question the operational benefit related to 

3D icing studies. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA review the requirement to 

generate 3D ice shapes. 

FAA Response: The operational benefit for 3D ice accretion and aerodynamic effects studies is 

directly related to current and upcoming certification guidance material needed by the FAA to 

support aircraft icing certification. 

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis methods are powerful tools among a suite of icing 

engineering tools used by aircraft design and manufacturing companies. Virtually all of the 

medium and large airplane manufacturers already use 3D ice accretion codes as part of their 

certification methodology. Guidance material for the use of 2D codes is well documented with 

substantial verification and validation data. This is not the case, however, for 3D ice accretion 

codes needed for analysis of modern airfoil designs with swept wings and other 3D, compoundgeometry surfaces. 

The FAA is often challenged to determine how well the tools operate, what historically 

acceptable benchmark database they can be compared to, and how to assign a confidence level to 

the resulting analysis. There is very little public experimental data for both verification and 

validation of 3D icing codes. The swept wing experimental studies being done in this project are 

C-15
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

required to improve knowledge of iced aerodynamic phenomena and to build a database that can 

support validation of 3D ice accretion prediction codes and aerodynamic effects. This research is 

of significant importance for the next generation of aircraft design and in preparation for 

determining how to address the application of increasingly complex icing CFD tools that the 

FAA is beginning to see in its certification activities. 

NAS Operations Subcommittee 

Finding (1): (Modeling and Simulation) The NextGen design still (see last year’s findings) 

appears to be based largely on intuition and consensus, rather than modeling, analysis, 

simulation, and demonstration or testing. The FAA needs both a facile high level analysis tool 

(such as NASPAC and its derivatives) and a detailed modeling and simulation capability to 

support detailed system design trade studies to inform the NextGen design, both mid-term and 

far-term. 

Recommendation (1a): Utilize the capabilities of NASA, JPDO and other government or 

private partners to achieve the modeling and simulation capability needed to support detailed 

system design studies for all phases of NextGen. 

FAA Response (1a): We concur with the need for a broad approach to meeting modeling and 

simulation needs. The FAA and its industry partners rely on a suite of modeling and simulation 

tools to research, develop, test, and evaluate air traffic management technologies and procedures. 

FAA’s fast-time models range from very high-level policy-oriented models (e.g., the NAS 

Strategy Simulator), to system-wide models (National Airspace System Performance Analysis 

Capability (NASPAC), Airspace Concept Evaluation System (ACES), LMInet) through regional 

airspace models (e.g., Airport and Airspace Delay Simulation Model (SIMMOD) and 

Reorganized Air Traffic Control Mathematical Simulator (RAMS), to detailed airport models 

(e.g., ADSIM, runwaySimulator). The FAA is currently undertaking a modernization of its 

primary airport capacity model, ADSIM, and its primary system-wide model, NASPAC. 

MITRE/CAASD continues to develop System-Wide Modeler, a state-of-the-art NAS-wide 

model used to support various FAA studies. The FAA works actively with the ATM modeling 

community, both domestically and internationally, and continuously evaluates new models. For 

example, as part of its global technical outreach efforts, the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical 

Center is working with the Agent Technology Center at Czech Technical University, using their 

AGENTFLY model. The FAA Office of Systems Analysis, in collaboration with George Mason 

University (GMU) and the National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research 

(Nextor), sponsors an annual system-wide modeling workshop on the GMU campus, which is 

attended by modeling researchers from throughout the community. In the environmental arena 

the FAA has invested considerable funds developing the Aviation Environmental Design Tool 

(AEDT), which, when completed, will be used to assess the environmental impacts of ATM 

operations. In addition to fast-time modeling tools, the FAA uses several Human-In-The-Loop 

(HITL) simulation laboratories to help develop ATM concepts. These laboratories include those 

at the William J. Hughes Technical Center and MITRE/CAASD. The FAA is currently 

expanding these laboratories to accommodate NextGen research and development requirements. 

C-16
 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation (1b): The FAA should brief the plan to achieve the needed modeling and 

simulation capabilities to the REDAC NAS Operations Subcommittee. 

FAA Response (1b): The Office of Systems Analysis (AJP-D) will brief the REDAC NAS 

Operations Subcommittee on FAA’s existing and planned modeling and simulation capabilities 

at the next possible opportunity. 

Finding (2): (Weather Program) The subcommittee was pleased with the first version of the 

ATM-Weather Integration Plan. Integration is now happening, with a good example being an 

Integrated Departure Reroute Planning (IDRP) by CAASD/MIT LL, but it is still a significant 

challenge. 

Recommendation: The FAA Plan should become an ATM-Weather Integration research and 

development Program with ATO, CAASD, and FAA ATM research components, and the use of 

modeling and simulation to understand the benefits. The subcommittee encourages the FAA to 

be expeditious in this development. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the recommendation. Implementation of the 

ATM-Weather Integration Plan will include exploratory research and development program 

tasks, including modeling, simulation, prototyping and end user operational evaluations to assess 

potential benefits and operational suitability of selected weather-informed ATM decision support 

tools. The added research and development focus will be reflected in updates to the plan. 

Finding (3): The Weather-in-the-Cockpit program was recently formed as RED program in 

ATO. Subcommittee found that it lacks a clear mission, goals, or a connection to NextGen 

requirements. In addition, weather information is already reaching many GA cockpits, and the 

connectivity to existing technology was not clear. 

Recommendation: The FAA should review this program with lead weather researchers to 

establish clear objectives consistent with other activities, the FAA mission, and Next Gen 

objectives. An example goal might be to consider an aircraft role as airborne weather sensing 

node feeding NNEW. 

FAA Response: FAA concurs with the recommendation to better focus the program. The 

Weather-in-the-Cockpit program was a new start in FY 2009 and did not receive funding or have 

adequate staff until late in the fiscal year. FAA will continue to work to clarify the goals and 

objectives of this program. 

Finding (4): (Concept Development ) While the subcommittee was pleased with the substance 

and format of the Concept Development briefing, there is still a need to better understand the 

overall context of the research needs and fit of the work being done into a plan for NextGen 

development. 

Recommendation (4a): Provide the subcommittee future briefings on context and fit between 

the concept development and exploration research and the NextGen plans and Enterprise 

C-17
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Architecture. Specific focus on the open and yet unanswered research questions in the context of 

connecting the research to the solution sets and OI’s is needed. 

FAA Response (4a): ATO-P Office of Concept Development and Validation (AJP-66) will 

provide the subcommittee future briefings on the relationship between the concept development 

and exploration research and the NextGen plans and Enterprise Architecture. AJP-66 is 

currently conducting concept integration analysis to link NextGen concepts to specific 

operational improvements and ongoing research. The analysis will identify mid-term and farterm operational improvements that do not have any research and development associated with 

them. The analysis will also identify additional research questions associated with the 

operational concepts that are not supported by an ongoing research activity (i.e., identify the gaps 

in concept level research). While this analysis will not be completed in time for the next NAS 

Ops Subcommittee meeting in March, the results of this analysis could be briefed to the NAS 

Ops Subcommittee in August 2010. 

Recommendation (4b): As was recommended by the NAS Operations Subcommittee 

previously, more resources should be devoted to this activity in order to understand other 

NextGen drivers (e.g. UAS, see below). 

FAA Response (4b): Funding for the NextGen-Operational Concept Validation-Validation 

Modeling budget line has increased from $4 million in FY 2008 and FY 2009 to $10 million in 

FY 2010. In addition, the Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping Operational 

Concept Budget Line adds another $8 million for concept level research. Lastly, AJP-66 does 

work with other programs and organizations that have funding for research and demonstrations, 

such as the UAS program, to develop operational concepts as a critical element of their 

research/demonstration program. This outreach has been successful for development of a 

Surface Trajectory Based Operation Operational Concept and an Integrated Arrival, Departure 

and Surface Operational Concept. 

Finding (5): (Staffed NextGen Tower) The subcommittee recognizes the need for a Staffed 

NextGen Tower capability to improve safety in an affordable way and was pleased to learn of the 

FAA’s plans. The operational concept and demonstration plan could benefit from further 

development of details. For example, it appears that undue emphasis may be placed on using 

only certified ASDE-X data for the surveillance source when other options (e.g., non-certified 

ASDE-X, ADS-B, MLAT, radar) may be better suited for particular applications. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the business case for SNT be 

strengthened with the value of additional operational efficiency and safety improvements. The 

subcommittee recommends that the use of other forms of surveillance should be explored (e.g., 

non-certified ASDE-X, ADS-B, MLAT, radar). These alternatives need to be considered in the 

context of how SNT might roll-out into the NAS (e.g., whether starting at smaller airports or 

larger airports first or timing relative to aircraft equipage). 

FAA Response: The Staffed NextGen Tower (SNT) program office appreciates the REDAC 

NAS Operations Subcommittee’s insights and agrees with the recommendation for moving the 

SNT program forward. We are actively working on integrating the recommendations expressed 

C-18
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

by the REDAC as we plan and execute program activities. One area that we are investigating is 

how to move SNT forward without formal certification of ASDE-X. We are also actively 

investigating alternative surveillance forms to be used for SNT that may be demonstrated at the 

SNT field site. These include cameras and intelligent video processing; radio frequency 

identification applications; and loop sensor technology. In addition, we will conduct a study 

examining surveillance sources and their feasibility for use at small and medium airports and the 

supporting infrastructure at these airports. Based on the information obtained from the above 

activities, we will identify the most appropriate roll-out strategy for SNT. In addition, we are 

working to identify the best strategy for taking SNT through investment analysis. Current 

discussions have focused on integrating SNT with the Tower Flight Data Manager investment 

activities. 

Finding (6): (Environment) It was excellent for the subcommittee to be brought up to speed on 

the environmental tool AEDT. FAA is to be commended for developing this tool, and 

particularly for assisting in its use in the NASA NRA examining the impact of new vehicles in 

the NAS—this is a model of how the use of such tools can be accelerated and improved to 

provide one input into decision making and system design. Without significant changes to 

NASPAC, however, AEDT and NASPAC are inconsistent tools, which may hinder their use 

together. 

Recommendation: The AEDT tool could be used in an iterative fashion in the FAA design and 

decision-making process to ensure that environmental issues are assessed early, rather than in an 

“ex post facto” fashion to assess the impact of previously developed routes, procedures, etc. 

FAA Response: We agree with this recommendation. We are very diligently working on 

advancing the NAS-wide environmental assessment capability of the Aviation Environmental 

Design Tool (AEDT) tool. We are also working on interfacing and integrating AEDT with other 

aviation tools so that environmental and energy benefits can be quantified to inform and evaluate 

decision-making. We will continue to expand AEDT capabilities for smooth flow of data from 

NASPAC and other simulation tools. 

Finding (7): (UAS Integration in the NAS) A number of projects and demonstrations with 

various elements of DOD were presented. These evaluations and demonstrations did not appear 

to flow from any top-down research and development plan for UAS integration. While 

encouraged that the FAA is beginning to address UAS integration in the NAS, the subcommittee 

considers the current approach inadequate to meet the outcomes needed and timing requirements 

of both government and industry. 

Recommendation (7a): Establish, in partnership with DHS and DOD, a Government internal 

civil-military concept of operations for UAS, as a prelude to developing public-private 

partnering relationship strategies for incremental implementation. 

Recommendation (7b): Establish a partnership design process, with industry and the 

appropriate FAA, DOD, and DHS organizations to produce a relationship strategy. Focus the 

initial stages of the design process on (1) reaching a shared view of demand, and (2) establish a 

C-19
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

shared concept of operations, and (3) decide on best approaches to the partnership design, 

implementation, and operation. 

FAA Response (7a) and (7b): The FAA is working jointly with other government agencies, 

specifically DOD, NASA, and DHS, to establish a UAS Executive Committee (EXCOM). The 

UAS EXCOM structure and process will facilitate interagency collaboration of research and 

development activities to integrate public use UAS in the NAS. The FAA will continue efforts 

to partner with industry stakeholders using Collaborative Research and Development 

Agreements and Other Transaction Authorities to conduct research to support UAS integration in 

the NAS. In addition, we work with RTCA committees and working groups to develop civil 

aviation standards for UAS. 

Finding (8): (Demonstrations) The FAA presentation on Govt-Industry partnerships for 

demonstrations highlights the FAA’s early efforts to increase the level of accountability and 

management across activities that involve the more highly visible collaborative projects. This is 

a very positive step towards improved management of the FAA’s research portfolio. The 

subcommittee looks forward to receiving updates in this area. 

Recommendation: The FAA should document and publish the specific research objectives 

associated with each demonstration and report regularly to the subcommittee the performance of 

the demonstrations against the previously-defined objectives, including measures of positive 

outcomes as well as shortfalls in meeting those objectives. 

FAA Response: FAA demonstration activities are meant to be short-term projects designed to 

support specific decision points in the NAS enterprise architecture. The NextGen Integration 

and Implementation Office (AJP-A) in coordination with the Service Units has the responsibility 

for prioritizing and approving demonstration activities. Each NextGen funded demonstration has 

its objectives, activities, and high level schedule identified in a Project Level Agreement (PLA) 

between the executing office and the NextGen I&I Office. The NextGen I&I Office continue to 

implement processes that support consistent status reporting and feedback of demonstration 

activities. These processes should be able to provide information on the performance and 

demonstration outcomes. We will be able to brief the Subcommittee on the status of these 

processes at a future meeting. 

Finding (9): It is a clear intention of the FAA to invest in laboratory infrastructure that can be 

used for future collaborative efforts in a broad set of NextGen areas. Subcommittee has some 

concerns, however, on whether this additional infrastructure is a cost-effective use of 

government resources. 

Recommendation: FAA should examine the proposed new laboratory capabilities against other 

capabilities to which the Agency has access, and should identify the anticipated utilization of this 

new investment as well as the level of sustained use of present capabilities. 

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that an assessment of its laboratory capabilities against 

other capabilities to which the Agency has access should be done and we have done preliminary 

work in this area. In 2008 the FAA conducted an assessment of FAA-owned air traffic 

C-20
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

management laboratories against the potential laboratory needs for NextGen. This assessment 

included the FAA’s Federal Laboratory (FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center) and the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute. 

Collaboration among technologies and facilities is already in practice within the FAA. For 

instance, the test bed at the FAA Technical Center known as the NextGen Integration and 

Evaluation Capability (NIEC) is not a new laboratory but rather is an integration of existing 

capabilities into a single location. The NIEC is a real-time, flexible, object-oriented, rapid 

prototyping and simulation environment that simulates the enterprise architecture infrastructure 

and supports low to medium fidelity simulations. There are two other FAA test beds in Texas 

and Florida; however, they are used for specific demonstrations and testing based on their 

capabilities. The key difference between NIEC and the other FAA test beds is the 

interconnectivity to existing NAS systems that exist in their entirety only at the FAA Technical 

Center. The test bed in Texas is used primarily for ATC ground-based live testing and the 

Florida test bed is used to demonstrate live flight-testing. Each FAA test bed has unique and 

distinctive characteristics that lend themselves to specific demonstrations and testing capabilities; 

however, the FAA will take the existing capabilities into consideration as the FAA invests in 

future laboratory infrastructure for NextGen areas. 

The FAA is taking a leadership role in identifying and examining current and prospective 

NextGen funded laboratory and demonstration facility capabilities; preparing a gap analysis; and 

developing a plan to leverage resources. 

The FAA also expects to identify and examine other federal laboratories for possible 

collaboration such as NASA Ames Research Center, Department of Energy’s Sandia National 

Lab, and the Department of Defense’s Test Resource Management Center. Since the FAA is 

currently the co-chair of the Infrastructure Working Group (co-led by DOD, NASA, and FAA) in 

support of the National Plan for Aeronautics Research and Development and Related 

Infrastructure, they are already positioned for further collaboration. 

FAA Updated Response to the Separation Standards Working Group Report 

[Note that the following is a status update on the Report of the Separation Standards Working 

Group dated September 20, 2006, a report from an ad hoc subcommittee of the REDAC that 

FAA responded to on May 14, 2007, originally appearing in the 2008 NARP.] 

Finding (10): It was reported that the target level of safety has been increased to 10-E9. This 

level does not appear to be statistically achievable to the NAS Operations Subcommittee. 

Recommendation: The target level of safety needs to be reassessed for its reasonableness and 

applicability. Safety levels of new systems should be compared against a baseline which is 

defensible based on current operations and statistical analyses. 

FAA Response: The FAA SMS requires that we demonstrate an acceptable risk level for a 

catastrophic event. For an absolute safety case, that level is 10-E9 per hour of operation; 

C-21
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

however, that level would not be required for a comparative safety case that uses an acceptable 

baseline. Also, please see the FAA response to the REDAC General Observation – Excessive 

Safety Standards for New Systems. 

Finding (11): The NAS Operations Subcommittee ascertained that the responsibility for 

separation standards in the FAA was not clearly defined. While ATO apparently has the ultimate 

responsibility, coordination with AVS was unclear. 

Recommendation: Given possibly different operating paradigms in NextGen, the FAA should 

have clear points of responsibility for the development and implementation of separation 

standards. 

FAA Response: The FAA operates under a SMS that requires the assessment of all changes in 

the NAS before they become operational. This includes the implementation of separation 

standards. This is clearly a defined process. Please see the FAA response to the REDAC 

General Observation - Excessive Safety Standards for New Systems. 

C-22
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

2. REDAC Recommendations on the FY 2012 R&D Portfolio, May, 10, 2010 

The Committee Chairman Dr. John Hansman submitted REDAC’s recommendations on the FY 

2012 R&D portfolio to the Administrator on May, 10, 2010. The agency provided the following 

response to the recommendations on September, 16, 2010. 

General Observations 

Recommendation: Concern on Level of Technical Expertise in Key Areas - The FAA has a 

unique need for expertise in key areas such as critical software and digital systems and human 

factors both for certification and acquisition. The REDAC reiterates its concern that there has 

been inadequate progress in developing the core competency and technical workforce in this and 

other key areas. The problem is recognized by the agency but progress has been limited due to 

the inability of the FAA to compete on the market for highly desirable talent. The REDAC 

recommends maintaining the priority in this area and investigating internal approaches for 

workforce development in key areas including hiring high potential junior staff with “fast track” 

training and responsibility paths. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that we do have a unique need for expertise in key areas such 

as critical software and digital systems, and human factors both for certification and acquisition. 

To address your concern related to developing the core competency and technical workforce in 

this and other key areas, we will be focusing our attention on using several existing mechanisms 

that provide some guidance for near- and mid-term planning. These include the FAA Flight 

Plan, the National Aviation Research Plan (NARP), and the AVS annual research and 

development (R&D) strategic guidance (SG). The AVS R&D SG is typically released 28 

months in advance of the year of execution and describes the primary areas of AVS R&D 

interest. Furthermore, Aviation Safety R&D requirements are finalized at least 18 months in 

advance of project start dates. These provide data to define needed core capabilities. 

As briefed to the Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety, AVS is taking steps to implement a life-cycle 

planning system for R&D. In its fully implemented state, requirements will be described through 

all phases of the program life-cycle: problem definition, research stages, implementation of the 

solution, and post implementation evaluation. In this system, research requirements will be 

programmed for all research phases and provide an even longer view for planning purposes. 

Lastly, AVS Chief Scientists and Technical Advisors will begin developing annual reports that 

provide a long-view assessment of aviation safety and technology areas for which R&D support 

may be required. First reports are expected in January 2011. 

In addition to activities described above, there are additional data sources available for guidance. 

For a long-term view, examples include the National Plan for Aeronautics Research and 

Infrastructure, and the National Academies-National Research Council Decadal Survey of Civil 

Aeronautics. For a more current view, there are several sources of excellent information from 

groups such as the Commercial Airplane Safety Team and the International Helicopter Safety 

Team. 

C-23
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

The majority of these ongoing activities address the aviation research demand areas that will be 

needed by the FAA. To ensure that the FAA is capable of responding in those demand areas, the 

Research and Technology Development Office (AJP-6) will be assessing the data from these 

ongoing efforts to translate that information into what core research capabilities and facilities are 

needed to support current and projected research needs, along with developing a plan for 

securing the appropriate resources. AJP-6 will also begin investigating internal approaches for 

workforce development in key areas including hiring high potential junior staff with “fast track” 

training and responsibility paths. 

The FAA will review the status of these efforts with the Committee at the next meeting. 

Recommendation: NextGen Technical and Program Risk Management - The REDAC observes 

that much of the NextGen planning has been success based and it is unclear if technical and 

program risks have been fully identified. The REDAC recommends that the FAA should review 

NextGen plans to identify assumptions which establish technical and program risk in key areas 

such as human factors and software certification. These risks should be mitigated by risk 

management strategies which validate or dispute assumptions through early research and identify 

mitigations to the most likely and significant risks. In addition, there should be consideration 

given to how the NextGen plans would adapt to unfavorable research and development test 

results. 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the REDAC’s observation regarding technical and 

programmatic risk and recognizes that, given the scope of the Committee, the FAA has not 

briefed the REDAC on our detailed plans for managing NextGen implementation. However, all 

of the REDAC recommendations are active elements of the existing NextGen planning and 

execution processes. The FAA has established a risk based management framework for 

NextGen that explores the full range of options rather than pursuing a single implementation 

path. That includes identifying technical and program risks and the related risk management 

strategies. For additional information regarding the FAA’s management approach, please refer 

to the 2010 NextGen Implementation Plan, which includes a chapter that lays out our approach. 

Recommendation: Need for a Comprehensive View of FAA Research and Development 

Portfolio - The REDAC has had difficulty meeting its responsibility to evaluate the FAA R&D 

portfolio due to the complexity of how research and development are funded and managed 

within the agency for historical and operational reasons. It would be useful to the REDAC and 

the Agency to have a comprehensive mapping of all research and development related activity. 

FAA Response: Research and technology development efforts being conducted with the FAA 

and by external partners such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

Department of Defense (DOD), Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Lab (MITLL), 

MITRE Corporation (CAASD), universities, Single European Sky Air Traffic Management 

Research (SESAR) Joint Undertaking, etc., are continuously being cataloged and evaluated for 

inclusion on the NAS Enterprise Architecture Infrastructure Roadmaps. Evaluation of this 

research involves extensive coordination with FAA research and program managers, 

infrastructure roadmap leads, the Chief National Airspace System (NAS) Enterprise Architect, as 

C-24
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

well as NextGen solution set managers, to determine whether the maturity level, timeframe, and 

application of the expected research outcomes have potential for influencing one or more 

decision points defined to achieve the FAA’s mid-term NextGen Operational Improvement (OI) 

targets. Through this process the FAA will also be able to identify gaps in the research required 

to support the NextGen OIs. 

All other research activity determined to be outside the scope of the NAS Enterprise Architecture 

is captured in the annual National Aviation Research Plan which is congressionally mandated 

and published every year. 

Recommendation: Nav Lean - The REDAC was encouraged by the plan to investigate Lean 

processes for certification, safety and operational approval motivated, in part, by prior REDAC 

concerns regarding excessive safety standards for new systems. The REDAC looks forward to 

the results of this study and would like to support this effort. 

FAA Response: In response to recommendations from the RTCA Task Force on NextGen 

Mid-Term Implementation, the FAA has initiated the Navigation (NAV) Procedures project. 

Using “Lean Processes,” the project will review and make recommendations to improve and 

streamline all processes used to request, prioritize, process, improve, and implement 

performance-based conventional instrument flight procedures (IFP). The focus of the 

improvements will be to create safe, repeatable, beneficial, and efficient processes that comply 

with applicable regulations. By September 30, 2010, a report will be provided to AVS and ATO 

leadership with recommendations for improving and streamlining development and delivery of 

all IFPs in the NAS. AVS and ATO leadership, in coordination with the Office of Airports 

(ARP) and Office of Policy, Planning and Environment (AEP) [The Office for Policy, 

International Affairs, and Environment (APL)], will assess and approve these recommendations 

for implementation. 

The NAV Lean Team is composed of six Working Groups (WG) with leads representing ATO 

and AVS. Each WG will review and make recommendations to improve and streamline their 

respective processes. Relative to the REDAC’s reference to safety and operational approval, one 

of the six WGs is the Safety Management System (SMS) and Operational Approval Working 

Group. This WG will (1) examine the current requirement to use the SMS method to assess 

potential changes in risk associated with the introduction of a new or revised IFP into regional 

airspace, (2) examine the special authorization process, which specifies aircraft, equipment, and 

pilot requirements for approving procedures such as Category II/III Instrument Landing System 

(ILS) or Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorization 

Required (SAAAR), and (3) review and recommend changes to the appropriate safety targets. 

Upon project completion, the FAA would be happy to brief the REDAC on NAV Lean as 

desired by the REDAC or any of the subcommittees. 

C-25
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

FAA Response to REDAC Recommendations on the FY 2012 R&D Portfolio 

Subcommittee on Airports 

The Subcommittee was pleased to learn that the funding for the Airport Technology Branch was 

$22.47M in the Omnibus Appropriation, that staff at the Tech Center are creating 10-year 

research plans for both the Safety and Pavements area, and that the many projects underway are 

being handled responsibly and with obvious expertise. 

Finding (1): In the ARFF area, the subcommittee expressed significant interest in the research 

to develop standards for determining the amount of agent needed on New Large Aircraft (NLA). 

The subcommittee appreciated the point that new technologies may offset the need for new agent 

types, quantities, or delivery systems, but the highest priority remains to complete the research 

that will establish if FAA needs to change its requirements for the amount of firefighting agent 

needed for U.S. airports receiving NLA service. 

Recommendation: The FAA should continue the high priority ARFF research to answer the 

question on the amount of firefighting agent require for airports receiving NLA service. 

FAA Response: We concur. The Airport R&D Branch at the FAA William J. Hughes 

Technical Center has been directed to make completion of this portion of the Aircraft Rescue 

Fire Fighting (ARFF) research a priority. 

Finding (2): The Subcommittee was pleased with the advances made on Foreign Object 

Damage (FOD) detection equipment, and is pleased that the research is focusing on performance 

standards rather than individual product acceptance. Likewise, in the area of wildlife detection 

equipment, the research is aiming at criteria that will provide alerts to tower personnel as 

opposed to demanding full time attention to what amounts to yet another monitoring device. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that in the case of both FOD detection and 

the Wildlife detection radars the FAA provide guidance on best management practices in 

implementing and operating the systems along with the system performance specifications. 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA is developing guidance for implementing FOD detection 

systems to go along with the previously published performance specification. The bird radar 

performance specification is under development and we will issue implementation guidance for 

bird radars along with the issuance of the bird radar performance specification. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee also found that FAA’s friction research is coalescing with the 

Takeoff and Landing Performance Advisory Committee. Research is close to concluding a 

single runway friction assessment tool that will resolve pilot inputs, airport operations inputs and 

even friction measuring devices into a single classification to assess and declare the condition of 

a runway. 

C-26
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: FAA should support the implementation of the Takeoff and Landing 

Performance Assessment (TALPA) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) method and should 

promote its use worldwide. 

FAA Response: We concur. We intend to continue to support the ongoing TALPA work both 

within the FAA and at International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 

Finding (4): The subcommittee was pleased with the presentation from the FAA’s National 

Planning and Programming Office (APP) on the progress of the NextGen program and the 

impact on airports. The Subcommittee believes this is a very important area, and the brief 

demonstrated that FAA has considered the recommendations stated in previous REDAC reports. 

Recommendation: The FAA should continue to provide updates at future subcommittee 

meetings on NextGen and its impact on airports. 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA invited the Office of Airport Planning and Programming 

to provide an update on NextGen impacts on airports at the Subcommittee meeting 

August 25-26, 2010. 

Finding (5): The Subcommittee was pleased with the research in the area of alternative 

paint/marking materials. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that future guidance should contain 

information on how to apply the materials. Also, the subcommittee recommends that guidance 

on the use of Type I / III glass beads in airport paints should clearly state which type would be 

more appropriate for airport use. There is currently a disparity in the existing guidance and 

recent research results, and airports would benefit by having the latest, up-to-date information on 

this topic. 

FAA Response: The FAA will add clarifying information when the Advisory Circular is 

updated. 

Finding (6): The subcommittee also found that the research on developing a low cost ground 

surveillance (LCGS) system for airports is very promising. The purpose of the research is to 

review and evaluate LCGS systems, with a focus on how they can be used by airports to improve 

airport surveillance. The subcommittee commented that the proposed Airports solution appears 

to be much more robust than that being investigated in Air Traffic Organization’s LCGS 

program. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommended that whatever solution is found for the 

LCGS program needs to have ATO involvement, since both systems may be used by either 

airport operations or ATC. The subcommittee felt that it is critical that LCGS be focused on the 

airport operator. 

C-27
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

FAA Response: We concur. The Airport R&D Branch will continue to coordinate with ATO 

on the ongoing evaluation of LCGS. Updates will be provided at the next Subcommittee 

meeting. 

Finding (7): In the GPS ground-vehicle navigation project, a project has been initiated to 

evaluate current technologies, provide a list of implementation and operational 

recommendations, and to provide cost estimates for equipment procurement. The subcommittee 

found that the research currently underway is well executed. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the research team work with the 

Airport GIS program to develop future technology / system requirements (e.g. maps in vehicle 

display). The GPS ground vehicle research team is also investigating the challenge of how the 

equipment might provide zone/proximity alerts to the driver of a vehicle operating on an airport 

with a complex geometry. The subcommittee recommends that human factors issues should be 

considered when determining how often a driver is alerted. A system that provides constant 

alerts may give drivers a false sense of security and cause them to not be as vigilant as they 

otherwise would be when traversing an airport. 

FAA Response: We concur. The Airport R&D Branch provided a briefing on this issue at the 

Subcommittee meeting August 25-26, 2010. 

Finding (8): The subcommittee is pleased that the research aimed at developing an airport and 

airspace simulation model is being coordinated with the Airports GIS program staff. The main 

elements of this project are to: build the airport database; improve the digitization of airports; 

develop a process to use PDARS data; and build airport latitude and longitude data in a way that 

is consistent with the directives of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-18B (Airport Data – 

Geographic Information System Standards). 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA follow-up with a vendor who 

may have already been able to incorporate ASDE-X and PDARS data into typical simulation 

software. 

FAA Response: We concur. The Airport R&D Branch provided an update on this issue at the 

subcommittee meeting August 25-26, 2010. 

Finding (9): Pavement research continues to provide benefits to the airport industry. 

Recommendation (a): In the area of Alkali-Silica Reactivity (ASR) testing, the subcommittee 

recommends that the existing research projects construct additional slabs of known non-reactive 

aggregates that have been appropriately screened with the proper ASTM testing protocols as a 

control group. This approach would provide data to indicate if the anti-icing agents are causing a 

deleterious reaction or exacerbating the deleterious reaction of inferior materials. Preliminary 

research through the IPRF indicates that improper screening of aggregates may in fact pose a 

greater threat to deleterious reactions in concrete than the anti-icing agent itself. 

C-28
 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

2011 NARP	 Appendix C 

FAA Response: We concur. The Airport R&D Branch will construct new non-ASR susceptible 

slabs for testing as space becomes available. 

Recommendation (b): Additionally, the subcommittee recommends that the Technical Center 

consider research into the load-transfer effectiveness of dowelled and un-dowelled pavements. It 

is recommended the FAA consider constructing “dummy” contraction joints following the 

specifications listed in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6E, and measure the load transfer 

across these joints. This data would also provide engineers valuable information when designing 

and specifying joint types for airfield pavements. The national costs for using steel dowels in 

pavement construction are rising, and research into this subject may help airport operators reduce 

future construction costs by eliminating unnecessary design features. 

FAA Response: We concur. The Airport R&D Branch will first review data from previous 

slabs: CC1 with dummy joints and then compare results with the data collected during CC2 and 

CC4 as well as new data from CC6 which have doweled joints. Data collected at Denver 

International Airport instrumented slab will also be reviewed and analyzed. If inconclusive the 

Airport R&D Branch will build a new section in which different joint types; dummy, doweled, 

tied and possibly new designs, can be compared. 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

The Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety (SAS) of the FAA Research, Engineering and 

Development Committee (REDAC) met at MITRE’s Center for Advanced Aviation Systems 

Development on March 9-11, 2010. The meeting included tours of the CAASD Integrated ATM 

Lab with demonstrations of CDTI/ADS-B Applications and Runway Incursion-Flight Deckbased Direct Warning. The primary purpose of the meeting was to review FY12 Research 

Requirements and included detailed reviews, “Deep Dives” into several research programs. 

General Observations 

	 The SAS again found the presentations given by FAA managers and researchers to be of 

uniformly high quality. 

	 The method of summarization and content presentation of the many complex topics 

continues to improve and were readily comprehensible at a management level. 

	 The prioritization process of research proposals appears to be effective. 

	 The SAS believes that the portfolio content is substantially correct, but is concerned that 

several research programs lack a sufficient level of technical expertise to assure success. 

	 The SAS found no programs that should be eliminated. 

	 The extent to which FAA leverages the work and expertise of other government agencies, 

industry and academia continues to be an effective way to conduct relevant research. 

C-29
 
	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 


 

2011 NARP	 Appendix C 

	 The SAS finds FAA to be extremely responsive in responding to subcommittee 

comments and recommendations. 

	 Specific Findings and Recommendations on individual areas of research reviewed and 

discussed by the subcommittee follow. 

Finding (1): (Icing Program) The Aircraft Icing program is well defined and poised to deliver 

high value. The icing program has built important collaborative research relationships with other 

FAA programs, NASA, Canadian research organizations, European research organizations and 

the aerospace industry. This is to be commended as it will enable the FAA to expand its icing 

research portfolio and increase their impact by conducting collaborative research programs on 

high priority programs of mutual interest. The high ice-water content, engine icing program is 

such a high priority program and leverages many of these relationships. This program addresses 

the engine malfunctions due to ice crystals that have occurred on many commercial flights in 

convective weather primarily in the tropics. The Appendix C research including the work on 3D 

ice accretion and icing aerodynamics certification methods is well conceived and is important to 

the FAA mission of flight safety. This program is currently building an international coalition 

and research plan and this should be encouraged. Finally, aircraft icing is an important safety 

area where the FAA has significant interests and responsibility. The icing program has several 

high priority programs and very limited in-house expertise. They rely heavily on partners and 

grantee/contractors to manage their programs. Concern exists within the Subcommittee 

regarding the lack of FAA “bench strength” in this important area. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue to support the high priority high ice-water 

content, engine icing research program and support the Appendix C research on 3D ice accretion. 

The Subcommittee recommends that FAA review the current “bench strength” and take 

appropriate hiring action to assure continuity in technical strength well into the future in the 

aircraft icing research area. 

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes the limitations on in-house expertise in atmospheric and 

aerodynamic science and engineering and have addressed these in the short term by developing 

research partnerships with NASA, the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, National 

Research Council Canada, Environment Canada, other national research organizations and 

academic institutions that carry expertise in the areas of interest we are pursuing. For the longer 

term, the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center is currently advertising a position for a 

research meteorologist and there may be an opportunity to add an aerodynamicist to the research 

team. The Aircraft Icing Chief Scientist and Technical Advisor (CSTA) will continue to work 

with FAA research program managers to support increases to internal expertise needed to meet a 

bench strength capability within the FAA that assures continuity in technical strength in the 

aircraft icing research area. 

Finding (2): (Weather in The Cockpit) The Weather in the Cockpit program appears to be on 

the right track using a gap analysis to help define the needed research requirements. A concern 

remains regarding the planned timing of research completion in 2015 intended to support the mid 

term NextGen implementation of 2018. 

C-30
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: Assure the research deliverables are progressively released to enable 

industry to respond to them in formulating solutions to the Weather in the Cockpit imperative. 

FAA Response: FAA concurs with the recommendation to progressively release Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC) program deliverables to enable timely industry response. 

The WTIC program schedule will be updated to reflect those releases. 

Finding (3): (Propulsion Malfunction Research) The Subcommittee found the planned 

Propulsion Malfunction research plan would benefit from deep engagement with engine and 

airframe manufacturers contributing their knowledge & expertise in this area. 

Recommendation: The FAA should develop an industry partnership approach to assist & 

accelerate the Propulsion Malfunction research activity. 

FAA Response: The Propulsion Malfunction research plan involves significant partnering with 

airframe, engine, and sensor manufacturers and health monitoring experts, such as Boeing, 

General Electric, Pratt Whitney, and Meggitt. Past collaborative research (in this area) is 

described in the following reports: 

 “Indications of Propulsion System Malfunctions” report number DOT/FAA/AR-03/72 

 “Indications of Propulsion System Malfunctions – Sustained Thrust Anomaly Study” report 

number DOT/FAA/AR-06/15 

 “Engine Damage – Related Propulsion System Malfunctions” report number DOT/FAA/AR08/24 

Additionally, FAA researchers are an integral part of the Aerospace Industries Association 

Propulsion Indications Task Team (PITT) that is working to develop recommendations for future 

changes 14 CFR 25.1305 (Power Plant Instruments). FAA researchers also provide inputs for 

the propulsion section of the recently published AC 25-11A Electronic Flight Deck Displays. 

The PITT committee has members from all the major airframe and engine manufacturers. 

Future research in propulsion malfunction will continue these partnership activities. 

Finding (4): (Unmanned Aircraft System) The ongoing Unmanned Aircraft System research is 

urgently needed to define a path to permit safe operation of UAS vehicles in the NAS. Although 

this broad and difficult area has been hampered by several leadership and organizational changes 

in the past few years, the SAS has noted good traction in the recent past. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the research sponsoring office & the 

research performing technical community continue to jointly refine the development of the 

research requirements and firmly establish the optimum path to achieve the important goal of 

enabling UAS operation in the NAS. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the Subcommittee recommendation to continue 

ongoing efforts to refine research requirements for UAS research. The FAA is already engaged 

C-31
 
 


 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

in efforts to establish the optimum path to enable UAS operations in the NAS. Chief among 

these is the UAS Executive Committee (UAS ExCom). 

The UAS ExCom was established under direction from Congress in Section 935 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act of 2010. The UAS ExCom Senior Steering Group (SSG) has 

established the NAS Access Working Group to develop a plan to address UAS NAS access 

barriers and provides a path to expanded access for federal and public use UAS NAS access in 

the near- (< 5 years), mid- (5-10 years), and long- (>10 years) terms. 

The NAS access plan will identify activities, milestones, and resources required to determine 

best approaches for meeting the needs and priorities of the UAS ExCom agencies within the 

identified timeframes. 

FAA research activities associated with each NAS access barrier will be jointly developed and 

refined by the FAA sponsoring and performing organizations and coordinated with the other 

UAS ExCom organizations. 

The FAA will provide regular updates on the progress of UAS research planning at future 

Subcommittee meetings. 

Finding (5): (ASIAS) The SAS found that the ASIAS research project has made significant 

progress and continues to be directly responsive to the need of safety analysts within the FAA 

and aviation industry. The subcommittee commends the work being done by MITRE CAASD 

and notes the increased degree of trust that has developed from ASIAS industry participants. 

ASIAS is clearly an integral component of a Safety Management System designed to bring 

today’s safe aviation system to even higher levels of safety. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that the FAA continue efforts to increase the number 

of airline participants and ensure that the ASIAS program continues to be a safety tool that is 

increasingly used to identify emerging risks before they become potential safety issues. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the recommendation and is continuing efforts to 

increase the number of airlines actively participating in Aviation Safety Information Analysis 

and Sharing (ASIAS) and now has 30 airlines sharing de-identified data from Flight Operational 

Quality Assurances programs and/or Aviation Safety Action Programs. The FAA continues to 

target additional airlines to obtain statistically significant numbers in terms of geographic 

locations, aircraft types, airline operations (regional versus large carrier), etc. While continuing 

to conduct directed studies and track metrics of known safety issues, ASIAS is increasing efforts 

in the development and implementation of analytical methods to detect potential safety risks to 

the NAS and forward these issues to appropriate safety teams for mitigation. 

Finding (6): (Conduct of Research and Development) The SAS commends FAA for the 

advancing the development of a monthly reporting template to monitor progress in achieving 

measurable milestones and deliverables of all research activities in the Aviation Safety R&D 

portfolio. 

C-32
 
	 

	 

	 

	 


 

2011 NARP	 	 Appendix C 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that FAA adopt a monthly reporting template and 

move quickly to implement it across the entire Aircraft Safety R&D portfolio. 

FAA Response: The FAA thanks the Subcommittee for adopting the FAA response to SAS 

Recommendation 2009-3-3 which was presented to the Subcommittee at the March 11, 2010 

meeting as follows, “Recommend SAS support for the AVS template for monthly reporting.” 

The FAA concurs with the follow-on recommendation and agrees that a consistent performance 

reporting system is needed to effectively manage the Aviation Safety R&D Program and monitor 

progress in achieving milestones and deliverables as well as tracking eventual implementation of 

the results. 

In further support of this objective, several actions are underway. AJP-6, the performing 

organization, has conducted a pilot status reporting process and will continue to evaluate the 

effectiveness of this format for content and frequency. AVS, the sponsoring organization, led by 

the Office of Accident Investigation and Prevention, has established an RE&D Performance 

Reporting Working Group. This working group, whose members represent the Office of 

Accident Investigation and Prevention, the Aircraft Certification Service, the Flight Standards 

Service, the Office of Air Traffic Oversight, and the Office of Research and Technology 

Development, will consider best practices for research and development reporting in private 

industry, Government, and academia. The goal is to provide common and consistent information 

to all stakeholders. The FAA will review these efforts with the Subcommittee at the September 

2010 meeting. 

Finding (7): The SAS continues to believe that successful conduct of research and development 

demands a series of sponsor-performer arrangements and conditions, all of them often urged on 

FAA by various groups. 

1.	 Although a partnership in the execution of the research including shaping the approving 

methods and products expected is required, it is essential that the responsible sponsor 

organization have a strong voice not only in the setting of requirements – but also the funding 

authority. 

2.	 The responsible sponsor organization must have a strong voice in the design and 

performance of the work, and must clearly monitor and have oversight of the work so that 

meaningful results can emerge. 

3.	 The responsible sponsor organization must itself have the technical and management skills to 

fully understand and monitor the work of the performing organization – whether it is within 

or outside the FAA. While this cadre of expertise may need to be small, it must be able to 

understand and guide the work. Experience in R, E&D has shown that in the absence of such 

skills in FAA, the results are almost always poor. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA review the structure of the 

Aircraft Safety Research Program to ensure that the current roles of the sponsor and performing 

organizations are best suited for successful conduct of safety research. This review should 

include roles related to authority over and management of research funds. 

C-33
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the subcommittee recommendation to review the 

structure of the Aviation Safety Research Program and the respective roles of the sponsor, 

performer, budget, and financial management organizations. The Aviation Safety Research 

Program is perhaps the most complex research program within the FAA both in terms of size and 

breadth. There are multiple organizations involved and collaboration between all of them is 

essential to capitalize on the strengths and resources of each. 

Although the R&D Portfolio Development Process Guidance Reference Document describes the 

current roles of sponsor and performer organizations, it does so at a high level applicable to the 

entire FAA. To address this recommendation specifically for the Aviation Safety Research 

Program will require the FAA to more fully explore and assess the roles and responsibilities of 

the organizations involved with the aircraft safety R&D portfolio. This will be a complex 

undertaking that will take time to complete. The FAA will develop a plan for completing such 

an assessment for review by the Subcommittee at a future date. 

Finding (8): (The Proper Role of TCAS) TCAS was intended to be an independent safety net in 

the ATC system. It was recognized from the beginning that the independence would not be total, 

since TCAS depends on the Mode S data link and the barometric altimeter. However, every 

attempt was made to provide as much real separation and independence from the ATC system 

tools as possible. 

Recommendation: The SAS believes that, as the community explores the closer integration of 

TCAS with other systems such as ADS-B and aircraft autopilot systems, the potential safety 

risks associated with the reduction of independence need to be carefully considered. The SAS 

requests further detail from the FAA on this issue and how these potential safety risks are 

assessed. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the basic concern, that collision avoidance cannot 

become completely dependent on Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). The 

FAA requested RTCA to expand the scope of the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 

(TCAS) committee to address this issue as part of a broader TCAS review. The RTCA Special 

Committee (SC) 147 is developing recommendations on how to make TCAS II more compatible 

with the NAS, including how to potentially integrate ADS-B data into a next-Collision 

Avoidance System (CAS). SC-147 is tasked with development of recommendations that would: 

1) make collision avoidance more compatible with routine operations in congested airspace, 

including busy terminal areas in the NAS, now and through 2025; 2) make appropriate use of 

ADS-B information in a future collision avoidance system; and 3) reduce the radio frequency 

congestion at 1090 megahertz. The report from SC-147 is due September 2011 and will contain 

a road map of major changes and associated schedules. 

In support of the committee, the FAA TCAS Program Office is conducting research to support 

developing a metric to assess independence of future collision avoidance systems with regard to 

air traffic (AT) control surveillance (i.e., AT separation service or separation assurance). The 

analysis was initiated based on the NAS planned deployment of ADS-B and backup systems. 

Nevertheless, the conclusions on independence are intended to have broad applicability for 

worldwide use. In addition to the completion of the independence work, the program office has 

C-34
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

tasked team members with evaluating the required availability and integrity of CAS as well. The 

FAA sees this information as necessary for the evaluation and certification of future CAS. This 

work will help assess issues associated with protection from corruption and ability to revert to an 

independent collision avoidance capability, recognizing that some level of dependency may be 

acceptable. This information is seen as necessary for the evaluation and certification of future 

CAS and will be made available to the RTCA committee. 

Finding (9): (Structural Integrity/Composites) The Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety considers 

the research effort on Structural Integrity/Composites to be a model program. With a very small 

but clearly expert internal FAA management resource, this effort leverages the work and 

expertise of other government agencies and the industry on a critical safety matter. The focus on 

developing standards and guidance based on theory and practical experience, and the emphasis 

on providing usable guidance to FAA people, and many others, makes this a valuable example of 

how to do things right. The Subcommittee endorses the proactive approach to composite 

structure maintenance and inspection being executed. Staying ahead of the composite aircraft 

fleet is very important to assure future continued operational safety. 

Finding (10): (FAA Facilities and Laboratories) The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee wishes to 

reemphasize an earlier recommendation on FAA funding and support for facilities and efforts 

which serve not only FAA but are also resources for the world. These facilities and efforts – 

such as much of the work of the Civil Aeromedical Institute and the William J. Hughes 

Technical Center – have a world-wide impact and contribute in important ways to the eminence 

and high reputation of FAA. Support of these efforts and increasing public knowledge and 

understanding of these activities is critical to the success of research activities in support of 

NextGen, self-separation, human factors, reduction of spacing between parallel runways, RNP, 

etc. Even in difficult budget periods, adequate funding must be provided not only for the 

modernization, care and feeding and operation of existing facilities but funding must also be 

provided to ensure that laboratories with required capabilities to support future research are 

available when needed. Precedence for the use of F&E funding for the procurement, upgrade, 

repair or operation of facilities and equipment at the Tech Center and CAMI has been 

established. The procurement of equipment for CAMI, the support of the Pavement Test Facility 

and repair of R&D facilities at the Tech Center are examples recently cited by Tech Center 

Counsel. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA seriously explore creative ways 

outside of the RE&D budget to support the modernization and operation of existing laboratories 

and the establishment of laboratory capabilities to support future research requirements. 

FAA Response: The FAA is statutorily bound to use appropriated funds in accordance with 

public law. FAA Order 2500.8B, Funding Criteria for Operations, Facilities and Equipment, 

Research, Engineering and Development, and Grants-In-Aid for Airports Accounts, provides 

guidance on the use of these funds. Each year during the preparation of the R&D portfolio, the 

FAA identifies gaps between existing laboratory capabilities and future needs based on identified 

research requirements. The FAA uses an established budget formulation processes to prioritize a 

list of new and existing programs and resource allocations, including those for laboratories. As 

C-35
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

one would expect, these resource allocations rely quite heavily on compelling long-term research 

requirements. 

Recently, the FAA has expanded the use of Cooperative Research Development Agreements 

(CRDAs) and Other Transaction Authority (OTAs) to facilitate industry collaboration in the 

development and upgrading of our research laboratories. The recently opened NextGen 

Integration and Evaluation Capability (NIEC) facility is the FAA’s research platform to explore, 

integrate, and evaluate NextGen concepts through simulation activities resulting in concept 

maturation and requirements definition. Three CRDAs were used to add UAS simulators and 

flight test vehicles to its suite of capabilities. 

The Florida Test Bed located in Daytona Beach is managed by the FAA, supported by 

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University through an OTA, and provides access to industry 

consortium partners. This site will provide an environment that allows open access for industry 

users and vendors such that new capabilities can be more rapidly harnessed and partnerships can 

be fostered with industry and academia. 

Finding (11): (Software and Digital Systems) The Software and Digital Systems Program 

appears to be moving in the right direction to meet the near-term and mid-term needs of the 

NextGen program. A notable accomplishment in FY 10 was the development and submission of 

a SDS comprehensive research plan which is intended to consolidate the SDS research planning 

that has taken place and show how FAA objectives are being met. The baseline regulatory 

support programs in addition to the FY12 research requirements provide a solid context within 

which to assess the research initiatives. It was also noted that the research currently planned will 

not meet the anticipated far-term needs of the NextGen. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue to support the SDS program and ensure the 

staffing and resources needs are adequate to meet the research needs. In order to address 

NextGen far-term requirements the SDS program should develop a joint research plan with 

NASA to ensure the far-term research being done by NASA will transition to the FAA and 

address the complex system integration expectations of the NextGen by 2025. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the SAS recommendation. The FAA will continue its 

support of the Software and Digital System research program and has taken actions to secure its 

in-house expertise and ensure required resources to provide research results. The NextGen 

long-term requirements for SDS will be driven by the NextGen capability implementation 

schedule and associated aircraft equipage requirements, which will be based on the outcome of 

the NextGen Avionics Roadmap being developed by the Joint Planning and Development Office 

(JPDO) Aircraft Working Group. The FAA will continue its long tradition of working with 

NASA on joint aeronautics and aviation safety research initiatives to ensure proper technology 

transition from development to implementation. The FAA will work with NASA in identifying 

technical challenges of NextGen long-term SDS issues and developing joint technology 

transition/implementation strategies. 

Finding (12): The SAS remains concerned about whether FAA’s internal core capability can 

successfully carry out the Software and Digital Systems research plan. It was noted that the 

C-36
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Chief Scientific and Technical Advisory positions for Aircraft Computer Software and Advanced 

Avionics remain vacant. It was also noted that one hire was made at the Tech Center in FY 2010 

which puts the staff even with the FY09 with 1 additional hire planned for FY11. The SAS 

strongly asserts that the absence of a critical mass of talent in this program will lead to 

unsatisfactory research results. 

Recommendation: The SAS again recommends that FAA aggressively take action to acquire 

the specialized expertise to support this critical program. 

FAA Response: We agree that the FAA needs specialized expertise to support Software and 

Digital Systems (SDS) research and policy, and we continue to create and fill staff-level 

positions for software, systems, and avionics specialists in our aircraft certification headquarters 

organization and the Research and Technology Development Office (R&TD). However, we 

believe the Agency must be selective when filling CSTA positions. A CSTA must have the 

exceptional technical expertise and communication skills necessary to be a true leader in the 

aviation community. In May, the FAA hired a new CSTA for Advanced Avionics. We are 

currently scheduling interviews with two new candidates to fill the vacant CSTA position for 

Aircraft Computer Software. We have interviewed 22 candidates since the position became 

vacant. 

The R&TD Office recognizes the technical challenges of SDS research requirements and the 

need to acquire special expertise. In FY 2010, the Airport and Aircraft Safety Group (AJP-63) 

hired a highly qualified individual into the SDS research program and plans to add another 

position in FY 2011. 

Finding (13): (FAA Core Research Capability) The SAS is concerned that several research 

programs lack a sufficient level of technical expertise to ensure success. The Icing Program and 

the Software and Digital Systems Program are obvious examples. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that the FAA Sponsor Organization and Performing 

Organization jointly undertake a study to quantify the core capability required for both 

organizations to support all critical research programs and take steps to obtain FAA support to 

acquire the needed core capability. 

FAA Response: The FAA thanks the subcommittee for its recommendation. Although we 

agree with the finding, the FAA believes that there are already several means in place to address 

what core research capabilities are needed and we do not support undertaking the recommended 

study. 

The FAA already has several mechanisms which provide a level of guidance for near- and midterm planning. These include the FAA Flight Plan, the National Aviation Research Plan, and the 

AVS annual R&D SG. The AVS R&D SG is typically released 28 months in advance of the 

year of execution and describes the primary areas of AVS R&D interest. Furthermore, Aviation 

Safety R&D requirements are finalized at least 18 months in advance of project start dates. 

These provide data to define needed core capabilities. 

C-37
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

As briefed to the SAS, AVS is taking steps to implement a life-cycle planning system for R&D. 

In its fully implemented state, requirements will be described through all phases of the program 

life-cycle: problem definition, research stages, implementation of the solution, and post 

implementation evaluation. In this system, research requirements will be programmed for all 

research phases and provide an even longer view for planning purposes. 

Lastly, AVS Chief Scientists and Technical Advisors will begin developing annual reports that 

provide a long-view assessment of aviation safety and technology areas for which R&D support 

may be required. First reports are expected in January 2011. 

In addition to activities described above, there are additional data sources available for guidance. 

For a long-term view, examples include the National Plan for Aeronautics Research and 

Infrastructure, and the National Academies-National Research Council Decadal Survey of Civil 

Aeronautics. For a more current view, there are several sources of excellent information from 

groups such as the Commercial Airplane Safety Team and the International Helicopter Safety 

Team. 

The majority of these ongoing activities address the aviation research demand areas that will be 

needed by the FAA. To ensure that the FAA is capable of responding in those demand areas, 

AJP-6 will be assessing the data from these ongoing efforts to translate that information into 

what core research capabilities and facilities are needed to support current and projected research 

needs, along with developing a plan for securing the appropriate resources. In summary, the 

FAA believes it is already responding to the Subcommittee recommendation. 

Finding (14): (The Impact of Computers/Automation on Aircraft Safety) The SAS noted the 

challenges related to obtaining the optimum balance between the role and power of the pilot and 

of the automation systems on the aircraft along with the optimal method of information display 

to the pilot. The challenges increase as computers and Automation Systems become more 

powerful. These same challenges and issues apply to the increasing levels of automation being 

introduced into the Air Traffic Management Systems on the ground. 

Recommendation (a): The SAS recommends that FAA consider the need for additional 

research to ensure that the optimum balance between the power of the pilot and of the 

automation systems. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that human-automation interaction is a key challenge for 

aviation safety. The FAA led a coordinated industry study of aircraft accidents, incidents and 

normal operations associated with flight path management, including flight deck automation. 

This effort was jointly sponsored by the Performance-based Operations Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (PARC) and by the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST). This study has 

provided insights into the nature of current human-automation interaction break-downs, and 

serves as a foundation for further FAA research, policy, and guidance. We propose to provide 

the REDAC SAS with a briefing on this PARC/CAST Flight Deck Automation Working Group 

effort at the next meeting. 

C-38
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation (b): The SAS recommends that FAA consider the need for additional 

research to devise better, more fool-proof methods of testing automation systems for fault 

detection as well as for single and multiple fault survivability. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that safety assurance for complex automation is a challenge 

for aviation as well as other safety-critical domains outside of aviation. Key issues include 

verification and validation of requirements for complex information processing systems, safe 

integration of components developed by separate organizations (including off-the-shelf 

components), and life-cycle management (e.g., configuration control with multiple minor 

software upgrades). The FAA and industry (e.g., SAE S-18 committee) have been developing 

criteria to evaluate systems and will continue to update system design and test criteria with the 

best practices available. The software and digital systems research program is also pursuing 

multiple research topics that support the development and implementation of industry best 

practices that address these issues. We will continue to provide the REDAC SAS with updates 

on these research efforts. 

Finding (15): (Rotorcraft Research) The Subcommittee is pleased to see the rotorcraft research 

work being conducted in a coordinated effort with the Army as was recommended. The research 

supporting addressing tiltrotor safety assurance approach is very much needed. 

Recommendation: The Fly-by-Wire Research work being done in support of the certification 

approach for the advanced tiltrotor Bell 609 aircraft should be accelerated to assure it is rapidly 

transitioned to guidance and regulatory material. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the finding and recommendation of the Subcommittee. 

The FAA researchers will work with the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate to review the fly-by-wire 

requirements and establish collaborative efforts with applicable research activities of fixed-wing 

fly-by-wire research initiatives that should accelerate the research. 

Finding (16): (FAA Center of Excellence for General Aviation Research: CGAR) The SAS 

continues to be impressed with the research activities at the COE for GA Research. The CGAR 

is another example of how cost sharing arrangements, complemented by FAA management 

competence and leadership, can be an effective way to conduct relevant research and advance the 

knowledge of FAA staff. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue to support relevant research activities at CGAR. 

FAA Response: The FAA thanks the committee for the positive assessment of CGAR and their 

valuable contributions to improvements in aircraft safety. The FAA will continue to use the 

appropriate research expertise at CGAR for aviation safety research in such areas as WTIC, 

SMS, and UAS. 

Finding (17): The UAS/Conventional Aircraft certification requirements matrix developed at a 

COE appeared to be of value to the UAS community. It was not clear as to why the matrix is not 

yet publicly available. 

C-39
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: The subcommittee requests further details on the public availability and 

intended use of the UAS matrix. 

FAA Response: The initial findings of a regulatory study were published by the FAA in the 

report DOT/FAA/AR-09/7, titled: Unmanned Aircraft System Regulatory Review. A list of 

regulatory sections rated with its applicability to UAS was organized into a UAS matrix. This 

study included a top-level review on the applicability of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation 

(CFR) to UAS operating in the NAS. The goal of this review was to systematically examine the 

relevant federal regulations, statutes, orders, and policies and identify the known issues resulting 

from the rapid growth of UAS technology. 

Subsequent analyses of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 43, 61, and 91 led to the 

further development of the UAS matrix. That additional work is documented in two draft reports 

that are under FAA review. The FAA will make a concerted effort to expedite their publication. 

The matrix can be used as a reference to study regulatory compliance issues of UAS operating in 

the NAS. 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy 

Finding (1): In reviewing future year budget estimates for environmental research, the 

subcommittee noted that the proposed funding levels are essentially flat for the years 2013 and 

beyond. Since, as a practical matter, the costs of doing business in these years will increase, this 

“flat-lining” leads to an effective reduction in research funds available while the research needs 

and complexities are increasing. 

Recommendation: While the subcommittee understands the problems in projecting out-year 

funding levels, we recommend that out-year budgets at least provide a factor for inflation in 

order not to project a practical decrease in funding levels. In addition, the Agency should 

attempt to communicate to the subcommittee its actual needs in future years so effective advice 

can be given. 

FAA Response: The FAA is directed by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to base its 

future budget estimates on OMB outyear projections. OMB bases it projections on policy 

decisions and it may keep an appropriation on a straight line with no increase for inflation. It is 

true that this flat-lining leads to a reduction in contract funds, not only because of inflation, but 

also because the R,E&D appropriation contains in-house funds. Since there always has been an 

increase in the in-house cost each year, the amount for contract allocation is reduced by the 

increase on in-house costs. Fortunately, it is also true that in the past several years the actual 

funding levels that OMB has allocated to the R,E&D appropriation has exceeded their initial 

estimate due to the growth in the NextGen program, however, this is not something that we can 

continue to anticipate. 

The Environment & Energy program is built to meet the target allocation based on the OMB 

estimate. This is something the FAA cannot change. If the subcommittee feels that the funding 

C-40
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

profile does not adequately fund all the requirements, then the committee may recommend an 

increase in funding and/or recommend a change in the requirements. 

Finding (2): The subcommittee noted the progress being made in the development of a new 

noise roadmap. At the same time, it appears that there is a funding shortfall that has the potential 

of slowing progress in this area. Specifically, there does not appear to be funding to conduct 

required community surveys. 

Recommendation: The Office of Environment and Energy should work with the Office of 

Airports to determine whether funding in the airports research program to fund the $1.5 million 

necessary to conduct community noise surveys is available. 

FAA Response: We agree that implementing the new noise research roadmap is important. The 

Office of Environment and Energy and the Office of Airports are working closely together to 

explore multiple options to fund the most critical, within the context of multiple priorities and 

budget limitations. We can brief the subcommittee on the status of their efforts at the next 

meeting in September, 2010. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee notes, and is encouraged by, the continuing cooperation with 

NASA in a variety of environmental research areas. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the growing cooperation between the 

FAA and NASA in the area of environmental research must continue and expand. This 

expansion is especially important in the Agency’s relationship with NASA’s Airspace Systems 

and Fundamental Aero programs. 

FAA Response: We are pleased that the subcommittee noted our progress in this area. 

FAA-NASA cooperation is essential for greening aviation. We are working very closely with 

NASA and other federal agencies through the Aeronautics Science and Technology 

Subcommittee (ASTS) of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to define 

national R&D goals and set priorities. The FAA and NASA are working very closely and 

coordinating aircraft technology development programs to achieve our national goals and 

support the NextGen environmental objectives. In addition, both FAA and NASA are working 

closely on airspace programs and have formed joint Research Transition Teams (RTTs) to focus 

on technology transition. Environmental concerns are a key consideration of the joint RTT 

effort. 

Finding (4): The subcommittee notes that the FAA and the EPA appear to be better engaged in 

addressing aviation environmental issues. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that cooperation between the FAA and the 

EPA should expand. Specifically, the FAA should request that the EPA actively participate in 

the REDAC Environmental Subcommittee. 

FAA Response: We are pleased with our growing collaboration with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). Our agencies are working closely together in various forms, 

C-41
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

including the International Civil Aviation Organization, the ASTS of the NSTC, the Airports 

Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) and the Environmental Working Group of the JPDO. 

We are also in the process of appointing Christopher Grundler, the Deputy Director of EPA’s 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality and the Chief Executive of the National Vehicle and 

Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, to serve on the REDAC Environment and 

Energy Subcommittee. 

Finding (5): The subcommittee finds that the cooperation between the Office of Environment 

and Energy and ATO is an excellent example of breaking down barriers between Agency 

organizations. One specific area of cooperation that merits mention is the requirement for NEPA 

compliance in the modernization effort. The subcommittee appreciates these continuing efforts 

to integrate environmental considerations into operational decisions. 

Recommendation: Building on the growing relationship between the operational and 

environmental components of NextGen will be crucial as the Agency moves forward with its 

modernization efforts. This intra-agency cooperation should therefore continue and expand. In 

order to facilitate the subcommittee’s assessment of ongoing environmental research needs, we 

recommend and request that ATO provide a briefing to the subcommittee on exactly how 

environmental considerations are being integrated into the NextGen models. 

FAA Response: We fully agree that close collaboration between the ATO and the Office of 

Environment and Energy (AEE) is essential to the success of NextGen. We have asked the AEE 

staff to ensure that the Environment and Energy Subcommittee is briefed on collaborative 

activities between both organizations, as they relate to our R&D program, at the upcoming 

September 2010 meeting. 

Finding (6): AEE’s research efforts to support the ICAO/CAEP process continue to be a 

priority. The issues being considered in the ICAO process are increasingly complex and need to 

be informed by good science. Communication of these efforts to the stakeholder community is 

essential, especially the explanations of how the research underpinnings are integrated into the 

formation of the U.S. policy. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue communicating strategic planning and the status 

of research efforts that inform environmental policy decisions. Specifically, it is recommended 

that the FAA should conduct a workshop for stakeholders, including the international 

community, to communicate the status and underlying assumptions of the use of the Agency’s 

Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT). 

FAA Response: We are committed to ensuring our policy decisions are data driven and 

informed by the latest science. The use of the Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management 

Tool (APMT) is a key component of our strategy. The FAA has continually briefed stakeholders 

on the status and underlying assumptions of APMT via different venues including the frequent 

meetings of the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) 

Center of Excellence and national and international conferences and workshops. We have also 

provided status updates and detailed information to all participants in the International Civil 

Aviation Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (ICAO/CAEP) process. However, 

C-42
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

we can always do more. In response to this recommendation we have asked my staff to convene 

a workshop and provide detailed briefings on APMT to all our stakeholders. 

Finding (7): The PARTNER Center of Excellence appears to be maturing and making excellent 

contributions to the environmental research effort. We continue to remain concerned about 

proposed Congressional language in the FAA Reauthorization bill that calls for the establishment 

of a new Center of Excellence on alternative fuels. The existing PARTNER structure already 

has the capacity to conduct this research. 

Recommendation: If an additional Center of Excellence is established, existing COEs should 

be encouraged to compete for selection and the Agency should consider the additional costs 

associated with administering a new COE when conducting its source selection. 

FAA Response: We are very pleased with the progress and excellent technical reputation of the 

PARTNER Center of Excellence. We will ensure that any new Center of Excellence on 

Alternative Fuels is established through a full and open competition. PARTNER Universities 

can compete as a team or individual. Our primary selection criteria will be technical excellence, 

but costs will also be carefully considered. 

Subcommittee on Human Factors 

Background: Previous recommendation and FAA response letter dated January 29, 2010. 

Recommendation: Continue to place strong emphasis on human factors issues, as reflected in the 

Human System Integration Roadmap. 

FAA Response: We agree that the Human System Integration (HSI) Roadmap is pivotal to 

addressing human factors issues for NextGen. ATO-P Office of Human Factors Research and 

Engineering (AJP-61) is identifying and tracking areas for improvement in the next annual 

update to start in the second quarter of FY 2010, and will continue to keep the Human Factors 

Subcommittee abreast of these activities. 

Finding (1): As noted above in the FAA’s response to this recommendation, human factors is 

receiving gradually increasing emphasis as the FAA moves forward with NextGen. In particular, 

this evidence was provided by: 

 A sustained high budgeting level in critical human factors research areas, both within Flight 

Deck and Air Traffic , particularly with regard to self separation including the various 

options for delegating responsibilities to the flight crew, and air-ground integration (and 

their implications for human-automation interaction), as well as the F&E budgeting for the 

controller workforce. 

 The January meeting, held with Steve Bradford, that initiated discussions into key needs for 

R,E & D in NextGen to address human factors issues within. 

 The human factors portfolio about which we were briefed provides a very suitable vehicle for 

integrating and disseminating HF research to the wider NextGen design community. 

C-43
 
	 

	 


 

2011 NARP	 	 Appendix C 

	 The emphasis in the FAA’s response on understanding pilot and controller response to offnominal events. 

Recommendation (a): Continue the progress toward deeper involvement of human factors in 

NextGen planning and research. We believe that continued development of the HSI roadmap is 

a major vehicle for making this happen. However, this planning effort must also extend beyond 

the research planning focus of AJP-61 to an extensive review of NextGen plans for the need to 

address human factors issues. This review should consider where assumptions about human 

performance in future NextGen operations establish technical and programmatic risks that need 

to be mitigated by a risk management strategy that preemptively identifies and seeks mitigations 

to the most likely and significant risks. Likewise, this planning effort must plan for the key 

decision points and critical path items contingent upon addressing human factors in NextGen 

development. 

FAA Response (a): The human element is a critical factor in successfully implementing 

NextGen and the FAA agrees that we must continue our emphasis on human factors. 

Considerable effort was expended to develop the Human System Integration (HSI) Roadmap and 

the FAA continues to expand those efforts. Extensive engagement is occurring across the 

solutions sets to address NextGen human performance and human system integration issues, 

solutions, risks, and mitigations. As is well documented in the NextGen Implementation Plan, 

the human element is embedded throughout all NextGen activities. Those elements are 

performed at many levels of maturity and by many different organizations. The need to continue 

to emphasize greater coordination and integration of human factors in NextGen is being 

addressed by various initiatives related to HSI governance, analysis, and documentation. These 

endeavors include those initiated or supported by the AJP Chief Scientist for Architecture and 

NextGen Development in concert with the Human Factors Research and Engineering Group 

(AJP-61) related to the assessment of HSI roles and responsibilities, documentation, and review 

of human factors portfolios, planning, and coordination exchanges for technical human factors 

risks and revision of concept of use and HSI processes. 

As an additional consideration, to assist with human element issues related to Air Traffic 

Controllers and to promote further collaboration, a National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

(NATCA) representative has been assigned to the NextGen I&I Office to provide operational 

expertise in the full cycle of development of NextGen from concepts through implementation 

and to provide guidance regarding optimal NATCA participation in NextGen initiatives. 

Recommendation (b): We recommend that the NextGen I&I office (AJP-A) vigorously pursue 

the appointment of a full time position for Chief Systems Engineer for-Human Factors. This 

position must be given the responsibility and authority to examine NextGen plans for situations 

where human factors considerations must be addressed, both to meet the NextGen plans as 

articulated, and to mitigate technical and program risks established by assumptions about human 

performance. In addition, this position should serve to foster the appropriate application of 

human factors knowledge throughout NextGen developments, as well as identifying areas 

needing research. Thus, this position will additionally serve as a vital link between the research 

focus of AJP-61 and development and engineering aspects of NextGen developments applying 

C-44
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

human factors. We recommend that AJP-61 personnel have input in assessing the qualifications 

of potential hires for this position. 

FAA Response (b): The Chief Systems Engineer (CSE) for Human Factors, who was in the 

NextGen Integration and Implementation (I&I) Office, recently retired. The FAA agrees with 

the importance the REDAC has placed on the position, as well as the requirements for the 

position, and will be aggressively pursuing replacing this expertise during our upcoming hiring 

as a human factors integration lead in a new office within System Engineering and Safety 

(AJP-1). 

Recommendation (c): As we have in the past, we recommend that every effort be made to 

select a permanent replacement for the head of AJP-61, following the departure of Karlin Toner. 

FAA Response (c): The FAA is pleased to announce that Dr. Paul Krois has been selected to be 

permanent head of the AJP-61 Human Factors Research and Development Group. Dr. Krois has 

been acting in that capacity during Dr. Karlin Toner’s detail to the Department of Transportation. 

He brings a wealth of experience to the position and is responsible for ensuring that human 

factors receives increased emphasis as the FAA moves forward with NextGen. 

Recommendation (d): As we have in the past (September Rec 1c), we recommend that the 

subcommittee be briefed on two critical areas with HF components (but outside the funding lines 

of AJP-61): (1) Human factors aspects of the weather program by AJP-68 and (2) concepts of 

operations and research by AJP-66. We recognize that such briefings could not be scheduled for 

the recent March meeting because of time constraints. 

FAA Response (d): The FAA agrees and gave briefings to the REDAC at the August 2010 

meeting on human factors aspects of the 1) NextGen Weather Technology in the Cockpit RE&D 

program and 2) NextGen concept validation. The weather information products developed by 

meteorology laboratories are subjected to operational suitability evaluations designed and carried 

out by the Aviation Weather Group (AJP-68) human factors experts at the William J. Hughes 

Technical Center prior to their entry into operations. In addition, the WTIC program staff 

includes an Engineering Psychologist to oversee the significant proportion of the WTIC program 

devoted to human factors work. 

Recommendation (e): Assure that the new human factors research portfolio makes contact with 

(articulates in general form) all of those HF efforts within the FAA that lie outside of the direct 

funding line of AJP-61. 

FAA Response (e): We agree with the recommendation. One of the benefits of the 

development of the NextGen Human Factors Portfolio is the availability of a comprehensive set 

of plans and ongoing NextGen human factors activities to the entire NextGen community. The 

Human Factors Portfolio currently contains over 100 entries of projects that are being sponsored 

by various elements of the FAA. As other research activities are identified through external and 

internal coordination as well as through the conduct of Human Factors Reviews (which in the 

future will be aligned under the auspices of technical interchange meetings of the Human Factors 

Coordinating Committee), the portfolio contents and value will continue to be enhanced. 

C-45
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation (f): We recommend that the current FAA research program continue to 

follow the guidance of the Administrator’s response, and insure that human in the loop 

simulations include off-nominal events, and focus on evaluating pilot and controller responses to 

those events. 

FAA Response (f): The FAA concurs. Off-nominal events have been included in many FAA 

controller-in-the-loop simulations such as involving the Tower Information Display System and 

the Staffed NextGen Tower concept conducted at the William J. Hughes Technical Center and 

are also addressed as part of the NextGen Controller Efficiency human factors program as part of 

studies on human error and safety. Off-nominal events are included in all NextGen flight deck 

human factors assessments of applications and from an integrated air-ground perspective. The 

FAA is building the set of intended off-nominal scenarios to complement currently available 

scenarios in NAS Enterprise Architecture (EA) Operational Views. These scenarios when added 

to the EA will assist in directing human factors research toward human-automation risk 

mitigation. 

Background: Previous recommendation and FAA response letter dated January 29, 2010. 

Recommendation: Continue the excellent progress of collaboration with NASA’s Integrated 

Intelligent Flight Deck project, within the Aviation Safety Program. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs and AJP-61 will continue collaboration to ensure 

involvement with the NASA Aviation Safety Program’s Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck 

Project with particular emphasis on applications such as merging and spacing and closely spaced 

parallel operations. We will also emphasize transitioning NASA research products to FAA for 

integration as part of our NextGen Air Ground Integration research efforts. 

Finding (2): We were fully satisfied with the FAA’s response that such collaboration remains in 

force and is expanding. In particular the research portfolio of Flight Deck NextGen projects 

reflects a very high level of coordination with and FAA funding of research performed by NASA 

that leverages their expertise and resources. 

Recommendation: Continue on-going collaboration in the areas of Air Traffic and Airspace 

Systems. Of note out of FAA-funded reimbursable tasks to be completed by NASA, we hope 

that the FAA will soon exploit the results of the task generating recommendations regarding 

ATC priority research issues for NextGen. 

FAA Response: The FAA intends to continue and strengthen the collaboration with the NASA 

Ames Human System Integration Division and the Airspace Systems program. This 

collaboration is recognized as mutually beneficial and has helped to enhance the capabilities of 

the FAA human factors research program. We are using NASA’s recommendations to help craft 

and prioritize the future tasks that will support the integration of NextGen Operational 

Improvements. We consider NASA a full member of our NextGen human factors team. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee received a series of excellent briefings from human factors 

researchers at MITRE, regarding HITL simulations of various concepts that will appear in 

C-46
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

NextGen. From this briefing it appeared that the FAA, through AJP-61 has taken a good step 

forward for keeping closely in touch with the conduct and products of this high quality and 

NextGen-relevant human factors-related research. This briefing also provided an opportunity for 

AJP-61 staff to learn about MITRE CAASD research in related areas, and establish direct 

contacts. 

Recommendation: The FAA (via AJP-61) should continue the coordination and look for 

opportunities to progress the coordination with MITRE, as much of it appears to fit directly into 

issues within the HSI roadmap, and has profound implications for future concepts (e.g., potential 

increase in controller workload, resulting from the more rapid updates associated with ADS-B 

driven displays.) 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs. Following the recent human factors exchange between 

AJP-61 and MITRE, it was mutually agreed that another exchange within approximately six 

months would be conducted. Several follow-up actions were also identified to facilitate sharing 

of reports and other information. The proven value of this meeting approach supports the 

continuation and institutionalization of such exchanges. 

NAS Operations Subcommittee 

Observation: The subcommittee held its meeting at the MIT Lincoln Laboratory, and heard 

briefings on MIT/LL’s surveillance research, weather forecasting research, weather-ATM 

integration research, and air traffic control tower research. Additionally, briefings were given on 

the FAA’s PARTNER program, the FAA’s RED budget, and the FAA’s NAS Operations PPT 

research. The MIT/LL briefings were at an excellent level of technical depth, and gave the 

subcommittee members unusually clear insight into the way some of this work for the FAA is 

being conducted. 

Finding (1): The committee was briefed on two programs which will require new approaches to 

evaluating safety: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Airspace Access, and Staffed NextGen 

Tower (SNT). Both introduce new operating paradigms, with new and significantly different 

human roles and responsibilities. Overly conservative requirements, with insufficient analysis, 

will inhibit the addition of new capabilities. The subcommittee reaffirmed the statement in the 

October 19, 2009 REDAC letter to the Administrator that “there does not appear to be a clear 

system-level process for managing risk and arbitrating safety requirements for new systems or 

procedures.” At the REDAC meeting in April, the Chair learned with pleasure of the “lean” 

process instituted by AVS and ATO as an excellent first step to have such a process. 

Recommendation: The NASOPS subcommittee requests a briefing to the full subcommittee on 

the new processes for assessing safety levels developed by AVS and ATO. 

FAA Response: In response to recommendations from the RTCA Task Force on NextGen 

Mid-Term Implementation, the FAA has initiated the NAV Procedures project. Using “Lean 

Processes,” the project will review and make recommendations to improve and streamline all 

processes used to request, prioritize, process, improve, and implement performance-based, 

C-47
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

conventional IFP. The focus of the improvements will be to create safe, repeatable, beneficial, 

and efficient processes that comply with applicable regulations. By September 30, 2010, a report 

will be provided AVS and the ATO leadership with recommendations for improving and 

streamlining development and delivery of all IFPs in the NAS. AVS and ATO leadership, in 

coordination with ARP and AEP [APL], will assess and approve these recommendations for 

implementation. 

The NAV Lean Team is composed of six WGs with leads representing ATO and AVS. Each 

WG will review and make recommendations to improve and streamline their respective 

processes. Relative to the REDAC’s reference to safety and operational approval, one of the six 

WGs is the SMS and Operational Approval Working Group. This WG will (1) examine the 

current requirement to use the SMS method to assess potential changes in risk associated with 

the introduction of a new or revised IFP into regional airspace, (2) examine the special 

authorization process, which specifies aircraft, equipment, and pilot requirements for approving 

procedures such as Category II/III ILS or RNP SAAAR, and (3) review and recommend changes 

to the appropriate safety targets. 

Upon project completion, the FAA would be happy to brief the REDAC on NAV Lean as 

desired by the REDAC or any of the subcommittees. 

Finding (2): The budget briefing contained the RED budget request for FY11 and one line (BLI 

1A08) from the F&E budget devoted to NextGen, but information from other CIP BLIs, such as 

those for the NextGen Solution Sets, was not forthcoming. Clearly, R&D (as defined by OMB) 

for NextGen is being performed in these other lines (e.g. RWI). Without complete budgetary 

and programmatic context of the FAA’s R&D program, NASOPS is unable to give balanced 

advice on the overall allocation of R&D efforts and whether the most important work is being 

undertaken. NASOPS has raised this issue before. 

Recommendation: All Research and Development for NextGen should be presented to 

NASOPS, which would include that performed in funding under Solution Sets, Transformational 

Programs, and/or cross-cutting R&D. 

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes the need to set the appropriate context for REDAC 

briefings in support of the REDAC’s review of the FAA’s research program. We will continue 

to strive to improve the context for NextGen-related research contained in the NARP. However, 

a detailed NASOPS review of all NextGen Solution Set content is neither feasible nor 

appropriate due to the broad scope and implementation focus of the vast majority of that work. 

Recognizing the need for improving and clarifying our engagement with the aviation community 

through the multiple timeframes associated with NextGen, in May the FAA released an overview 

of our renewed engagement strategy. The strategy reiterates the need for REDAC to continue to 

provide advice on the FAA’s R&D as captured in the NARP. Also, the FAA is forming a new 

executive-level advisory group to replace the Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee to 

reflect the broader views and engagement necessary for near and mid-term NextGen 

implementation. The new advisory group will have a broader aviation community membership 

to include industry participants who speak for the interests of safety, airport, environment, and 

global harmonization, as well as air traffic. 

C-48
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Findings (3): The majority of NextGen R&D presented emphasizes Part 121 NextGen 

implementation, with little attention focused on on-demand commercial air carriers, air taxis, 

charter, business, corporate, private, and other GA operators. Without addressing the unique 

aspects of these operators, NextGen implementation may be delayed and opportunities for 

innovation will be missed. 

Recommendation: Develop an overall R&D strategy, identifying top research issues and key 

decisions the research will drive, for all classes of aviation, and recommend the overall strategy 

for fostering and maturing research and development for both mid-term and long-term time 

periods. The strategy should include R&D focused on activities in Parts 135 and 91, as well as 

UAS and rotorcraft operations. 

FAA Response: The FAA’s NextGen plans encompass the needs of all user communities. To 

capture stakeholder interests, the FAA firmly believes a collaborative environment between the 

FAA and the aviation community is essential throughout the implementation of NextGen. We 

recognize substantial benefit will be achieved through our continued engagement. 

FAA’s collaboration across the aviation community has already produced meaningful results as 

illustrated by the RTCA Task Force recommendations. The recommendations included input 

from across the aviation community to include commercial airlines, general aviation, 

manufacturers, airports, and the military. The Task Force made a significant effort to develop a 

comprehensive list of recommendations for NextGen implementation that the FAA has fully 

embraced. We have fully integrated our response to those recommendations into our NextGen 

implementation plans and actions. Meanwhile, the FAA will seek to obtain go-forward input 

from all aviation communities across the broad NextGen applications. For example, the FAA 

recently completed CRDA with three unmanned aircraft manufacturers to facilitate meaningful 

R&D efforts to enable the transition of UASs into the NAS and meet a wide variety of 

stakeholders needs. 

Finding (4): The FAA’s R&D investments are weighted to enable the mid-term implementation 

of NextGen capabilities. The lead for longer term NextGen outcomes require sustained 

investment beginning now to ensure timely implementation. The subcommittee is concerned 

that these areas are inadequately funded, and that the FAA is not planning to leverage innovation 

in the private sector (e.g., using incentives such as the “X prize”, public-private collaborations, 

or the establishment of notional performance requirements) for these long-term objectives. 

Recommendation: This R&D should capitalize on innovation from the private sector, partly by 

including consideration of how to incentivize users to equip (e.g. “first adopters”). 

FAA Response: While the Committee is correct in its observation, the FAA’s primary research 

focus as an implementing agency is on mid-term capabilities while keeping an active view on 

longer term capabilities. The FAA, through the RTT, remains engaged with NASA and JPDO 

on long-term research needs for NextGen. In addition, the FAA continues to pursue new 

cooperative agreements with industry and academia to further NextGen advancement. The FAA 

believes its funding level is adequate to accomplish both the mid-term and long-term needs. 

C-49
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

In addition, the FAA appreciates the REDAC’s concerns regarding incentivizing users to equip. 

The FAA remains engaged with industry following the receipt of RTCA Task Force 

recommendations in this area and we continue to explore associated policy issues with the 

Administration. We continue to work closely with industry to develop a business case for the 

requisite investment in NextGen technologies. 

Finding (5): There remains a need to better understand the overall context of the research needs 

and fit of the Concept Development work being done relative to NextGen development. 

Additionally, this area has been cut in funding, contrary to previous recommendations. 

Recommendations (a): Provide the subcommittee future briefings on context and fit between 

the concept development and exploration research and the NextGen plans and Enterprise 

Architecture. Specific focus on connecting the research to the solution sets, infrastructure 

roadmaps (e.g. automation and human factors), and OIs is needed. 

FAA Response (a): A two-day NextGen Operational Concept Review was held in June 2010 to 

1) achieve greater alignment across all ATO concepts to avoid duplication and identify gaps, 2) 

share key highlights of concepts, 3) discuss value derived from concepts, and 4) understand the 

processes by which concepts are developed, vetted, and approved. The findings will be used to 

support a Concept Integration Analysis being conducted by the Air Traffic Services Concept and 

Validation Development office (AJP-66). A summary briefing of the findings can be presented 

at the next NAS OPS subcommittee meeting. 

Research and technology development efforts being conducted within the FAA and by external 

partners such as NASA, DOD, MITLL, MITRE CAASD, universities, SESAR Joint 

Undertaking, etc. are continuously being cataloged and evaluated for inclusion on the NAS 

Enterprise Architecture Infrastructure Roadmaps. Evaluation of this research involves extensive 

coordination with FAA research and program managers, infrastructure roadmap leads, the Chief 

NAS Enterprise Architect as well as NextGen solution set managers to determine whether the 

maturity level, timeframe, and application of the expected research outcomes have potential for 

influencing one or more decision points defined to achieve the FAA’s mid-term NextGen OI 

targets. Through this process the FAA will also be able to identify gaps in the research required 

to support the NextGen OIs. 

Recommendations (b): As was recommended by NASOPS previously, more resources should 

be devoted to this activity. Current funding does not permit far term concept development 

(e.g. > 2018), or research on concepts not currently in the portfolio (e.g. dynamic airspace 

resectorization, TFM evolution ConOps, 4-D trajectory management). 

FAA Response (b): The FAA continues to rely on and will benefit from far-term concept 

development and research being conducted by external partners such as NASA, DOD, MITLL, 

Mitre CAASD, universities, SESAR Joint Undertaking, etc. AJP is also cataloging this far-term 

research for future evaluation relative to inclusion on the NAS Enterprise Architecture 

Infrastructure Roadmaps. 

C-50
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Finding (6): The MIT/LL briefings were a “deep dive” into weather forecast technology and the 

interaction with TFMM mechanisms. The committee was very pleased with the quality of the 

work. The evolution of weather research at MIT/LL, NOAA, ESRL, and NCAR into 

development of useful products now including CoSPA is a testimonial to the value of this 

research, and MIT/LL staff did an excellent job noting the inclusivity of efforts among these 

labs. 

These briefings showed progress in addressing some of the recommendations of the WAIWG by 

the work at MIT/LL, but the remainder of the weather-ATM integration R&D being 

accomplished elsewhere needs to be addressed in this regard. For example, the committee was 

told that the FY10 funding for the RWI and NNEW areas has been delayed due to internal FAA 

processes. 

Recommendation: NASOPS will request a complete FAA weather R&D briefing, with a 

strategy for addressing the WAIWG recommendations and equivalent levels of detail for work 

being funded elsewhere, at an upcoming meeting. 

FAA Response: AJP-68 will be pleased to brief the NASOPS, upon request, on the FAA 

strategy for addressing the WAIWG recommendations. The brief will cover the weather 

integration work funded by FAA and NASA and performed by an array of government and 

contract programs. 

Finding (7): Traffic managers are concerned with managing the scarce NAS resources to best 

meet the needs of NAS users. They have become specialized in their roles as managers of the 

NAS assets and flows. This is a very different job from that performed by controllers, but traffic 

managers are nonetheless selected from the ranks of the Air Traffic Controllers and were 

originally selected with the controller skill set in mind. We were encouraged to hear that the 

FAA human factors research is exploring (mid-term) NextGen controller selection criteria and 

training, but, there is currently little or no human factors focus on the unique and growing role of 

Air Traffic Managers. 

Recommendations (a): Initiate a human factors research program to identify the specific skill 

set required for Air Traffic Managers in the present and 2018 NextGen systems. This research 

should culminate in selection and training standards for Air Traffic Managers. 

FAA Response (a): Realignment of Air Traffic Managers located in en route and terminal field 

facilities from ATO-System Operations to the en route and terminal service units poses that their 

work is more closely coupled to field operations in contrast to the more strategic operations at 

the Air Traffic Control System Command Center. Research into the skill set required for Air 

Traffic Managers is projected to become part of the NextGen Controller Efficiency human 

factors program starting in FY 2013. The effort will involve a strategic job analysis to determine 

how the job of the traffic flow manager will change in the NextGen era and result in selection 

and training requirements. AJP-61 will engage ATO-System Operations to best ensure that 

human factors research supports their approach to workforce planning including selection and 

training. 

C-51
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendations (b): Initiate a research effort to identify the skill sets required for Air Traffic 

Controllers and Airspace Managers for 2025 and beyond, since the people who will be hired in 

the next 5-10 years will still be in these jobs in that time frame, but the role of controllers 

airspace managers will undergo significant changes in that timeframe. 

FAA Response (b): The long-term research needs identified by the REDAC are important and 

can be further considered after the selection criteria for NextGen in the mid term are defined and 

validated. At this time, the FAA Enterprise Architecture provides insufficient information 

regarding long-term operational improvements and potential changes to facilities and other 

aspects of the work environment. Our intent is to refresh the strategic job analysis for controllers 

and air traffic managers in 2015 to provide an understanding of the requirements for these 

positions in 2025. 

Finding (8): NASOPS was impressed with the breadth of projects in the FAA’s COE E&E 

program PARTNER. Overall funding has increased to $8M for the current FY, and the funding 

appears to be stable. A strong cadre of partner universities participates in PARTNER with good 

support from industry in the projects. NASOPS did not, however, receive sufficient insight into 

the overall program to judge quality and portfolio adequacy. 

Recommendation: NASOPS requests “deep dive” briefings on PARTNER to (a) understand 

how it fits into the overall E&E program, (b) assess ATM-related projects being conducted, and 

(c) understand PARTNER processes for technology transfer. 

FAA Response: We appreciate your interest in PARTNER. However, detailed review of 

PARTNER’s effort is the responsibility of the Environment and Energy Subcommittee. 

Focusing solely on PARTNER’s efforts would not provide an adequate view of our Environment 

and Energy research efforts. We encourage members of the NASOPS Subcommittee to attend 

the Environment and Energy REDAC Subcommittee meetings to better understand our efforts. 

PARTNER also convenes semiannual meetings to brief PARTNER Advisory Board on its 

extensive research portfolio. A request will be made to the PARTNER Director to extend an 

invitation to NASOPS REDAC Subcommittee members to attend PARTNER Advisory Board 

meetings. This is the most effective approach to address the NASOPS recommendation. 

C-52
 
This Page Is Intentionally Blank 
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

Appendix D: NARP Chapter 2 Milestone Status 

The 2011 NARP presents an established research plan that describes how the FAA R&D 

programs are progressing toward achieving the R&D targets through 2016. The plan maintains 

continuity with the previous R&D goals and the milestones supporting those goals. “Appendix 

D - 2011 Chapter 2 Milestone Status” enhances the visibility of this continuity. 

Appendix D summarizes the status of the milestones in Chapter 2 (as compared with the Chapter 

2 milestones from the 2010 NARP) and provides an explanation for any changes. The tables 

below list the programs under each R&D Goal in alphabetical order by program name. 

Appendix D is intended to help the reader see how the program milestones change from year to 

year and to understand the rationale for all changes. We expect occasional changes, given the 

nature of research and the reality of government budget processes. 

R&D Goal 1 – Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

AIP 

Airport Cooperative 

Research - Capacity 

2008 Increase airport capacity Completed 

2011 

Develop guidebook to assist airport 

planners with airfield and airspace 

capacity evaluation 

On schedule 

Airport Technology 

Research - Capacity 2012 Develop new standards and guidelines for runway pavement design On schedule 

A12.b NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence 

2008 

Modify procedures to allow use of 

closely spaced parallel runways for 

arrival operations during non-visual 

conditions 

Completed 

2010 

CLARIFIED 

Determine air navigation service 

provider (ANSP) (and pilot as needed) 

situational aircraft separation display 

concepts required for implementation 

of the NextGen Trajectory-Based 

Operation (TBO) and High Density 

concepts 

Completed 

CLARIFIED 

The change deletes “pilot 

and” which was after 

“Determine” and adds the 

parenthetical clause “(and 

pilot as needed).” 

2012 

Determine the NAS infrastructure 

requirements (ground and aircraft) for 

implementing the NextGen TBO and 

High Density concepts within the 

constraints of aircraft-generated wake 

vortices and aircraft collision risk 

On schedule 

2013 

CLARIFIED 

Modify procedures as requested to 

allow use of closely spaced parallel 

runways for arrival operations during 

non-visual conditions (2 to 3 airports 

per year per TF5 recommendations and 

for requests from airports) 

On schedule 

CLARIFIED 

The change adds 

parentheses at the end of 

the milestone to clarify 

the deliverable. 

D-1 
 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 1 – Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

1A08E 

NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence - Recategorization 

2011 

CLARIFIED 

Determine initial set of optimal aircraft 

flight characteristics and weather 

parameters for use in setting wake 

separation minimums 

On schedule 

CLARIFIED 

The change is from 

“Determine set of 

optimal” to “Determine 

initial set of optimal”. 

Refine the boundaries of the current 

six weight categories for the National 

Airspace System (NAS) fleet mix and 

define automation requirements to 

support those modifications 

On schedule 

In April 2010, ICAO and 

FAA harmonized the 

weight category boundary 

between Heavy and Large 

aircraft. Joint 

AA/EUROCONTROL 

RECAT proposal for 6 

new categories briefed to 

ICAO and will be 

formally submitted in 

early FY 2011. 

2013 

Determine how best to incorporate the 

leader/follower based wake separation 

standards into the en-route and 

terminal automation platforms 

On schedule 

2016 

CLARIFIED 

Develop the algorithms that will be 

used in the ANSP (and flight deck as 

needed) automation systems for setting 

dynamic wake separation minimum for 

each pair of aircraft 

On schedule 

CLARIFIED 

The change is from 

“ANSP and flight deck” 

to “ANSP (and flight deck 

as needed)”. 

--

NextGen 

Demonstrations and 

Infrastructure 

Development 

2008 

Demonstrate improved trajectorybased operations in mixed-equipage, 

oceanic airspace with actual aircraft 

and procedures 

Completed 

2009 

Develop and simulate separation 

procedures that vary according to 

aircraft capability and pilot training 

Completed 

Demonstrate the addition of convective 

weather (current and forecast) into 

Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) 

routing to increase throughput and 

efficiency for large, super density 

airports 

Completed 

Demonstrate via simulation standard 

separation in a full-equipage, fully 

automated environment with no voice 

communication 

Completed 

D-2 
 

 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 1 – Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.k Weather Program 

2010 

REVISED 

Develop 0-8 hour advanced storm 

prediction algorithm 

Completed 

REVISED 

Changed from “0-6 hour” 

to “0-8 hour” due to 

research results exceeding 

original expectations 

Transition Rapid Refresh Weather 

Forecast Model for implementation at 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) National 

Centers for Environmental Prediction 

Completed 

2011 

REVISED 

Demonstrate 0-8 hour advanced storm 

prediction algorithm 

On schedule 

REVISED 

Changed from “0-6 hour” 

to “0-8 hour” due to 

research results exceeding 

original expectations 

2013 

REVISED 

Transition 0-8 hour advanced storm 

prediction algorithm for 

implementation 

On schedule 

REVISED 

Changed from “0-6 hour” 

to “0-8 hour” due to 

research results exceeding 

original expectations 

2014 

DELAYED 

Transition in-flight icing Alaska 

forecast and analysis capability for 

implementation 

DELAYED 

The milestone is delayed 

from 2013 to 2014 due to 

changing Weather 

Program Planning Team 

priorities. 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 2008 

Develop and distribute the first 

generation of integrated noise and 

emission prediction and modeling 

tools, including an environmental cost 

module 

Completed 

Enable implementation of a new 

continuous-descent approach noise 

abatement and fuel burn (emissions) 

reduction procedure at low-traffic 

airports during nighttime operations 

and optimize aircraft routing to reduce 

fuel usage 

Completed 

D-3 
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 

2010 

Assess the impacts of aviation on 

regional air quality, including the 

effects of nitrogen oxide (NOx) 

emissions from aircraft climb and 

cruise 

Completed 

Develop a preliminary planning 

version of an Aviation Environmental 

Design Tool (AEDT) that will allow 

integrated assessment of noise and 

emissions impact at the local and 

global levels 

Completed 

2011 

Develop a new metric to quantify the 

environmental impacts of new aircraft 

types 

On schedule 

Investigate feasibility of new standards 

for aircraft noise and emissions 

certification 

On schedule 

Assess the level of certainty of 

aviation’s impact on climate change, 

with special emphasis on the effects of 

contrails 

On schedule 

Complete development of firstgeneration ground plume model for 

aircraft engine exhaust 

On schedule 

The estimated completion 

date is the Summer of 

2011, but completion 

depends on specific 

airport operations and 

weather conditions for 

collecting data 

comparable to prior data 

collection campaigns. 

2012 Expand noise data collection to very 

light jets and supersonic aircraft On schedule 

2013 

Obtain direct measurements of 

hazardous air pollutants and particulate 

matter data to update modeling tools 

On schedule 

Update environmental assessment 

models to incorporate new noise 

metrics 

On schedule 

AIP 

Airport Technology 

Research – 

Environment 

2012 

NEW 

Initiate a project to study aircraft noise 

annoyance data and sleep disturbance 

around airports 

NEW 

Program initiation is 

contingent upon 

Congressional approval of 

FY 2012 budget. 

D-4 
 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A13.a 

AIP 

Environment and 

Energy 

Airport Cooperative 

Research – 

Environment 

2009 

Develop methodologies to quantify 

and assess the impact of Particulate 

Matter and Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Completed 

2010 

Develop new standards and 

methodologies to quantify and assess 

the impact of aircraft noise and 

aviation emissions 

Completed 

2014 

Complete development and field a 

fully validated suite of tools, including 

the AEDT and the Aviation 

Environmental Portfolio Management 

Tool (APMT) 

On schedule 

A13.a 

A13.b 

AIP 

Environment and 

Energy 

NextGen 

Environmental 

Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, 

and Metrics 

Airport Cooperative 

Research – 

Environment 

2011 

Determine how aviation-generated 

particulate matter and hazardous air 

pollutants impact local health, 

visibility, and global climate 

On schedule 

1A08D 

AIP 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emission 

Reduction 

Airport Cooperative 

Research – 

Environment 

2013 

Demonstrate optimized airport and 

terminal area operations that reduce or 

mitigate aviation impacts on noise, air 

quality, or water quality in the vicinity 

of the airport 

On schedule 

1A08D 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emission 

Reduction 

2013 

Evaluate, refine, and apply 

Environmental Management System 

(EMS) decision support tools to the 

aviation system 

On schedule 

D-5 
 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

1A08D 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emission 

Reduction 

2013 

REVISED 

Identify and pursue the development of 

flight management system and other 

system technologies that will be the 

most effective at producing 

environmental benefits 

On schedule 

REVISED 

Replaced “engine and 

airframe” with “flight 

management system and 

other system 

technologies” 

2014 

Assess NAS-wide benefits of 

environmental mitigation solutions 

comprised of new technologies, 

alternative fuels, advanced operational 

procedures, market measures, and 

options for policy and noise/emissions 

standards 

On schedule 

Demonstrate optimized en route 

operations that enhance fuel efficiency 

and reduce emissions 

On schedule 

2015 Refine and update approaches for EMS 

performance tracking On schedule 

1A08F NextGen - Operational 

Assessments 2011 Enhance regional analysis capability in aviation environmental analysis tools On schedule 

A13.b 

NextGen 

Environmental 

Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, 

and Metrics 

2010 

Complete detailed feasibility study, 

including economic feasibility, 

measure environmental impacts, and 

demonstrate drop-in potential for 

alternative fuels 

Completed 

Develop algorithms to optimize ground 

and airspace operations by leveraging 

communication, navigation, and 

surveillance technology in the short- to 

medium-term to optimize aircraft 

sequencing and timing on the surface 

and in the terminal area 

Completed 

2011 

Complete tests and data collection to 

determine if the right metrics are being 

used to assess the impact of aircraft 

noise 

On schedule 

Establish the relationship between 

aviation engine exhaust and the gases 

and particulate matter that are 

deposited in the atmosphere 

On schedule 

Complete detailed feasibility study, 

including economic and environmental 

impacts and an assessment of potential 

of renewable alternative fuels for gas 

turbine engines 

On schedule 

D-6 
 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A13.b 

NextGen 

Environmental 

Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, 

and Metrics 

2013 

Complete significant demonstration of 

“drop-in” alternative turbine engine 

fuels 

On schedule 

Demonstrate airframe and engine 

technologies to reduce noise and 

emissions 

On schedule 

NEW 

Identify and pursue the development of 

engine and airframe technologies that 

will be the most effective at producing 

environmental benefits 

On schedule 

NEW 

Milestone added because 

it is a part of CLEEN. 

DELETED 

Establish engine design sensitivities by 

measuring particles emitted from 

combustor engine systems 

DELETED 

Editorial error corrected. 

This is not one of the 

program's milestones. 

2014 Complete assessment of renewable 

alternative turbine engine fuels On schedule 

2015 

Assess environmental benefits of first 

round of Continuous Lower Energy, 

Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) 

airframe and engine technologies 

through integrated flight demonstration 

On schedule 

Complete transition plans for 

renewable alternative fuels On schedule 

R&D Goal 3 – High Quality Teams and Individuals 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.i 

Air Traffic 

Control/Technical 

Operations Human 

Factors 

2007 

Demonstrate how to reduce verbal 

communication workload between the 

pilot and controller for en route 

operations 

Completed 

Identify the performance limitations of 

the controller in the terminal and tower 

environments 

Completed 

2008 

Conduct initial simulation to determine 

what weather information is required 

by en route and tower controllers to 

improve efficiency 

Completed 

Demonstrate efficiency improvements 

when controllers receive information 

on aircraft equipage, performance 

capabilities, and applicable procedures 

in a mixed equipage environment 

Completed 

D-7 
 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 3 – High Quality Teams and Individuals 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.i 

Air Traffic 

Control/Technical 

Operations Human 

Factors 

2012 

NEW 

Improve computer-human interface 

design to reduce information overload 

and resulting errors 

NEW 

New start program 

contingent upon approval 

of FY 2012 budget 

2013 

NEW 

Assess the Front Line Manager Quick 

Reference Guide for effectiveness in 

aiding ATC safety 

NEW 

New start program 

contingent upon approval 

of FY 2012 budget 

2014 

NEW 

Provide a draft of a revised Human 

Factors Design Standard for human 

factors application to ATC system 

acquisition 

NEW 

New start program 

contingent upon approval 

of FY 2012 budget 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air Traffic 

Control/Technical 

Operations Human 

Factors (Controller 

Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration) 

2010 

Define anticipated controller workload 

reductions due to implementation of 

data communications 

Completed 

Define initial requirements and 

anticipated efficiency benefits for 

merging and spacing decision support 

tools to support continuous descent 

approach in the terminal area 

Completed 

2012 

MOVED 

Apply program-generated human 

factors knowledge to improve aviation 

system personnel selection and training 

On schedule 

MOVED 

Milestone moved from 

A11.i Air Traffic 

Control/Technical 

Operations Human 

Factors to better align the 

program objectives with 

NextGen initiatives 

2013 

CLARIFIED 

Analyze controller roles in a strategic 

air traffic environment for the impact 

on personnel selection and training 

On schedule 

CLARIFIED 

AJN requested removal of 

the description “for en 

route and terminal 

domains” after the word 

“environment” to reflect 

the movement away from 

domains toward phases of 

flight. 

Demonstrate collaborative air traffic 

management efficiencies enabled by 

common situation awareness between 

flight operators and ANSP 

On schedule 

D-8 
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 3 – High Quality Teams and Individuals 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air Traffic 

Control/Technical 

Operations Human 

Factors (Controller 

Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration) 

2013 

Demonstrate increased ANSP 

efficiencies through new procedures 

that allow ANSP personnel to manage 

and introduce routing, airspace, and 

equipage mix changes in the dynamic 

air traffic environment 

On schedule 

2015 

MOVED 

Develop selection procedures to 

transform the workforce into a new 

generation of service providers that 

can manage traffic flows in a highly 

automated system 

On schedule 

MOVED 

Milestone moved from 

A11.i Air Traffic 

Control/Technical 

Operations Human 

Factors to better align the 

program objectives with 

NextGen initiatives 

2016 

Perform an analysis of controller roles 

in terms of the services they provide 

during a given phase of flight as the 

differences between en route and 

terminal begin to blur 

On schedule 

R&D Goal 4 – Human-Centered Design 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

AIP Airport Cooperative 

Research - Capacity 2011 

Document ramp operational and safety 

techniques and how airport operators 

implement pavement maintenance 

programs 

On schedule 

A11.g 

Flightdeck/ 

Maintenance/System 

Integration Human 

Factors 

2012 

Develop human factors guidance for 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance – 

Broadcast (ADS-B) enabled Cockpit 

Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) 

certification and operational approval 

On schedule 

Provide human factors guidance for 

the design of instrument procedures On schedule 

A12.c 

NextGen - Air Ground 

Integration Human 

Factors 

2010 

Initiate research to identify equipment 

categories for legacy flight deck 

avionics to support human factors 

evaluations of use of these systems in 

NextGen flight procedures 

Completed 

2011 

Develop initial mid-term analysis 

describing the relationship between 

human pilots and controllers with 

associated automated systems 

On schedule 

D-9 
 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 4 – Human-Centered Design 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A12.c 

NextGen - Air Ground 

Integration Human 

Factors 

2012 

Complete initial research to evaluate 

and recommend procedures for 

negotiations and shared decisionmaking between pilots and controllers 

On schedule 

Complete research to develop methods 

to mitigate mode errors in use of 

NextGen equipment 

On schedule 

Initiate research to assess pilot 

performance in normal and nonnormal NextGen procedures, including 

single pilot operations 

On schedule 

2013 

Complete research to identify human 

factors issues and potential mitigation 

strategies for the use of legacy 

avionics in NextGen procedures 

On schedule 

2014 

Develop initial guidance on training 

methods to support detection and 

correction of human errors in near- to 

mid-term NextGen procedures 

On schedule 

2016 

Complete research to assess 

procedures, training, display, and 

alerting requirements to support 

development and evaluation of 

planned and unplanned transitions 

between NextGen and legacy airspace 

procedures 

On schedule 

Complete initial research to enable 

safe and effective changes to controller 

roles and responsibilities for NextGen 

procedures 

On schedule 

Complete research to identify and 

manage the risks posed by new and 

altered human error modes in the use 

of NextGen procedures and equipment 

On schedule 

A12.c 

A14.b 

NextGen - Air Ground 

Integration Human 

Factors 

William J. Hughes 

Technical Center 

Laboratory Facility 

2017 

Functional demonstration – 

demonstrate integrated pilot and 

controller functional capabilities 

On schedule 

D-10 
2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 5 – Human Protection 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.j Aeromedical Research 

2010 

Validate computational models of 

chemical air contaminants, such as 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

to evaluate health and safety impacts 

on passengers and crew 

Completed 

2012 

Accomplish experimental projects in 

support of regulations, certification, 

and operations for existing Aviation 

Rulemaking Committees by providing 

data and guidance for new or revised 

regulation of airliner cabin 

environment standards 

On schedule 

Develop and validate chemical kinetic 

models for bleed air systems for health 

and safety effects on passengers and 

crew 

On schedule 

2014 

DELAYED 

Develop and analyze methods to detect 

and analyze aircraft cabin 

contamination including chemicalbiological hazards and other airborne 

irritants 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2010 to 

2014 due to changing 

sponsor priorities. 

DELAYED 

Apply and validate advanced air 

sensing technology for VOCs in the 

aircraft cabin environment 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2011 to 

2014 due to changing 

sponsor priorities. 

DELAYED 

Establish design criteria for restraint 

systems that protect occupants at the 

highest impact levels that the aircraft 

structure can sustain 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2012 to 

2014 due to changing 

sponsor priorities. 

2015 

DELAYED 

Develop bleed air contamination 

models of engine compressors and 

high temperature air system for effects 

on the health and safety of passengers 

and crew 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2011 to 

2015 due to changing 

sponsor priorities. 

D-11 
 

injuries, the mechanisms that resulted 

in these injuries and their relationship 

to autopsy findings, medical 

certification data, aircraft cabin 

configurations, and biodynamic 

testing: Aerospace Accident Injury 

and Autopsy Data System 

Develop advanced methods to extract 

aeromedical information for prognostic 

identification of human safety risks 

A11.j 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 5 – Human Protection 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

CLARIFIED and DELAYED 

Establish validation parameters for 

mathematical models that can evaluate 

whether aircraft type designs meet 

requirements for evacuation and 

emergency response capability, in lieu 

of actual tests 

CLARIFIED 

Original wording: 

Validate mathematical 

models to evaluate 

whether aircraft designs 

meet requirements for 

evacuation and 

emergency response 

capability 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2012 to 

2015 due to changing 

sponsor priorities. 

Develop a methodology to compile, 

2015 classify, and assess aviation-related 

Aeromedical Research On schedule 

Incorporate aerospace medical issues 

in the development of safety strategies 

concerning pilot impairment, 

incapacitation, spatial disorientation, 

and other aeromedical-related factors 

that contribute to loss of aircraft 

control 

On schedule 

On schedule 

REVISED REVISED TO

Apply and develop advances in gene ORIGINAL 

expression, toxicology, and 2016 The completion date is bioinformatics technology and reverted to 2016, the methods to define human response to originally submitted date. aerospace stressors 

D-12 
 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 5 – Human Protection 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.d 

Aircraft Icing ­

Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital 

System Safety 

2014 

REVISED 

Develop data and methods for 

guidance material for the airworthiness 

acceptance criteria and test methods 

for engines in simulated high ice water 

content (HIWC) environments 

On schedule 

REVISED 

New wording reflects 

combination with other 

research goals under a 

single 2014 milestone. 

Old Wording: Develop 

data and methods 

supporting the evaluation 

of aircraft engines for 

operation in high ice 

water content 

environments 

AIP 

Airport Cooperative 

Research - Safety 2012 

DELAYED 

Assess role of airports and airlines in 

the spread of vector-borne diseases 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2011 to 

2012 due to the ACRP 

Oversight Committee’s 

expansion of the scope of 

the project to provide 

guidance to airports and 

airlines. 

Airport Technology 

Research - Safety 

2011 

Complete evaluation of new airport 

runway pavement groove shape to 

reduce risk of overrun due to 

hydroplaning 

On schedule 

2012 

Develop aircraft rescue and firefighting procedures and equipment 

standards to address double-decked 

large aircraft 

On schedule 

Ops Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 2008 

Conduct a study to provide a basic 

understanding of what is necessary in 

an Informed Consent form for 

commercial space flight participants 

Completed 

A11.a Fire Research and 

Safety 2012 Define composite fuselage fire safety design criteria On schedule 

A11.k Weather Program 

2012 Transition mountain-wave turbulence 

forecast capability for implementation On schedule 

2015 

DELAYED 

Transition turbulence forecast 

capability for all flight levels for 

implementation 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2012 to 

2015. Reprioritizations 

based on NextGen 

requirements have moved 

this milestone to FY 

2015. 

D-13 
 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 5 – Human Protection 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.k Weather Program 

2016 Transition global turbulence forecast 

capability for implementation On schedule 

2017 

DELAYED 

Transition convectively-induced 

turbulence forecast capability for 

implementation 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2013 to 

2017. Reprioritizations 

based on NextGen 

requirements have moved 

this milestone to FY 

2017. 

R&D Goal 6 – Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.c 

Advanced 

Materials/Structural 

Safety 

2010 

Develop certification methods for 

damage tolerance and fatigue of 

composite airframes 

Completed 

2012 

DELETED 

Define criteria for use of embedded 

sensors in fault-tolerant structures 

DELETED 

The FAA sponsor in 

Aviation Safety (AVS) 

removed this milestone, 

as it is no longer an 

imminent certification 

concern. 

2013 

NEW 

Establish required skills and develop 

training materials for all second level 

composite structures knowledge areas 

(maintenance inspection, structural 

engineering, and manufacturing) for 

operational safety 

NEW 

This milestone was added 

to directly support the 

FAA sponsor's (AVS) 

business plan items for 

composite structures. 

A11.f 

Aircraft Catastrophic 

Failure Prevention 

Research 

2013 

Develop and verify a generalized 

damage and failure model with 

regularization for aluminum and 

titanium materials impacted during 

engine failure events 

On schedule 

D-14 
 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 6 – Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.d 

Aircraft Icing ­

Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital 

System Safety 

2013 

REVISED 

Identify safety issues and propose 

mitigation approaches when software 

development techniques and tools are 

used in airborne systems 

On schedule 

REVISED 

Wording revised to 

comply with sponsor 

request. 

Old Wording: Evaluate 

development and 

integration techniques that 

will produce software for 

complex highly integrated 

systems that must comply 

with airworthiness 

requirements. 

2014 

REVISED 

Develop data and methods for 

guidance material for the airworthiness 

acceptance criteria and test methods 

for engines in simulated high ice water 

content (HIWC) environments 

REVISED and 

DELAYED 

Delayed from 2013 to 

2014 due to technical 

challenges and scheduling 

of open circuit wind 

tunnel during winter 

months. New wording 

reflects combination with 

other research goals under 

a single 2014 milestone. 

Old Wording: Develop 

methods for the 

airworthiness testing of 

engines in simulated high 

ice water content 

environments 

Ops Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 2010 

Conduct a study to examine the 

operational environment, determine the 

number of sensors needed, define the 

data recovery process, and provide 

black box survivability criteria for use 

in developing requirements for a black 

box system to be used in commercial 

space transportation systems 

(expendable launch vehicles and 

reusable launch vehicles (RLV)) 

Completed 

D-15 
 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 6 – Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

Ops Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

2010 

DELETED 

Conduct an assessment on the outputs 

from two specialized, independent 

system safety analyses conducted by 

separate parties to determine the 

optimal system safety method. The 

assessment will include the strengths 

and weaknesses, the hazard analysis 

depth, the hazard identification 

thoroughness, and the projected 

resource utilization 

DELETED 

Deletion is due to 

contractual transitions and 

new-starts. Additionally, 

reorganization and 

restructuring of the 

Commercial Space R&D 

activities resulted in a 

reprioritization of this 

milestone below current 

activity thresholds. 

2011 

DELAYED 

Conduct a study to identify means of 

preventing hazards (such as fires and 

explosions) involving nontraditional 

monopropellants and oxidizers 

(specifically hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, 

and nitrous oxide, N2O) used in 

propulsion systems in commercial 

space applications 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2010 to 

2011. Evolving research 

requirements and 

administrative barriers 

delayed the transfer of 

funding between agencies 

and delayed the start of 

this task. The new 

completion date is 

February 2011. 

CLARIFIED and DELAYED 

Conduct a study to provide guidance to 

the FAA and industry on the use of 

operational limitations and inspection 

requirements for suborbital reusable 

launch vehicles (RLV) comprised of 

composite materials. The results of 

this study will help to develop 

effective rules for operations and 

maintenance for use of composite 

materials, as they apply to commercial 

space transportation 

CLARIFIED 

Old Wording: Replaced 

“AST” with “the FAA”. 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2010 to 

2011. Evolving research 

requirements and 

administrative barriers 

delayed the transfer of 

funding between agencies 

and delayed the start of 

this task. Work is in 

progress and the expected 

completion date is April 

2011. 

D-16 
 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 6 – Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

Ops Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 2011 

DELAYED 

Conduct a study to provide 

information on the capability, 

limitations, and considerations for GPS 

implementation in space launch and 

reentry environments, such as Space 

and Air Traffic Control, which will be 

used to help determine requirements 

for GPS usage and future technologies 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2010 to 

2011. Evolving research 

requirements and 

administrative barriers 

delayed the transfer of 

funding between agencies 

and delayed the start of 

this task. Work is 

progressing. APL 

received funding and the 

expected completion date 

is April 2011. 

A11.e Continued 

Airworthiness 

2010 

DELETED 

Complete development of damagetolerant design methods as the basis for 

propeller structural design and assess 

impacts on propeller weight 

DELETED 

The FAA sponsor (AVS) 

deleted the requirement in 

FY 2009 and did not 

provide funding to 

complete the task. The 

research up to that point 

was insufficient to 

complete the requirement. 

The program produced a 

report on design method 

and on propeller weight, 

but in no case was the 

work completed. 

2011 

Apply damage-detection technologies 

for inspecting remote and inaccessible 

areas of in-service aircraft with metal 

structures 

On schedule 

Complete the study in usage, design, 

and training issues for rudder control 

systems in transport aircraft 

On schedule 

2012 

DELETED 

Complete development of methods and 

data for damage tolerance analysis of 

rotorcraft structure 

DELETED 

The FAA sponsor (AVS) 

deleted the requirement in 

FY 2009. Prior to 

milestone deletion, the 

program developed 

fatigue-crack-growth 

databases for use in 

damage-tolerant 

assessments of rotorcraft 

components. The 

material databases will be 

transferred to rotorcraft 

companies and the 

developers of component 

life-prediction codes. 

D-17 
 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 6 – Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.e Continued 

Airworthiness 2013 

Develop technical data on rotorcraft 

that provide guidance for certification 

of Health and Usage Monitoring 

Systems (HUMS) for usage credits 

On schedule 

A11.a Fire Research and 

Safety 2011 Provide comprehensive guidance on lithium battery fire safety On schedule 

A11.m 

NextGen – Alternative 

Fuels for General 

Aviation 

2016 

REVISED and DELAYED 

Develop engine and fuel test methods 

to evaluate the performance, safety, 

durability, and operability of unleaded 

REVISED and 

DELAYED The 

milestone is revised and 

completion date is 

delayed from 2015 to 

2016 due to new 

information in the 

following study: 

NextGen Alternative 

Fuels for General 

Aviation - FY 2011-2015 

avgas FAA Aviation Fuel and 

Engine Test Facility. 

Old Wording: Evaluate 

and characterize all 

candidate replacement 

formulations for 100LL 

A11.b Propulsion and Fuel 

Systems 2014 

CLARIFIED and DELAYED 

Complete a certification tool that will 

predict the risk of failure of turbine 

engine rotor disks that may contain 

undetected material and manufacturing 

anomalies 

CLARIFIED and 

DELAYED 

The milestone is delayed 

from 2012 to 2014. The 

FAA sponsor (ANE) has 

requested additional 

enhancements to the 

DARWINTM code that 

will extend the project to 

FY 2014 with a total 

additional funding 

requirement of $2.4M for 

FY 2013 and FY 2014. 

Old Wording: Complete 

a certification tool 

(DARWINTM) that will 

predict the risk of failure 

of rotor disks containing 

material and 

manufacturing anomalies. 

D-18 
 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 6 – Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.l Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research 

2012 

CLARIFIED 

Determine a set of performance 

characteristics and operational 

requirements for sense and avoid 

(SAA) technologies 

On schedule 

CLARIFIED 

Wording change reflects 

revised sponsor 

requirements. 

Old Wording: Determine 

performance 

characteristics and 

operational requirements 

for UAS detect, sense, 

and avoid technologies 

(DSA) 

REVISED and 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2012 to 

2013 due to revised 

2013 

REVISED and DELAYED 

Analyze data and identify potential 

safety implications of system 

performance impediments of 

communications latency 

sponsor requirements. 

Old Wording: Analyze 

data on the safety 

implications of system 

performance impediments 

to UAS command, 

control, and 

communication (C3) in 

different classes of 

airspace and operational 

environments 

2014 

DELETED 

Develop risk management concepts, 

models, and tools for UAS 

DELETED 

Milestone deleted due to 

change in sponsor (AVS) 

priority. 

D-19 
 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 6 – Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.l Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research 2016 

REVISED and DELAYED 

Conduct field evaluations of UAS 

technologies in an operational 

environment, including SAA, C2, and 

contingency management 

technologies. The documented results 

will be used to develop certification 

and airworthiness standards 

REVISED and 

DELAYED 

Wording change reflects 

revised sponsor 

requirements. The 

completion date is 

delayed from 2015 to 

2016 due to decreased 

funding levels. 

Old Wording: Conduct 

field evaluation of DSA 

technology, C3 

technologies, and flight 

termination procedures 

R&D Goal 7 – Separation Assurance 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A12.d 

NextGen - SelfSeparation Human 

Factors 

2011 

Complete initial research to evaluate 

and recommend procedures, equipage, 

and training to safely conduct oceanic 

and en route pair-wise delegated 

separation 

On schedule 

Complete initial research to evaluate 

the impact and potential risks 

associated with use of the Traffic Alert 

and Collision Avoidance System 

(TCAS) in NextGen procedures 

On schedule 

2012 

Complete initial research to evaluate 

and recommend minimum display 

standards for use of enhanced and 

synthetic vision systems, as well as 

airport markings and signage, to 

conduct surface movements across a 

range of visibility conditions 

On schedule 

2014 

Complete research to identify likely 

human error modes and recommend 

mitigation strategies in closely spaced 

arrival/departure routings 

On schedule 

Evaluate and recommend minimum 

display standards and operational 

procedures for use of Cockpit Display 

of Traffic Information (CDTI) to 

support pilot awareness of potential 

ground conflicts and to support 

transition between taxi, takeoff, 

departure and arrival phases of flight 

On schedule 

D-20 
 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 7 – Separation Assurance 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A12.d 

NextGen - SelfSeparation Human 

Factors 

2015 

Complete research and provide human 

factors guidance to reduce arrival and 

departure spacing including variable 

separation in a mixed equipage 

environment 

On schedule 

CLARIFIED 

Enable reduced and delegated 

separation in oceanic airspace and en 

route corridors 

On schedule 

CLARIFIED 

Clarification of milestone 

wording deletes “highdensity”. 

2016 

Complete research to enable enhanced 

aircraft spacing for surface movements 

in low-visibility conditions guided by 

enhanced and synthetic vision systems, 

as well as cockpit displays of aircraft 

and ground vehicles and associated 

procedures 

On schedule 

R&D Goal 8 – Situational Awareness 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

AIP Airport Technology 

Research - Safety 

2010 Develop advisory material to install 

new visual guidance systems Completed 

2011 Develop performance standards for 

avian radar use on airports On schedule 

2012 

Develop guidance material for airport 

planning to ensure consistency from 

the operator’s perspective from airport 

to airport 

On schedule 

Ops Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 2009 

Conduct a study to determine the need 

to develop a temporal wind database to 

support the launch of wind-weighted, 

unguided, suborbital rockets launched 

from nonfederal launch sites 

Completed 

Conduct a study to survey the existing 

technologies available for determining 

wind conditions from the upper 

troposphere to the stratosphere. The 

study will address possible 

modifications of radar wind profiler to 

obtain winds to greater altitudes than 

currently available 

Completed 

D-21 
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 8 – Situational Awareness 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

Ops Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 2009 

Review integrated operations of 

reusable launch vehicles (RLV) from 

spaceports, joint use airport and 

spaceports, as well as the airspace 

surrounding those facilities and 

provide recommendations on how to 

safely integrate and conduct routine 

RLV operations 

Completed 

A12.e 

NextGen - Weather 

Technology in the 

Cockpit 

2010 

Assess bandwidth demand of graphical 

icing products (Current Icing Product 

and Forecast Icing Product) and 

graphical turbulence products 

(Graphical Turbulence Guidance) for 

potential delivery via existing and 

planned FAA data link services 

Completed 

2011 

DELAYED 

Develop NextGen mid-term concepts 

of operation and user requirements for 

the provision, integration, and use of 

weather information in the cockpit 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2010 to 

2011 so that the Weather 

Technology in the 

Cockpit Capabilities 

Report can be completed 

and a formal NextGen 

Concepts is released. The 

delay will enable a more 

comprehensive and 

realistic Mid-term 

Concept of Operations. 

Identify, validate, and document 

datalink system attributes that may 

affect use of weather in the cockpit 

On schedule 

2012 Simulate and evaluate available 

cockpit weather technologies On schedule 

2013 Develop prototype weather modules 

for flight deck On schedule 

2014 

Simulate, test, and evaluate cockpit use 

of weather decision support tools, 

including probabilistic forecasts 

On schedule 

Simulate, test, and evaluate fullyintegrated cockpit use of NextGen 

operational concepts, including WTIC 

On schedule 

2015 

Demonstrate the integration of 

navigation information and flight 

information, including weather 

information, into cockpit decisionmaking and shared situational 

awareness among pilots, dispatchers, 

and air traffic controllers supported by 

NextGen air and ground capabilities 

On schedule 

D-22 
 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 8 – Situational Awareness 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

1A01A Runway Incursion 

Reduction 2010 Develop system enhancements for runway status lights Completed 

A11.k Weather Program 

2010 Develop CONUS ceiling, visibility, 

and flight category forecast capability Completed 

2012 

Demonstrate 1-3 hour CONUS ceiling, 

visibility, and flight category forecast 

capability 

On schedule 

2014 

DELAYED 

Transition in-flight icing Alaska 

forecast for implementation 

DELAYED 

The milestone is delayed 

from 2013 to 2014 due to 

changing Weather 

Program Planning Team 

priorities. 

2014 

Demonstrate 1-12 hour CONUS 

ceiling, visibility, and flight category 

forecast capability 

On schedule 

2016 

Transition 1-12 hour CONUS ceiling, 

visibility, and flight category forecast 

capability for implementation 

On schedule 

R&D Goal 9 – System Knowledge 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

AIP 

Airport Cooperative 

Research - Capacity 

2011 

Develop a guidebook for airport 

operators and air cargo industry 

stakeholders that provides tools and 

techniques for measuring economic 

impacts of air cargo activities at the 

national, regional, and local level 

On schedule 

Airport Cooperative 

Research - Safety 

Develop and validate a software tool to 

quantify risk and support engineering 

decision-making related to runway 

safety area requirements 

On schedule 

Ops Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 2010 

Conduct a study with current 

information related to the state of the 

commercial suborbital transportation 

industry with a focus on market 

demand, safety, operability, and 

international coordination 

Completed 

D-23 
 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 9 – System Knowledge 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

Ops Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 2011 

DELAYED 

Conduct a study to evaluate the 

adequacy of current rules and polices 

related to commercial space 

transportation, implement new rules, 

policy, and advisory materials, and 

identify barriers to industry caused by 

unnecessary or conflicting regulations 

DELAYED 

The completion date is 

delayed from 2010 to 

2011. This task is 

awaiting available 

resources and award of a 

pending Commercial 

Space Industry Viability 

Research contract. A 

protracted contract 

transition that resulted in 

a protest by the incumbent 

delayed funding to this 

project. 

NEW 

Release Commercial Space 

Transportation Research Road Map 

document, v1.0 

NEW 

On schedule 

A11.e Continued 

Airworthiness 2011 

Complete study of risk-based fleet 

management for small-airplane 

continued operational safety 

On schedule 

1A08F NextGen - Operational 

Assessments 

2009 

Develop and implement NAS-wide 

regional environmental analysis 

capability within AEDT 

Completed 

2010 Implement weather effects in AEDT 

environmental analyses Completed 

2012 

Develop and implement NAS-wide 

cost-benefit environmental analysis 

capability with APMT 

On schedule 

2013 

Explore options to integrate 

environmental assessment capability 

with NextGen NAS models 

On schedule 

2016 Employ AEDT and APMT for NASwide environmental analyses On schedule 

1A08G 

NextGen - System 

Safety Management 

Transformation 

2009 

Evaluate current information 

protection and assurance models and 

evaluate potential conflicts with 

privacy and consumer advocacy 

groups 

Completed 

2011 

Develop proof of concept for NextGen 

including a prototype to implement on 

a trial basis with selected participants 

that involve a cross-section of air 

service providers 

On schedule 

2012 

Validate the Net Enabled Operations 

Architecture proof-of-concept for the 

sharing of aviation safety information 

among JPDO member agencies, 

participants, and stakeholders 

On schedule 

D-24 
 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 9 – System Knowledge 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

1A08G 

NextGen - System 

Safety Management 

Transformation 

2013 

Complete the Aviation Safety 

Information Analysis and Sharing 

(ASIAS) pre-implementation 

activities, including concept definition, 

with other JPDO member agencies, 

participants, and stakeholders 

On schedule 

2014 

Demonstrate a National Level System 

Safety Assessment capability that will 

proactively identify emerging risk 

across NextGen 

On schedule 

1A01C 

1A01B 

Operations Concept 

Validation 

System Capacity, 

Planning and 

Improvement 

2008 Demonstrate capacity increase to 

130% of baseline levels Completed 

Operations Concept 

Validation 

CLARIFIED 

Researchers will perform 

fast-time simulation to 

assess the potential 

benefits of NextGen 

Operational 

Improvements, using 

standard air traffic 

forecasts designed to 

1A01C 

NextGen - Operations CLARIFIED 

represent realistic traffic 

demand for each year 

1A08C Concept Validation - 

Validation Modeling 2011 Demonstrate an increase in capacity 

and efficiency at 2018 forecasted 

traffic levels 

from the present until 

2025. The previous 

wording of the milestones 

1A01B System Capacity, 

Planning and 

Improvement 

did not accurately reflect 

the research methods nor 

did it provide a target that 

reflects changing air 

traffic conditions. 

Old Wording: 

Demonstrate capacity and 

efficiency increase up to 

166% of baseline levels 

D-25 
 

 

 

 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 9 – System Knowledge 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

1A01C 

1A08C 

1A01B 

Operations Concept 

Validation 

NextGen - Operations 

Concept Validation - 

Validation Modeling 

System Capacity, 

Planning and 

Improvement 

2013 

CLARIFIED 

Demonstrate an increase in capacity 

and efficiency at 2021 forecasted 

traffic levels 

CLARIFIED 

Researchers will perform 

fast-time simulation to 

assess the potential 

benefits of NextGen 

Operational 

Improvements, using 

standard air traffic 

forecasts designed to 

represent realistic traffic 

demand for each year 

from the present until 

2025. The previous 

wording of the milestones 

did not accurately reflect 

the research methods nor 

did it provide a target that 

reflects changing air 

traffic conditions. 

Old Wording: 

Demonstrate capacity and 

efficiency increase up to 

230% of baseline levels 

2016 

CLARIFIED 

Demonstrate an increase in capacity 

and efficiency at 2025 forecasted 

traffic levels 

CLARIFIED 

Researchers will perform 

fast-time simulation to 

assess the potential 

benefits of NextGen 

Operational 

Improvements, using 

standard air traffic 

forecasts designed to 

represent realistic traffic 

demand for each year 

from the present until 

2025. The previous 

wording of the milestones 

did not accurately reflect 

the research methods nor 

did it provide a target that 

reflects changing air 

traffic conditions. 

Old Wording: 

Demonstrate capacity and 

efficiency increase up to 

300% of baseline levels 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2010 Demonstrate a one-third reduction in the rate of fatalities and injuries Completed 

D-26 
 

2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 9 – System Knowledge 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 

2011 Develop automated tools to monitor 

databases for potential safety issues On schedule 

2012 

Demonstrate a working prototype of 

network-based integration of 

information extracted from diverse, 

distributed sources 

On schedule 

Demonstrate a one-half reduction in 

the rate of fatalities and injuries On schedule 

Develop risk management concepts, 

models, and tools for transport 

category airplanes 

On schedule 

2016 

DELAYED 

Demonstrate a two-thirds reduction in 

the rate of fatalities and injuries 

DELAYED 

Chapter 2, R&D Goal 5, 

R&D Target date has 

changed from 2015 to 

2016; this milestone 

evaluates the target for 

R&D Goal 5, so for 

consistency with the other 

R&D Targets, the 

milestone date has been 

updated from 2015 to 

2016. 

A11.l Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research 2012 

DELETED 

Develop risk management concepts, 

models, and tools for unmanned 

aircraft systems 

DELETED 

Milestone deleted due to 

change in sponsor (AVS) 

priority. 

R&D Goal 10 – World Leadership 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A14.a System Planning and 

Resource Management 

2008 

Publish the NARP, which documents 

the annual R&D budget portfolio, 

describes the activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and contains the 

FY 2008-2013 FAA R&D plan 

Completed 

2009 

Publish the NARP, which documents 

the annual R&D budget portfolio, 

describes the activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and contains the 

FY 2009-2014 FAA R&D plan 

Completed 

2010 

Publish the NARP, which documents 

the annual R&D budget portfolio, 

describes the activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and contains the 

FY 2010-2015 FAA R&D plan 

Completed 

D-27 
2011 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 10 – World Leadership 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status 

A14.a System Planning and 

Resource Management 

2010 

Determine criteria for assessing the 

benefits of the international research 

collaboration 

Completed 

2011 

Develop a strategic mapping for 

international research collaboration On schedule 

Identify a process to measure quality, 

timeliness, and value of international 

research collaboration 

On schedule 

NEW 

Publish the NARP, which documents 

the annual R&D budget portfolio, 

describes the activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and contains the 

FY 2011-2016 FAA R&D plan 

NEW 

Milestone added for 

continued measurement of 

progress in this program. 

On schedule 

2016 Determine final value of international 

research collaboration On schedule 

D-28 
 

2011 NARP Appendix E 

Appendix E – Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Acronym Definition 

0-9 

100LL 100 Low Lead 

4DT Four-Dimensional Trajectory 

A 

AAIADS Aerospace Accident Injury and Autopsy Data System 

AC Advisory Circular 

ACCRI Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative 

ACER Airliner Cabin Environment Research 

ACES Airspace Conflict Evaluation System 

ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

ADSIM Airport Runway Simulator 

AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool 

AEE FAA Office of Environment and Energy 

AEH Airborne Electronic Hardware 

AIA Aerospace Industries Association 

AIP Airport Improvement Program Appropriation 

AIR Aircraft Certification Service 

AJP-6 FAA Research and Technology Development Directorate 

AJP-61 FAA Human Factors Research and Engineering Group 

AJP-63 FAA Airport and Aircraft Safety Group 

AJP-66 FAA Concept Development and Validation Group 

AJP-68 FAA Aviation Weather Group 

AJP-A FAA NextGen Integration and Implementation Directorate 

AMP Airspace Management Program 

ANE New England Region - Aircraft Certification Service Engine and 

Propeller Directorate 

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider 

AOC Airline/Aviation/Aircraft Operations Center 

APL FAA Office of Policy, International Affairs, and Environment 

APMT Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool 

APP FAA Airport Planning and Programming Office 

AQP Advanced Qualification Program 

ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

ARFF Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting 

ARP FAA Office of Airports 

ASBS Auto Brake Systems with Antiskid 

ASDE-X Airport Surface Detection Equipment 

ASIAS Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing 

ASR Alkali-Silica Reactive 

ASRS Aviation Safety Reporting System 

E-1 
2011 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

ASTM ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and 

Materials) 

ASTS Aeronautics Science and Technology Subcommittee 

AT Air Traffic 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

ATCSCC Air Traffic Control Systems Command Center 

ATC/TO Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

ATD&P Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping 

ATM Air Traffic Management 

ATO FAA Air Traffic Organization 

ATO-P FAA NextGen and Operations Planning Service Unit 

Avgas Aviation Gasoline 

AVS FAA Office of Aviation Safety 

B 

BLI Budget Line Item 

C 

C2 Control and Communications 

C3 Command, Control, and Communication 

CAAFI Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative 

CAASD Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 

CACRC Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee 

CAEP Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

CAMI Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

CAS Collision Avoidance System 

CAST Commercial Aircraft Safety Team 

CATS Causal-Model for Air Transport System 

CDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic Information 

CEAT COE for Airport Technology 

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGAR COE for General Aviation Research 

CIP Current Icing Product 

CLEEN Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise 

CNS Communications, Navigation and Surveilance 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

COA Certificate of Authorization 

COE Center of Excellence 

ConOps Concept of Operations 

CONUS Continental United States 

COTS Commercial-Off-The-Shelf 

CRC Coordinating Research Council 

CRDA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 

CSF Cockpit Simulation Facility 

E-2 
2011 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

CSPO Closely Spaced Parallel Operations 

CSPR Closely Spaced Parallel Runways 

CSTA Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor 

D 

DARWINTM Design Assessment of Reliability With INspection 

DFW Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

DNL Day Night Level 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

DSA Detect, Sense, and Avoid 

E 

E&E Environment and Energy 

EA Enterprise Architecture 

EDR Eddy Dissipation Rates 

EDS Environmental Design Space 

EFB Electronic Flight Bag 

EFVS Enhanced Flight Vision Systems 

EMS Environmental Management System 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EUROCONTROL European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation 

EVS Enhanced Vision System 

EWG Environmental Working Group (formerly the Environmental Integrated 

Product Team, or E-IPT) 

EWIS Electrical Wiring Interconnect Systems 

EXCOM Executive Committee 

F 

F&E Facilities and Equipment Appropriation 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FAR Federal Aviation Regulation 

FC&MS Flight Controls and Mechanical Systems 

FEB FFRDC Executive Board 

FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Center 

FICAN Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise 

FMS Flight Management System 

FOC Flight Operations Center 

FOD Foreign Object Debris 

FTE Full-Time Equivalent 

FWD Falling Weight Deflectometer 

FY Fiscal Year 

G 

GA General Aviation 

GAMA General Aviation Manufacturers Association 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

E-3 
2011 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

GMU George Mason University 

GPS Global Positioning Satellites/System 

H 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HEMS Helicopter Emergency Medical Services 

HF Human Factors 

HITL Human-In-The-Loop 

HIWC High Ice-Water Content 

HMA Hot-Mix Asphalt 

HSI Human System Integration 

HUD Head-Up Display 

HUMS Health and Usage Monitoring System 

I 

I&I Integration and Implementation 

IA Interagency Agreement 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

IFP Instrument Flight Procedures 

IFR Instrument Flight Rule 

ILS Instrument Landing System 

IM Interval Management 

IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions 

IWP Integrated Work Plan 

J 

JAMS Joint Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials 

JPDO Joint Planning and Development Office 

JUP Joint University Program 

L 

LAAS Local Area Augmentation System 

LCGS Low Cost Ground Surveillance System 

LEAF Layered Elastic Analysis - FAA 

LED Light Emitting Diode 

LS-DYNA Finite Element Code 

M 

MASPS Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards 

MET Meteorological 

MFD Multifunction Display 

MITLL Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory 

MMPDS Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOC Memorandum of Cooperation 

MOPS Minimum Operational Performance Standards 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

N 

NAPTF National Airport Pavement Test Facility 

E-4 
2011 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

NARP National Aviation Research Plan 

NAS National Airspace System 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NASEA National Airspace System Enterprise Architecture 

NASPAC NAS Performance Analysis Capability 

NATCA National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

NAV Navigation 

NAWC Naval Air Warfare Center 

NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research 

NCEP National Centers for Environmental Prediction 

NDI Nondestructive Inspection 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System 

NEXTOR National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research 

NGIP NextGen Implementation Plan 

NIEC NextGen Integration & Evaluation Capability 

NLA New Large Aircraft 

NMSU New Mexico State University 

NNEW NextGen Network Enabled Weather 

NOAA U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOx Nitrogen Oxide 

NRA NASA Research Announcement 

NSTC National Science and Technology Council 

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board 

NWS National Weather Service 

O 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OI Operational Improvement 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OMT Outcome Management Team 

Ops Operations Appropriation 

OST Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

OTA Other Transaction Authority 

OTP Oceanic in-Trail Procedures 

P 

PARC Performance Based Operations Aviation Rule-Making Committee 

PARTNER Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction 

PBN Performance Based Navigation 

PBWP Product Based Work Plan 

PDARS Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System 

PDRI Probabilistic Design for Rotor Integrity 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PITT Propulsion Indications Task Team 

PM Particulate Matter 

E-5 
2011 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

R 

R&D Research and Development 

R&TD Research and Technology Development Office 

R,E&D Research, Engineering and Development Appropriation 

REDAC Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee 

RIRP Runway Incursion Reduction Program 

RITE FAA National Air Transportation COE for Research in the Intermodal 

Transportation Environment 

RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle 

RNAV Area Navigation 

RNP Required Navigation Performance 

ROGIDS Remote Onboard Ground Ice Detection System 

RR Rapid Refresh 

RTCA Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics 

RTT Research Transition Team 

RWI Reduce Weather Impact 

RWSL Runway Status Light 

S 

SAA See and Avoid 

SAAAR Special Aircraft and Air Crew Authorization Required 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

SAS Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

SATCOM Satellite Communications 

SC Special Committee 

SCPI System Capacity, Planning and Improvement 

SDS Software and Digital Systems 

SESAR Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research 

SG Strategic Guidance 

SIMMOD FAA’s Airspace and Airport Simulation Model 

SLD Supercooled Large Droplet 

SMS Safety Management System 

SNT Staffed NextGen Towers 

SVS Synthetic Vision System 

SWA Southwest Airlines 

SWIM System Wide-Information Management 

T 

TAF Terminal Area Forecast 

TALPA Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment 

TAS Terminal Area Safety 

TBO Trajectory-Based Operation 

TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 

TCRG Technical Community Representative Group 

TERPS Terminal Instrumentation Procedures 

TF Task Force 

E-6 
2011 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

TFM Traffic Flow Management 

TGF Target Generator Facility 

THERMAKIN FAA Thermal-Kinetic Burning Model 

TMA Traffic Management Advisor 

TO Technical Operations 

TOps Trajectory Operations 

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control 

TSO Technical Standard Order 

U 

UAS Unmanned Aerial Systems 

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System 

UEDDAM Uncontained Engine Debris Damage Assessment Model 

UI User Interface 

U.S. United States 

USAF U.S. Air Force 

V 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

Vision 100 Vision 100–Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act of 2003 

VLJ Very Light Jet 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

W 

WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System 

WG Working Group 

WJHTC William J. Hughes Technical Center 

WRF Weather Research and Forecast 

S&WRR Surveillance and Weather Radar Replacement 

WTIC Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

WTMSR Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Single Runway 

E-7