Report of the Federal Aviation Administration to the United States Congress 

pursuant to 49 U.S. Code 44501(c)

2009 NARP

June 2009

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

pursuant to 49 United Sates Code 44501(c). The NARP is available on the internet at http://nas-architecture.faa.gov/nas/

downloads or http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/nextgen/research_planning/

narp.
contents 

Executive Summary - ii

Preface - iv

Chapter One • National Av iation System

Mission - 2

Vision - 3

FAA Plans - 4

FAA Research and Development - 8

Chapter Two • Research and Development Goals

Fast, Flexible and Efficient - 20

Clean and Quiet - 24

High Quality Teams and Individuals - 30

Human-Centered Design - 34

Human Protection - 38

Safe Aerospace Vehicles - 44

Separation Assurance - 48

Situational Awareness - 50

System Knowledge - 54

World Leadership - 58

Chapter Three • Alignment With NextGen

NextGen Domains and Solution Sets - 64

NextGen Portfolio Management Process - 67

FAA NextGen Research Requirements - 67

chapter four • Research Business Management

Sponsors - 74

Programs - 74

Budget - 81

Partners and Other Research Mechanisms - 86

Evaluation - 91

Acronyms and Abbreviations - 94

Separate Volume • Appendices

Program Descriptions - A

FY 2008 R&D Annual Review - B

Partnership Activities - C

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee - D

Alignment of FAA NextGen R&D Programs - E

Acronyms and Abbreviations - F
Executive Summary

ii Executive Summary 

The tremendous benefits derived from a highly mobile citizenry and rapid cargo transport 

dictate that America’s air transportation system remains the best in the world. Being the best 

requires the constant introduction of new technologies and procedures, innovative policies, 

and advanced management practices into the aviation system as well as sustained investments 

in advanced research and technology development. The National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) 

is the Federal Aviation Administration’s (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.

To do this, the NARP uses ten crosscutting R&D goals to bridge the near-term FAA Flight 

Plan 2009-2013 performance goals and objectives, the mid-term (2012-2018) FAA’s Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Implementation Plan domains and solution sets, and 

the far-term (2015-2025) goals and capabilities identified in the Joint Planning and Development 

Office (JPDO) NextGen Integrated Work Plan: A Functional Outline (IWP) for the year 2025. This 

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

efficient air transportation system in the world while conducting the research needed to 

transform it into NextGen in the mid- and far-term. The ten R&D goals also help FAA 

focus its R&D on the biggest challenges facing the air transportation system, identify gaps 

in research, leverage R&D across the Agency, and measure progress toward achieving R&D 

targets for each goal. The targets are aggressive and challenge researchers to innovate, take 

risks, and seek non-traditional solutions.
The 2009 NARP presents an established research plan that 

highlights the results of the research and describes how the 

FAA R&D programs are progressing toward achieving the 

R&D targets through 2016. There are no major structural 

changes in the plan from the 2008 NARP. It maintains 

continuity with the previous R&D goals and the milestones 

supporting those goals. It shows that in fiscal year 2010 the 

FAA plans to invest a total of $367,817,000 in R&D. This 

investment spans the four FAA appropriations: $180,000,000 

in Research, Engineering, and Development (R,E&D); 

$150,200,000 in Facilities and Equipment (F&E); $37,472,000 

in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP); and $145,000 

in Operations (Ops). The R&D portfolio is composed of 

42 programs that address the research needs of 5 FAA lines 

of business: the Air Traffic Organization, Aviation Safety, 

Airports, the Aviation Policy, Planning and Environment 

Office, and Commercial Space Transportation. The 2009 

NARP highlights 153 key milestones that show the importance 

of R&D to the goals of the Agency. Of those milestones, 68 

support the realization of NextGen. All milestones scheduled 

to be completed in 2008 were completed.

The FAA’s investments in R&D are making a difference. 

Examples of progress made through R&D in 2008 include 

the following:

• In 2008, several airports across the United States – from 

Miami to Atlanta to Los Angeles – were witness to 

pioneering efforts to reduce aircraft fuel burn, noise, and 

emissions. Final approaches on certain runways used a 

new concept called Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) 

arrivals that allows a pilot to fly the most efficient path 

and airplane configuration from as far as 50 miles from 

the airport to touchdown. With OPD, better known as 

continuous descent arrivals, an airplane flies a smooth 

path at a near-idle power setting, rather than the typical 

stair-step approach with varying power levels. OPD is a 

win-win strategy, having environmental and operational 

benefits that can reduce noise, emissions, and fuel burn 

as well as reduce flight time.

Executive Summary iii

• In July 2008, more than a decade’s worth of research and 

innovation reached fruition when the FAA announced 

the final rulemaking that will significantly enhance fuel 

tank safety. FAA research led to a low-cost, effective 

fuel tank inerting system that made this FAA rulemaking 

activity possible. The rule requires operators and 

manufacturers of more than 5,000 passenger jets to 

reduce the flammability levels of fuel tank vapors. The 

publishing of the rule in the Federal Register came 

one day before the 12th anniversary of the TWA 800 

explosion that killed 230 people, an accident that was 

attributed to the ignition of fuel vapors in the center fuel 

tank of the aircraft shortly after taking off from John F. 

Kennedy International Airport.

• With the mandate from the U.S. Department of Energy 

for renewable energy sources, wind turbine farms are 

proliferating across the United States. Lighting these 

structures, which can be over 400 feet tall, requires 

a balance between safe flying and the quality of life 

for surrounding communities. FAA researchers 

investigated various lighting concepts and concluded 

that simultaneous flashing lights on select turbines 

significantly improved the situation awareness of the 

pilot and, in FY 2008, the FAA issued revised guidance 

for the new concept. The wind turbine industry has 

embraced this new guidance material, citing the research 

results as being less expensive than existing concepts and 

more readily accepted by the local communities.

The 2009 NARP describes how the FAA continues to be a 

good steward of the public’s investments in aviation R&D 

and continues to deliver results that will enhance the safety 

and capacity of the nation’s air transportation system today 

and into the future.
Title 49 of the U.S. Code section 44501(c) requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to submit 

the National Aviation Research Plan (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-111

 and involves research 

activities funded in four appropriations accounts: Research, Engineering and Development; Facilities and Equipment; Airport 

Improvement Program; and Operations.

The NARP is a portfolio that reflects annual changes to the FAA research and development (R&D) program. The 2005

NARP aligned the FAA R&D with the near-term goals of the FAA Flight Plan and the far-term goals of the Joint Planning 

and Development Office (JPDO) Integrated Plan. The 2006 NARP strengthened the connection between the near-term and 

far-term efforts by proposing ten R&D goals with mid-term performance targets. The 2007 NARP provided a high-level 

plan for each R&D goal to show how the programs worked together to achieve the R&D targets while supporting both 

the FAA Flight Plan and the next generation air transportation system (NextGen). The 2008 NARP included more detailed 

information on how the FAA R&D programs supported both the FAA Operational Evolution Partnership (now known as the 

FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Implementation Plan or NGIP) and the JPDO Research and Development 

Plan for the Next Generation Air Transportation System FY 2009 – FY 2013 (August 31, 2007). The 2008 NARP also introduced 

two new appendices: one to report the R&D accomplishments of the past year and the other to map the FAA NextGen 

R&D activities to the NextGen mid- and far-term operational improvements.

Preface

1

 OMB Circular A-11, “Preparation, Submission and Execution of the 

Budget,” June 2006, section 84, page 8 (www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars).

iv Preface 
The 2009 NARP presents an established research plan that 

highlights the results of the research and describes how the 

R&D programs are progressing toward achieving the R&D 

targets. There are no major structural changes in the plan 

from the 2008 NARP. It maintains continuity with the 

previous R&D goals and the milestones supporting those 

goals, as described in more detail in the budget portfolio 

provided in Appendix A. New goals and milestones will be 

added as research is completed and as NextGen planning 

matures. The completed milestones are noted with a 

checkmark beside the items and each milestone completed 

in 2008 is described in progress items at the end of the 

section for each R&D goal. Chapter 3 has been updated to 

reflect a restructuring within the FAA to focus on NextGen 

implementation and monitor the progress of NextGen 

development and implementation.

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the national aviation 

system mission, vision, and goals that help the FAA 

define its R&D needs. It has been updated to 

reflect changes in the Flight Plan and NextGen 

planning, and it includes a section on midterm goals to reflect the importance of the 

NGIP and FAA Enterprise Architecture 

as well as the far-term goals in the 

JPDO NextGen Air Transportation System 

Integrated Work Plan: A Functional Outline (IWP).

Chapter 2 includes a master schedule and a high-level plan for 

each of the ten R&D goals. It integrates the R&D programs 

with the FAA goals and details how those programs will 

achieve the R&D targets. It explains how the R&D targets will 

be validated and what milestones are required to achieve each 

target. The chapter includes a summary of the progress in 

fiscal year 2008 for each R&D goal.

Chapter 3 describes how the FAA NextGen R&D 

programs map to the National Airspace System (NAS) 

Enterprise Architecture, the domains and solution sets 

in the NGIP, and the operational improvements in the 

IWP. The FAA NextGen R&D programs and budget are 

the relevant subset of information presented in Chapter 

2. Appendix E provides additional detail on NextGen 

program budgets and mapping of program milestones to 

the relevant elements in the NAS Enterprise Architecture, 

the NGIP, and the IWP.

Chapter 4 provides business information on the R&D 

sponsors, programs, budget, partnerships, and evaluation. It 

presents the programs and the budget organized according 

to the President’s budget submission for fiscal year 2010 and 

reflects the NextGen R&D programs planned to begin in 

fiscal year 2009.

Appendix A provides the detailed program descriptions for 

each R&D program, including intended outcomes, outputs, 

programmatic structure, partnerships, accomplishments, and 

a five-year program plan.

Appendix B provides the descriptions 

of the accomplishments for the R&D 

program in fiscal year 2008. It aligns 

the accomplishments with the programs 

described in Appendix A and with the ten 

R&D goals described in Chapter 2.

Appendix C provides the detailed 

information on FAA partnerships 

with government, academic, and industry 

organizations. It lists information for fiscal 

year 2008, including active agreements with other 

government agencies, cooperative R&D agreements, 

patents, and grants. This appendix supports the 

partnership section in Chapter 4.

Appendix D provides the recommendations of the Research, 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee 

(REDAC) listed according to the reports produced by the 

committee in fiscal year 2008. The FAA response to each 

recommendation is included. This appendix supports the 

evaluation section in Chapter 4.

Appendix E provides a detailed mapping of the FAA 

NextGen R&D programs and milestones to the relevant 

elements in the NAS Enterprise Architecture (near- and 

mid-term), the NGIP (mid-term), and the JPDO IWP

(far-term). The information is organized by the ten R&D 

goals described in Chapter 2. Appendix E also provides a 

summary of the program budgets for the NextGen R&D. 

This appendix supports both Chapters 2 and 3.

Appendix F provides a list of acronyms and abbreviations 

for the 2009 NARP and its appendices.

All appendices are included in a separate volume from the 

main body of the 2009 NARP.

Preface v
CHAPTER 1

2 Chapter 1 

Aviation is a vital resource for the United States because of its strategic, economic, and social importance. This industry 

provides opportunities for business, jobs, economic development, law enforcement, emergency response, personal travel and 

recreation. It attracts investment to local communities and opens new domestic and international markets and supply chains.

To maximize these opportunities, the United States must maintain and improve upon an aviation system that is responsive 

to its rapidly changing and expanding transportation needs. Increased mobility, higher productivity, and greater efficiency 

are possible through the introduction of new technologies and procedures, innovative policies, and advanced management 

practices. Collaborative, needs-driven research and development (R&D) is central to this process. R&D 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.

Mission

The nation’s aviation system, or air transportation system, 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 

accommodates many types of aerospace vehicles, airport and airfield configurations, space launch and re-entry sites, and a wide variety 

of military, civil, and commercial operations. The system consists of three major elements: aerospace vehicles (e.g., commercial and 

military aircraft, general aviation, space launch and re-entry vehicles, rotorcraft, gliders, hot air balloons); infrastructure (e.g., airports 

and airfields, air traffic management system, 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 air transportation system is designed, developed, maintained, and operated through 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 are ultimately used by the government to regulate the aviation industry; develop, 

maintain, and operate the air traffic management system; and provide airport security and other public aviation services.

The FAA mission is to provide 

the safest, most efficient 

aerospace system in the world.
Chapter 1 3 

Vision

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. Departments of Defense (DoD), Transportation 

(DOT), Homeland Security (DHS), and Commerce (DOC); 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); the 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.” 2

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-topoint, 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.

The basic challenge posed by this vision is to:

• Increase significantly the capacity of the national aviation 

system and 

• Decrease the time it takes to move people and goods 

from their origin to destination,

while simultaneously:

• Decreasing fatalities and injuries due to aerospace 

operations; 

• Mitigating the risk of terrorists threats and other 

hostile actions; 

• Reducing the environmental impact of aerospace 

transportation;

• Decreasing the cost of system operations; and

• Improving the quality of air travel.

To achieve this vision, the Secretary of Transportation 

established a set of far-term national goals to transform 

the current aviation system, by 2025, into a next generation 

air transportation system (NextGen) that 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; and

• Retaining U.S. leadership and economic competitiveness 

in global aviation.

2 Letter to the President from Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, “America at 

the Forefront of Aviation: Enhancing Economic Growth,” November 25, 2003.

The FAA R&D vision is 

to provide the best air 

transportation system through 

the conduct of worldclass, cutting-edge research, 

engineering, and development.
4 Chapter 1 

FAA Plans

FAA plans for R&D have three different time horizons: far-term (2015-2025) for the NextGen Integrated Work Plan: A 

Functional Outline (IWP); mid-term (2012-2018) for the FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP); and near-term (2009-2013) 

for the annual FAA Flight Plan 2009-2013. The NARP addresses all three horizons, as illustrated in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: The NARP Supports FAA Top-Level Plans
Chapter 1 5 

In 2003, Congress created the Joint Planning and 

Development Office (JPDO)3 to oversee planning related to 

NextGen. The office reports to a Senior Policy Committee, 

which is chaired by the Secretary of Transportation, and 

includes representatives from the DoD, DOT, DHS, DOC, 

FAA, NASA, and OSTP. Working with industry and 

academia, the JPDO established the following set of far-term 

system goals and objectives for NextGen.4

Retain U.S. leadership in global aviation

• Retain our role as the world leader in aviation

• Reduce costs for air transportation

• Enable services tailored to traveler and shipper needs

• Encourage performance-based, harmonized global 

standards for U.S. products and services to keep new 

and existing markets open

Expand capacity

• Satisfy future growth in demand (up to three times 

current levels) and operational diversity

• Reduce transit time and increase predictability 

(domestic curb-to-curb transit time cut by 30 percent)

• Minimize the impact of weather and other disruptions 

(95 percent on time)

Ensure safety

• Maintain aviation’s record as the safest mode of 

transportation

• Improve the level of safety of the U.S. air 

transportation system

• Increase the safety of worldwide air transportation

Protect the environment

• Reduce noise, emissions, and fuel consumption

• Balance aviation’s environmental impact with other 

societal objectives

Ensure our national defense

• Provide for the common defense, while minimizing 

civilian constraints

• Coordinate a national response to threats

• Ensure global access to civilian airspace

Secure the nation

• Mitigate new and varied threats

• Ensure security efficiently serves demand 

• Tailor strategies to threats, balancing costs, and 

privacy issues

• Ensure traveler and shipper confidence in system security

Based on these goals and objectives, the JPDO has developed 

top-level policy and planning documents to guide the 

activities of all participating organizations to achieve the endstate NextGen vision. These include:

• Concept of Operations for the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System, Version 2.0, June 13, 2007

• Enterprise Architecture V2.0 for the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System, June 22, 2007

• NextGen Air Transportation System Integrated Work Plan: A 

Functional Outline, (IWP) Version 1.0, September 30, 2008

These documents can be found at www.jpdo.gov.

To achieve NextGen, the JPDO has identified eight 

capabilities that are needed to provide a systems approach, 

support policy and cultural shifts, and address multiple 

dependencies. They are:

• Network-enabled information access

• Performance-based operations and services

• Weather-assimilated decision-making

• Layered adaptive security

• Broad-area precision navigation

• Aircraft trajectory-based operations

• Equivalent visual operations

• Super-density operations

Detailed explanations of these capabilities can be found in 

the JPDO NextGen 2005 Progress Report.5

3

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

176, December 12, 2003.

4

 Joint Planning and Development Office, Next Generation Air Transportation 

System Integrated Plan (http://www.jpdo.gov/library/NGATS_v1_1204r.pdf) 5 Joint Planning and Development Office, 2005 Progress Report to the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan, March 2006 

(http://www.jpdo.gov/library/2005_Progress_Report.pdf).

Jo int Plann ing and Development Office Plans
6 Chapter 1 

FAA Enterpr ise Arch itecture

FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan

The FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) 

Implementation Plan (NGIP, formerly called the Operational 

Evolution Partnership or OEP) is the Agency’s path to meet 

NextGen goals and to respond to JPDO strategic direction. 

The NGIP is the FAA’s mid-term plan (2012-2018) that 

addresses proposed system changes and guides them into use. 

It covers all FAA NextGen-related initiatives, including R&D.

The NGIP provides a structured framework for the FAA to 

plan, execute, and implement NextGen. It is centered on 

improvements in three domains: Air Traffic Operations; 

Airport Development; and Aircraft and Operator 

Requirements. The NGIP is the single entry point for new 

initiatives from all FAA lines of business and focuses their 

efforts to achieve NextGen in a fully coordinated, integrated, 

and transparent manner. When projects reach sufficient 

technological and operational maturity, the NGIP will ensure 

their implementation into the National Airspace System.

The Air Traffic Operations domain focuses on seven solution 

sets targeted to address capacity, efficiency, safety, and security 

of air transportation operations. These are:

• Initiate Trajectory-Based Operations

• Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports

• Increase Flexibility in the Terminal Environment

• Improve Collaborative Air Traffic Management

• Reduce Weather Impact

• Increase Safety, Security, and Environmental Performance

• Transform Facilities

Each of these solution sets represents a portfolio of 

transformational capabilities and research requirements for 

the mid term. These capabilities are described further in 

Chapter 3. Each capability integrates activities from multiple 

programs in the FAA and in other agencies. 

The Airport Development domain focuses on adding 

airport infrastructure to provide greater capacity and reduce 

delay. The two solution sets (OEP 35 Airports and OEP 

Metropolitan Areas) in this domain include activities to 

relieve pressure on today’s most congested airports, including 

those in New York and Chicago.

The Aircraft and Operator Requirements domain will define 

the performance requirements that aircraft and operators 

must meet to participate in NextGen. By aligning the 

aircraft and operator-related expectations of FAA’s near-term 

commitments along with the mid-term capabilities described 

in the solutions sets, the Agency can better ensure that 

required safety and standardization activities are completed 

in a timely manner. As planning matures, this domain will 

provide sufficient detail on aircraft capabilities to enable 

manufacturers and operators to identify related avionics 

investments and plan a logical migration for their aircraft.

The FAA Enterprise Architecture (EA) provides the overall 

architecture for the Agency. It has three parts:

• The NAS EA contains the systems and operational 

changes for the command and control of the NAS, 

including mission support systems, design, management, 

and procedures.

• The NAS Regulatory EA contains systems and 

operational changes for the regulation of the NAS 

including policy definition, procedure certification, 

environment regulation, and safety management.

• The Non-NAS Enterprise Architecture contains 

information technology investments and operational 

changes for Agency business processes including 

administrative, strategic, and financial planning.

The NAS EA is the set of roadmaps describing how 

the current NAS will transition to NextGen, the crossgovernment air transportation vision for the year 2025. It 

provides the mid-term target architecture for 2018 and 

the transition strategy to achieve that architecture. It also 

provides the operational and technical framework for all 

FAA plans, including the NGIP, the Flight Plan, the Capital 

Investment Plan, and the NARP. The FAA and JPDO are 

working to align FAA EA planning with the JPDO NextGen 

Enterprise Architecture and IWP.
Chapter 1 7 

FAA Flight Plan

The FAA Flight Plan 2009-2013 describes the Agency’s 

near-term performance goals and objectives.6 Since the FAA 

has the day-to-day responsibility to promote the safe and 

efficient operation of the current aviation system, its nearterm priorities (including research) are driven by the goals and 

objectives in the Flight Plan. These are:

• Increased Safety – Achieve the lowest possible accident 

rate and constantly improve safety.

– Reduce commercial air carrier fatalities

– Reduce general aviation fatalities

– Reduce the risk of runway incursions

– Ensure the safety of commercial space launches

– Enhance the safety of FAA’s air traffic systems

– Implement a Safety Management System (SMS) for 

the FAA

• Greater Capacity – Work with local governments and 

airspace users to provide increased capacity in the United 

States airspace system that reduces congestion and meets 

projected demand in an environmentally sound manner.

– Increase capacity to meet projected demand and 

reduce congestion

– Increase reliability and on-time performance of 

scheduled carriers

– Address environmental issues associated with 

capacity enhancements

6 Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Flight Plan 2009-2013, 

October 2008 (http://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/media/

flight_plan_2009-20013.pdf).

7

 Federal Aviation Administration, National Airspace System Capital 

Investment Plan for Fiscal Years 2009-2013, June 2008 (http://www.faa.

gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/

operations/sysengsaf/cip/files/CIP_FY09-13_Complete.pdf)

Capital Investment Plan

The FAA National Airspace System Capital Investment Plan 

for Fiscal Years 2009–2013 (CIP) describes the NAS 

modernization projects and lists the activities FAA intends 

to complete during that period.7 It contains projects that 

modernize existing systems and projects that begin the 

transformation to NextGen, including R&D activities. It 

also contains the NAS EA roadmaps that show the timetable 

for introduction of new technology to achieve the planned 

NextGen capabilities and capacity increases.

National Av iation Research 

Plan

The National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) is the FAA’s 

integrated, performance-based R&D plan that supports 

the FAA’s near-, mid- and far-term needs for the NAS. In 

the past, the NARP priorities were driven primarily by the 

near-term operational needs of the aviation system as defined 

in the Flight Plan, with a large share of its R&D program 

focused on specific, near-term safety and capacity issues. 

Today, in coordination with the IWP and the NGIP, the 

NARP has become more robust, balanced, and dynamic so 

it can simultaneously address the critical, near-term needs 

of the system while defining the research foundation for the 

next generation system. See Figure 1.1.

• International Leadership – Increase the safety and 

capacity of the global civil aerospace system in an 

environmentally sound manner.

– Promote improved safety and regulatory oversight 

in cooperation with bilateral, regional, and 

multilateral aviation partners

– Promote seamless operations around the globe in 

cooperation with bilateral, regional, and multilateral 

aviation partners

• Organizational Excellence – Ensure the success of the 

FAA’s mission through stronger leadership, a bettertrained and safer workforce, enhanced cost-control 

measures, and improved decision-making based on 

reliable data.

– Implement human resources management practices 

to attract and retain a highly skilled, diverse 

workforce and provide employees a safe, positive 

work environment

– Make the organization more effective with stronger 

leadership, a results-oriented, high-performance 

workforce, and a culture of accountability

– Improve financial management while delivering 

quality customer service

– Make decisions based on reliable data to improve 

overall performance and customer satisfaction

– Enhance our ability to respond to crises rapidly and 

effectively, including security-related threats and 

natural disasters
8 Chapter 1 

FAA Research and Development

The FAA uses R&D to support regulation, certification, and standards development; modernization of the national airspace 

system; and policy and planning. As such, it conducts applied research and development as defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-11. Applied research is defined as systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding 

necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met. Development is defined as 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. 8

Mission

The FAA R&D mission is to “Conduct, coordinate, and support domestic and international R&D of aviation-related 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.

Organ izational values

The FAA has defined five R&D organizational values that will enable it to better manage its programs and achieve its far-term 

vision: “To provide the best air transportation system through the conduct of world-class, cutting edge research, engineering 

and development.” The Agency R&D program has adopted the following values:

•	 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 world-class 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 its people to invent new aviation 

capabilities. It creates 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 espousing these values, the FAA will create the best value from limited R&D resources to help achieve the 

national vision of a transformed aviation system.

8 OMB Circular A-11, “Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget,” June 2006, section 84, page 8 (www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars).
Chapter 1 9 

Goals

The FAA R&D program supports both the day-to-day 

operations of the national aerospace system and the 

development of NextGen. Hence, far-term focus on 

NextGen will have to be balanced with the research 

needed to address the day-to-day safety and capacity issues 

of the national aerospace system. 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. As shown in Table 1.1, the R&D goals are 

aligned with the near-term Flight Plan goals, the mid-term 

NGIP domains and solution sets, and the far-term goals 

and capabilities identified in the JPDO Integrated Plan.

These R&D goals are meant to challenge researchers 

to think far term and achieve future breakthroughs. 

The R&D program 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 FAA 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

National Aeronautics Research and Development 

Policy and Plan

In December 2006, the President of the United States established the first 

National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy through Executive 

order 13419, with the goal of advancing the U.S. technological leadership in 

aeronautics by fostering a vibrant and dynamic aeronautics R&D community that includes government, industry, and academia.

In accordance with the policy, in December 2007, the National Plan for 

Aeronautics R&D and Related Infrastructure established aeronautics 

R&D challenges, priorities, and time-phased objectives, as well as the path 

forward for developing an aeronautics research, development, test, and 

evaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure plan. The Plan defines the highest 

priority aeronautics R&D goals and objectives for the nation. These goals 

and objectives are intended to provide high-level guidance for foundational, 

advanced aircraft system, and air transportation system R&D through 

2020. The FAA’s aviation research and development programs align with 

the National Plan in all areas with a focus on the near-term objectives while 

laying the foundation for the mid- and far-term objectives.
Flight Plan Goals FAA R&D Goals NextGen Implementation Plan

Domains and Solution Sets

 JPDO Integrated Plan

Guiding Principles 

and Key Capabilities

Goals

Greater Capacity Fast, flexible, and 

 efficient

Airport Development Domain

Air Traffic Operations Domain

-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

Aircraft trajectory-based 

 operations

Broad-area precision 

 navigation

Equivalent visual operations

Performance-based services

Super-density operations

Weather assimilated into 

 decision-making

Expand Capacity

Clean and quiet

Air Traffic Operations Domain

-Increase Safety, Security, 

 and Environmental Performance

Aircraft and Operator Requirements

 Domain

Integrated environmental 

 performance

Protect the Environment

Increased Safety

Human-centered 

 design

Human protection

Safe aerospace vehicles

Separation assurance

Situational awareness

Proactive safety risk 

 management

Ensure Safety

System knowledge

 -- -- Layered adaptive security

Net-enabled information 

Secure the Nation

Ensure our National access Defense

International 

 Leadership

World leadership -- Global harmonization

Retain U.S. Leadership

 in Global Aviation

Organizational 

 Excellence

High quality teams 

 and individuals

 -- User focused

10 Chapter 1 

Table 1.1: Alignment of Goals

Table 1.1 shows the primary relationship among the Flight Plan goals, the FAA R&D goals, the NGIP domains and solution sets, 

and the far-term goals, guiding principles, and key capabilities identified for NextGen. Each FAA R&D goal is aligned with its 

primary Flight Plan goal recognizing that there may be other relationships. For example, High quality teams and individuals is aligned 

with Organizational Excellence; however, it also supports Increased Safety and Greater Capacity. Similarly, System knowledge and 

Situational awareness also align with Greater Capacity, in addition to Increased Safety.
Chapter 1 11 
CHAPTER 2

14 Chapter 2

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) research and development (R&D) plan is built around the ten R&D goals defined 

in the previous chapter. The master schedule and R&D goals help to align, plan, and evaluate R&D activities to support 

the near-term needs of the FAA Flight Plan 2009-2013 and Capital Investment Plan, the mid-term needs of the FAA’s NextGen 

Implementation Plan (NGIP), and the far-term needs described in the interagency JPDO NextGen Integrated Work Plan: A Functional 

Outline (IWP). This chapter describes how the R&D programs achieve the R&D targets for each R&D goal by identifying 

key milestones (or outputs) and summarizing the accomplishments for each R&D goal. The plan also provides detailed 

information on how the NextGen R&D programs support the plans of the FAA and the JPDO. This additional information 

is provided in Chapter 3 and Appendix E.

Each R&D goal has an R&D target. The R&D goals, with each target, were derived by first comparing the performance 

targets in the near-term Flight Plan to the objectives of the far-term JPDO Integrated Plan to develop notional targets for 2025. 

These notional targets were first derived in the 2007 NARP and have been adjusted slightly here to better reflect the current 

Flight Plan.

9

 The targets for capacity, from the JPDO Integrated Plan, provide the connection between the two plans and define 

the targets for safety and organizational excellence. The targets for safety are needed to maintain safety given the assumption 

that capacity will triple. The specific metrics are defined in Chapter 2, Systems Knowledge, under the section on Safety 

Evaluation. The targets for organizational excellence are those needed to provide three times capacity without incurring a 

commensurate increase in cost.

Notional Targets for 2025

• Increased Safety

– Reduce commercial air carrier fatalities

– Reduce the rate of GA fatal accidents

– No commercial space launch fatalities or injuries

– Reduce the rate of runway incursions

– Reduce the rate of operational errors

– Manage and mitigate risk

• Greater Capacity

– Increase average daily airport capacity to three 

times current levels

– Increase on-time arrival rate to 95 percent

– Reduce gate-to-gate transit time by 30 percent

– Reduce the number of people exposed to noise

– Improve aviation fuel efficiency

• International Leadership

– Reduce time and cost to market for products 

and services (e.g., procedures, regulations, 

standards, technologies)

– Increase the use of U.S. aviation-related 

products and services

• Organizational Excellence

– Increase controller efficiency to three times 

current levels

– Reduce costs and improve productivity

– Increase Employee Attitude Survey scores

– Increase Agency scores on the American Customer 

Satisfaction Index

9 The notional target addressing accident reduction 

in Alaska has been removed.

(Based on 2004 levels)
Chapter 2 15 

The notional targets for 2025 were then used to develop 

the R&D goals and mid-term R&D targets. Achieving the 

R&D targets will demonstrate that it is possible to meet the 

notional targets by 2025. The R&D targets focus on the midterm to allow time to implement new regulations, standards, 

technologies, systems, and procedures by 2025.

For each R&D goal, there is also a description of the 

methods (e.g., modeling, simulation, physical demonstration, 

initial standards) that will be used to validate the target. 

This is followed by milestones required to achieve the 

target. These milestones are grouped in major areas for 

each R&D goal. Completion of these milestones will also 

be used to measure progress toward achieving the target. 

The program or programs responsible for completing each 

milestone are identified with each milestone. In all cases, 

the demonstration milestones require multiple programs 

to work together for the final demonstration. Some 

milestones reflect existing efforts that are generally focused 

on near-term results, while others are new requirements that 

support mid- and far-term objectives. This dual-time-frame 

approach helps the FAA balance its R&D program so that 

it addresses near-term needs while making progress toward 

the mid-term and far-term goals.

Finally, for each R&D goal, there is a funding summary by 

fiscal year (FY) and a list of the progress made during the 

past year.

Figure 2.1 illustrates how the R&D targets integrate and focus 

the FAA R&D programs through the R&D milestones to 

achieve the notional targets for 2025 while bridging the nearterm goals of the Flight Plan with the mid-term goals of the 

NGIP and the far-term goals of the JPDO IWP.

Table 2.1 shows how the R&D programs support the R&D 

goals. The intent is to identify clear responsibilities so that each 

program focuses on a specific, limited number of R&D goals.
16 Chapter 2 

Figure 2.1: Path to Achieving Notional Targets
Chapter 2 17 
18 Chapter 2 

Table 2.1: Map of R&D Programs in 2010 to R&D Goals
19 

Runway Projects

2008-2009 Completed Airfield Projects:

• Seattle

– Commission 16R/34L (8,500’ runway) November 20, 2008

– Total Cost $1.1 billion – AIP $301 million 

• Washington-Dulles

– Commission 1L/19R (9,400’ runway) November 20, 2008

– Total Cost $356 million – AIP $200 million 

• Chicago O’Hare

– Extension (3,000’) to runway 10L/28R completed on September 25, 

2008 

– Commission 9L/27R (7,500’ runway) on 

November 20, 2008 

– Part of the Phase 1 Airfield Reconfiguration: 

Total cost $1.9 billion – AIP $355 million

• Dallas Ft. Worth

– First quadrant of Perimeter Taxiway completed 

December 4, 2008 

– Total cost $67 million - AIP $50 million 

• Philadelphia

– Extension (1,040’) to runway 17/35 completed May 

8, 2009 

– Total cost $70 million - AIP $42.5 million 

Airfield Projects Under Construction (To be Completed 

After June 2009)

• Boston Logan – centerfield taxiway

– Total Cost $55 million

– Estimated Completion: November 2009 

• Charlotte – 9,000’ runway (17/35)

– Total Cost $300 million

– Estimated Completion: February 2010
P

20 Chapter 2 

R&D target

By 2016, demonstrate that the system can handle growth in demand up to three-times current levels10 and demonstrate that 

gate-to-gate transit time can be reduced by 30 percent.11

Method of validation

The approach includes developing and demonstrating NextGen capabilities according to the NGIP 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 the system knowledge 

goal) supports the interim assessment of progress and validation of this target.

Milestones

NextGen demonstrations

Develop and demonstrate NextGen technologies and concepts.

Demonstrate super-density operations. (NextGen 

Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development)

2009: 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.

2010: Demonstrate greater throughput in congested, 

domestic, en route airspace using point-in-space 

metering linked to required navigation (RNAV)/

required navigation performance (RNP) routes.

A system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, 

anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs

Demonstrate trajectory-based operations. (NextGen 

Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development)

2008: Demonstrate improved trajectory-based operations 

in mixed-equipage, oceanic airspace with actual 

aircraft and procedures. [COMPLETED, see first 

bullet under Progress in FY 2008]

2009: Demonstrate via simulation standard separation in 

a full-equipage, fully automated environment with 

no voice communication.

2011: Demonstrate trajectory-based operations in 

transitional airspace, between oceanic and 

domestic en route, using oceanic data link and 

Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures 

(ATOP) automation.

2013: Demonstrate trajectory-based operations in mixedequipage, high-altitude airspace with actual aircraft 

and procedures.

2015: Demonstrate auto-negotiations between flight 

automation and ground automation without 

human initiation.

10 Joint Planning and Development Office, Next Generation Air Transportation System 

Integrated Plan, December 2004, http://www.jpdo.gov/library/NGATS_v1_1204r.pdf. 

A tripled increase in demand is based on the JPDO objective for 2025 to “Satisfy future 

growth in demand (up to 3 times current levels) and operational diversity.”

11 Joint Planning and Development Office, Next Generation Air Transportation System 

Integrated Plan, December 2004, http://www.jpdo.gov/library/NGATS_v1_1204r.

pdf. The thirty percent gate-to-gate time reduction is based on proportional allocation 

of the JPDO objective for 2025 to “Reduce transit time and increase predictability 

(domestic curb-to-curb transit time cut by 30%)” based on a 2004 baseline.

Fast, flexible, and efficient
P

P

Chapter 2 21 

Airport capacity

Increase airport capacity while reducing costs.

2008: Increase airport capacity. (Airport Cooperative 

Research - Capacity) [COMPLETED, see 

second bullet under Progress in FY 2008]

2012: Develop new standards and guidelines for 

runway pavement design. (Airports Technology 

Research - Capacity)

Separation standards

Reduce separation with procedures only.

2008: Modify procedures to allow use of closely 

spaced parallel runways for arrival operations 

during non-visual conditions. (Wake 

Turbulence) [COMPLETED, see third bullet 

under Progress in FY 2008]

Develop new performance-based separation standards.

2009: Develop and simulate separation procedures 

that vary according to aircraft capability and 

pilot training. (NextGen Demonstrations and 

Infrastructure Development)

Aviation weather

Reduce weather-related delays to increase on-time arrival 

rate and reduce transit time. (Weather Program)

2010: Develop Continental United States (CONUS) 

ceiling, visibility, and flight category forecast 

capability.

2010: Transition Mountain-Wave Turbulence Forecasts 

for implementation.

2012: Develop consolidated convective weather 

forecast capability.

2013: Transition turbulence forecast capability for all 

flight levels for implementation.

2016: Transition Global Turbulence Forecasts 

for implementation.

Wake turbulence

Demonstrate wake turbulence avoidance technologies and 

procedures.

2010: Determine pilot and air navigation service provider 

(ANSP) situational aircraft separation display concepts 

required for implementation of the NextGen 

Trajectory Based Operation (TBO) and High Density 

concepts. (Wake TurbulenceNG)

2011: 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. (NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence - Re-categorization)

2011: Determine optimal set of 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. (Wake TurbulenceNG)

2012: Finish evaluation of the Wake Turbulence Mitigation 

for Arrivals air traffic control decision support tool 

feasibility prototype. (Wake Turbulence Research)

2013: Develop additional, static, wake-based set of categories 

and separation minima to optimize capacity for a set of 

airport-specific fleet mixes and define the automation 

requirement to support those modifications. (NextGen 

- Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization)

2016: Develop the algorithms that will be used in the ANSP 

and flight deck automation systems for setting dynamic 

wake separation minimum for each pair of aircraft. 

(NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization)

NG The Wake Turbulence Program contains funding for both core research and 

NextGen research. Those activities noted with the superscript NG indicate 

those funded with NextGen resources, while those without superscript indicate 

those funded with the core program resources.
22 Chapter 2 

Funding requirements

The funding levels listed for years 2011 to 2014 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero funding listed supply 

only coordinated FAA staff resources towards the R&D goal.

Progress in FY 2008: Fast, flexible, and efficient

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Notes

-- Airport Cooperative Research - 

Capacity AIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 100% of total program

-- Airports Technology Research - 

Capacity AIP 9,109 10,596 10,596 10,596 10,596 10,596 100% of total program

4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation 

System Development F&E 10,017 10,145 10,145 10,376 10,620 10,864 44% of R&D program in FY 2009

A12.a. Joint Planning and Development 

Office R,E&D 10,126 10,085 10,046 9,950 9,849 9,743 70% of total program

1A07 NextGen Demonstrations and 

Infrastructure Development F&E 28,000 33,774 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 50% of total program

1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic 

Management Requirements F&E 5,400 13,200 1,800 31,200 32,000 50,100 100% of total program

1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence Recategorization F&E 2,000 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 100% of total program

1A01I Wake Turbulence Research F&E 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 100% of total program

A12.b. Wake Turbulence R,E&D 7,370 7,605 7,740 7,745 7,626 7,661 73% of total program

A11.k. Weather Program R,E&D 1,697 1,679 1,658 1,625 1,591 1,555 10% of total program

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

Total ($000) 78,719 95,084 80,985 110,492 111,282 129,519

• Oceanic Trajectory-Based Operations Proof of Concept 

Demonstration: Demonstrated that 4-dimensional 

trajectory-based air traffic management can provide more 

efficient aircraft-centric oceanic routes and reduce fuel burn 

and environmental footprint. The initial demonstrations 

resulted in a savings of approximately 330 gallons of fuel 

per flight and a reduction of approximately 6,700 pounds of 

CO2 emissions per flight. (NextGen Demonstrations and 

Infrastructure Development)

• Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports: 

Developed a guide for airport operators who are considering 

the implementation of common use systems in their airport 

facilities. This research examined many types of common 

use facilities to determine the best methods and practices 

that will improve the success of sharing facilities to increase 

efficiency, lower costs, and improve customer service. 

Other topics include the advantages and disadvantages of 

common-use systems, procedures that require modification 

to implement common-use, and actual experience to date. 

(Airport Cooperative Research – Capacity)

• Air Traffic Control Change in Applying Wake 

Separations: Approved a national air traffic control 

order permitting controllers at specific airports with 

closely-spaced parallel runways (spaced less than 2,500 

feet apart) to use an aircraft separation procedure that 

mitigates the effects of wake turbulence and allows 

ten to fifteen additional landings per hour on those 

runways. The procedure will be used when weather 

conditions would otherwise force controllers to use a 

separation procedure equivalent to having all aircraft 

land on a single runway. (Wake Turbulence)

• Ground Access to Major Airports by Public 

Transportation: Developed a guide that provides 

airport managers with user-friendly, concise, and 

accurate documentation on trends in the area of airport 

ground access. This research provides both new 

and updated documentation of the characteristics of 

ground access based upon products already produced 

by the Transit Cooperative Research Program. (Airport 

Cooperative Research – Capacity)
Chapter 2 23 

• Controller Aids for Aircraft on Terminal RNAV Routes: 

Completed development of two prototype aids that could 

help controllers manage traffic in the area navigation 

environment by providing additional information on their 

radar situation displays. The first aid shows the relative 

position of converging traffic that will help controllers 

coordinate merging area navigation arrivals. The second 

aid is an automated visual alert that provides controllers 

early warning of aircraft deviation from assigned area 

navigation routing and altitude constraints. (Center for 

Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD))

• Equivalent Visual Operations for the NAS: Developed 

and evaluated an advanced version of a concept for 

improving arrival capacity on single runways in low 

visibility conditions called IMC CAVS-S (Cockpit Display 

of Traffic Information (CDTI) Assisted Visual Separation 

for single runway approaches in Instrument Meteorological 

Conditions (IMC)). The concept includes tools that allow 

flight crews to assess and avoid the potential for wake 

encounters. The evaluation showed that the concept 

was easy for flight crews to use and may improve airport 

capacity significantly when weather conditions deteriorate 

below visual approach minima. (CAASD)

• Integrated Departure Route Planning: Developed an 

integrated departure management decision capability 

that integrates traffic, weather, and airspace resource 

information into a common test bed and laboratory 

prototype. Initial experiments show that an integrated 

departure route planning capability could significantly 

improve system performance by reducing the time 

needed to coordinate, implement, and revise traffic 

management initiatives and departure management 

plans as weather and traffic situations change 

dynamically. (CAASD)

• Optimized Profile Descent Procedures: Completed 

over twenty full and partial continuous descent 

arrival (CDA) demonstrations using RNAV and 

RNP arrivals with optimized vertical profiles at 

Atlanta and Miami International Airports. The initial 

analysis showed fuel savings with reduced noise and 

emissions per arrival. (NextGen Demonstrations and 

Infrastructure Development)

• NextGen Wake Separation Standards, Processes, and 

Decision Support Tools: Completed a cost/benefit 

analysis on a concept for an air traffic control wake 

turbulence mitigation decision support tool that would 

allow more landings on closely spaced parallel runways 

when weather conditions require the use of instrument 

approach procedures. Further work will focus on 

developing other concepts that could capture additional 

capacity benefits. (Wake Turbulence Research)

• Wind-Dependent Wake Turbulence Mitigation for 

Departures Decision Support Tool: The number of 

models the FAA uses to determine the operational 

benefits of the Wake Turbulence Mitigation for 

Departures (WTMD) decision support tool was 

expanded at ten candidate NextGen/OEP airports, 

enabling greater departure capacity for closely-spaced 

parallel runways. Algorithm validation tools were 

developed to evaluate the reliability of the WTMD 

cross-wind predictions and data-based wake encounter 

models were enhanced. Additionally, the model was 

modified to evaluate the safety risk of WTMD based 

air traffic control departure procedures. (Wake 

Turbulence Research)

• Convective Weather: Conducted 

a demonstration of an advanced 

storm prediction forecast 

capability that will provide 

probabilistic forecasts and 

weather avoidance fields beyond 

six hours. The demonstration 

included a 0-2 hour national 

scale nowcast/forecast 

capability as well as a 2-6 hour 

northeastern corridor forecast 

capability. When implemented, 

this forecast capability will 

provide a valuable input 

into air traffic management 

decision making, enhancing 

NAS efficiency and capacity. 

(Weather Program)

• Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Simulation Infrastructure 

Development: Created a fullscale air traffic control tower 

simulator, including a set of 

simulation pilot commands. 

The simulator will be used 

for the systematic evaluation 

of NextGen tower concepts. 

Prior to this, FAA did not own 

a research simulator, severely 

limiting its ability to evaluate 

future concepts. (Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors)
24 Chapter 2 

Clean and quiet

R&D target

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

three times capacity) in a cost-effective way and reduce uncertainties in particulate matter and climate impacts to levels that 

enable appropriate action.

Method of validation

The approach has four parts: measure current levels in the system, determine the target levels of noise and emissions, 

build models to assess and predict the impact of change, and develop reduction techniques and assess their cost-benefit. 

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

tests. The environmental evaluation (under the System knowledge goal) supports the interim assessment of progress and 

validation of this target.

A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts 

in absolute terms

Continuous Descent Approach

In fiscal year 2008, several airports across the United States – from 

Miami to Atlanta to Los Angeles – were witness to pioneering efforts 

to reduce aircraft fuel burn, noise, and emissions. Final approaches 

on certain runways used a new concept called Optimized Profile 

Descent (OPD) arrivals that allows a pilot to fly the most efficient 

path and airplane configuration from as far as 50 miles from the airport to touchdown. With OPD, better known as Continuous Descent Arrivals 

(CDA), an airplane flies a smooth path at a near idle power setting, rather than the typical stair-step approach with varying power levels. Assistant 

Administrator for Aviation Policy, Planning, and Environment Dan Elwell told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on 

Aviation “CDA is one of those win-win strategies, having environmental and operational benefits that can reduce noise, emissions, and fuel burn, as 

well as flight time. The cumulative impact of measures like this throughout the system can have a real impact.”

FAA-sponsored research, through the Center of Excellence Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER), 

yielded the first publicly charted CDA procedure for Los Angeles (LAX) in December 2007. Today, about half of all flights coming into LAX are 

landing with CDA. Additional demonstrations were held throughout 2008 in Atlanta with Delta Airlines and in Miami with American Airlines. 

Fuel savings ranged from 38 - 50 gallons per flight. Such a fuel saving equates to an environmental benefit that reduces carbon dioxide (CO2

) emissions by about 1000 pounds per flight.

The FAA is going green globally through coordinated research efforts in Europe through the 

Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE) and in Australia through the Asia 

and South Pacific Initiative to Reduce Emissions (ASPIRE).
P

Chapter 2 25 

Milestones

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 (HAPs). (Environment and Energy, 

Airport Cooperative Research - Environment)

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. (NextGen Environmental 

Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, 

and Metrics)

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)

2011: Develop a new metric to quantify the 

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. (NextGen 

Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, 

Fuels, and Metrics, Airport Cooperative 

Research - Environment) 

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, see first bullet under Progress in 

FY 2008]

2010: Develop a preliminary planning version of an 

Aviation Environmental Design Tool that will 

allow integrated assessment of noise and emissions 

impact at the local and global levels. (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. 

(Environment and Energy)

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 ground 

plume model for aircraft engine exhaust. (NextGen 

Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, 

Fuels, and Metrics)

2013: Update environmental assessments models 

to incorporate new noise metrics. (NextGen 

Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, 

Fuels, and Metrics)

2014: Complete development and field a fully 

validated suite of tools, including the Aviation 

Environmental Design and Aviation Environmental 

Portfolio Management tools, which will allow 

cost/benefit analyses. (Environment and Energy, 

Airport Cooperative Research - Environment)
P

26 Chapter 2 

Reduction techniques

Develop noise and emission reduction methods.

2008: 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. (Environment and Energy) 

[COMPLETED, see Continuous Descent Approach 

description on page 24]

2010: Develop algorithms to optimize ground and 

airspace operations by leveraging communication, 

navigation, and surveillance technology in the 

near- to mid-term to optimize aircraft sequencing 

and timing on the surface and in the terminal 

area. (NextGen Environment and Energy 

Environmental Management Systems and Noise 

and Emissions Reduction)

2010: Complete detailed feasibility study, including 

economic feasibility, to measure environmental 

impacts and demonstrate drop in potential for 

alternative fuels. (NextGen Environmental 

Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics, Airport Cooperative Research)

2013: Identify and pursue the development of engine and 

airframe 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: 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: Establish engine design sensitivities by measuring 

particles emitted from combustor engine systems. 

(NextGen Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics)

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 Systems and Noise 

and Emissions Reduction)
Chapter 2 27 

Funding requirements

The funding levels listed for years 2011 to 2014 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero funding listed supply 

only coordinated FAA staff resources towards the R&D goal.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Notes

-- Airport Cooperative Research - 

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

A13.a. Environment and Energy R,E&D 15,608 15,522 15,440 15,264 15,079 14,886 100% of total program

A13.b.

NextGen - Environmental 

Research - Aircraft Technologies, 

Fuels, and Metrics

R,E&D 16,050 19,470 20,510 20,858 21,207 21,219 100% of total program

A12.a. Joint Planning and Development 

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

1A08D

NextGen - Environment 

and Energy - Environmental 

Management System and 

Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction

F&E 2,500 7,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 100% of total program

Total ($000) 39,158 46,992 58,950 59,122 59,286 59,105

Progress in FY 2008: Clean and quiet

• Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool: 

Applied the tool to determine potential environmental 

benefits from technology and operational innovations 

proposed in the NGIP. Results showed possible 

savings of 3.3 billion gallons of fuel (about $10 billion 

in current costs) in the high-density case by 2025. It 

also showed the potential to decrease health risks for 

a savings of up to $3 billion and to reduce noise and 

climate impacts saving tens of billions in associated 

costs. (Environment and Energy)

• Airport Particulate Matter Emissions: Produced a 

prioritized research agenda to study airport sources of 

particulate matter emissions. The agenda was developed 

by conducting a survey of airports regarding particulate 

matter emissions issues and identifying, reviewing, and 

evaluating past and current research relating to airport 

sources of these emissions. The agenda recommends 

focus areas such as: source apportionment, modeling, 

measurement methods, and the effects of fuel 

composition on particulate matter emissions. (Airport 

Cooperative Research – Environment)

• Energy Use at U.S. Airports: Completed research that 

provides airport managers, operators, and their operations 

and maintenance contractors with a guidebook for 

improving energy use at our nation’s airports. Airports 

are faced with rising energy prices and the need to reduce 

the environmental impacts of airport operations. (Airport 

Cooperative Research – Environment)

• Hazardous Air Pollutants: Produced a prioritized 

agenda of research needs associated with aircraft and 

other airport-related sources of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs). The agenda is based on pollutant types being 

emitted and their source, detection and measurement, 

and possible health and environmental impacts. This 

is needed to produce a strategy to mitigate the impacts 

of these pollutants in a cost-beneficial manner. The 

agenda has already resulted in a new project on 

measurement of gaseous HAP emissions from idling 

aircraft as a function of engine and ambient conditions, 

which will begin by the end of 2009. (Airport 

Cooperative Research – Environment)
28 Chapter 2 

• Impact of Airport Pavement Deicing Products on 

Aircraft and Airfield Infrastructure: Examined how 

airports deice their airfield pavements, what chemicals are 

commonly used, the amounts applied, and the existence 

of associated corrosion or degradation of aircraft and 

airfield infrastructure. These results will help federal 

authorities institute appropriate regulatory requirements 

and help airport operators and airlines perform 

more efficiently during winter operations. (Airport 

Cooperative Research – Environment)

• Aircraft Emissions Inventories: Developed hydrocarbon 

emissions profiles for aircraft equipped with turbofan, 

turbojet, and turboprop engines. This is the first 

time that aircraft hydrocarbon emissions have been 

characterized based on commercial engines. Developed a 

Recommended Best Practice document and incorporated 

the new data into the Emissions and Dispersion Model 

System (EDMS) version 5.1, to support requirements 

for the aircraft emission inventories required under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. This will streamline 

and improve airport environmental assessments and 

compliance activities, savings millions of dollars 

and reducing the time it takes to implement capacity 

enhancements. (Environment and Energy)

• Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative: Measured the 

emissions characteristics of a commonly used in-service 

jet engine using alternative fuels. The results showed 

that the significant emissions reductions observed in 

older military engines operating on alternative fuels 

are also possible in modern commercial engines. 

(Environment and Energy)

• Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative: Completed 

a comprehensive report that will inform the U.S. position 

on aviation emissions within the International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Group on International 

Aviation and Climate Change, which is charged 

with crafting an aviation emission strategy by 2010. 

(Environment and Energy)

• Environmental Benefits through Optimizing En Route 

Operations: Developed a prototype optimization 

algorithm that will allow optimization of en route 

operations. Computational studies were completed that 

demonstrated significant fuel and cost savings of the 

proposed algorithms using traffic through Cleveland Air 

Route Traffic Control Center, one of the most congested 

airspaces in the United States. This will enable FAA to 

plan and conduct flight demonstrations at the Center. 

(Environment and Energy)

• Predicting Aircraft Environmental Performance 

Scenarios: Completed validations of current technology 

300-passenger, twin-aisle aircraft and 150-passenger, 

single-aisle aircraft, which cover a significant portion 

of the commercial fleet, using the Environment Design 

System (EDS) tool. The EDS tool estimates source 

noise, exhaust emissions, performance, and economic 

parameters for aircraft designs under different 

technological, policy, and market scenarios. The use of 

the EDS tool will lead to more effective regulations to 

reduce aviation environmental impacts within the ICAO 

Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

and help focus industry and research and development 

efforts on the most cost-beneficial technologies. 

(Environment and Energy)
Chapter 2 29 
30 Chapter 2 

High quality teams and individuals

The best qualified and trained workforce in the world

R&D target

By 2016, demonstrate improvement in air navigation service provider efficiency (e.g., greater number of aircraft) and effectiveness 

(e.g., fewer operational errors) through automation and standardization of operations, procedures, and information.

Method of validation

The approach includes continued, incremental pursuit of efficiency gains in en route and pursuit of new knowledge and 

results that produce efficiency gains in terminal and tower. Automation and new capabilities that are added through 

implementation of operational improvements are believed to provide incremental efficiency benefits, and there are likely 

interactions among these capabilities; however, the specific benefits that accrue will need to be verified through human 

performance modeling and human-in-the-loop testing. The program will examine the roles of controllers and maintainers 

at increased capacity levels and how those roles are best supported by allocation of functions between human operators and 

automation to enhance safety and minimize the potential for human error while increasing efficiency. This goal contributes to 

the integrated demonstration under the human-centered design goal.
P

P

P

P

Chapter 2 31 

Milestones

Increase to 130 percent

Demonstrate 130 percent controller efficiency. (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]

2007: Identify the performance limitations of the 

controller in the terminal and tower 

environments. [COMPLETED]

2008: Demonstrate efficiency improvements when 

controllers receive information on aircraft equipage, 

performance capabilities, and applicable procedures 

in a mixed equipage environment. [COMPLETED, 

see first bullet under Progress in FY 2008]

2008: Conduct initial simulation to determine 

what weather information is required by 

en route and tower controllers to improve 

efficiency. [COMPLETED, see second bullet 

under Progress in FY 2008]

Demonstrate improvements in air navigation 

service provider (ANSP) efficiency

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. 

(NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors - Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration)

2010: Define anticipated ANSP workload reductions due 

to implementation of data communications.

2010: Define initial requirements and anticipated 

efficiency benefits for merging and spacing decision 

support tools to support continuous descent 

approach in the terminal area.

2013: Redefine ANSP roles in a strategic air traffic 

environment for en route and terminal domains.

2013: Demonstrate collaborative air traffic management 

efficiencies enabled by common situation awareness 

between flight operators and ANSP.

2013: Demonstrate increased ANSP efficiencies through 

new procedures that allow ANSP personnel to 

manage and introduce routing, airspace, and traffic 

mix changes in the four-dimensional (position plus 

time) dynamic air traffic environment.

2016: Increase efficiency given the need to manage 

multiple airport streams for the terminal phases 

of flight in large metropolitan areas given a mixedequipage environment.

2016: Redefine the ANSP role in terms of the services 

they provide during a given phase of flight as the 

differences between en route and terminal begin 

to blur.

Selection criteria

Ensure ANSPs have the aptitude and capability required to 

manage air traffic in the future system. (Air Traffic Control/

Technical Operations Human Factors)

2012: Apply program-generated human factors 

knowledge to improve aviation system personnel 

selection and training

2015: Develop the selection procedures to transform 

the workforce into a new generation of service 

providers that can manage traffic flows in a highly 

automated system.
32 Chapter 2 

Funding requirements

The funding levels listed for years 2011 to 2014 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero funding listed supply 

only coordinated FAA staff resources towards the R&D goal.

Progress in FY 2008: High quality teams and individuals

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Notes

A11.i. Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors R,E&D 10,469 10,302 10,505 10,686 10,876 11,075 100% of total program

4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation 

System Development F&E 7,003 7,093 7,093 7,255 7,425 7,596 31% of R&D program in FY 2009

A12.a. Joint Planning and Development 

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

NextGen - ATC/Tech Ops 

Human Factors (Controller 

Efficiency)

F&E 3,800 0 0 0 0 0 100% of total program

1A08A

NextGen - ATC/Tech Ops Human 

Factors - Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground Integration

F&E 0 5,700 5,700 5,700 5,700 5,700 55% of total program

A11.g. Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

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

Total ($000) 21,272 23,095 23,298 23,641 24,001 24,371

• Future En Route Workstation II Human-in-the-Loop 

Simulation: Collected data to compare air traffic 

controller performance, workload, and capacity as a 

function of using an emulation of the current Display 

System Replacement workstation, the En Route 

Automation Modernization (ERAM) workstation 

currently in development, and the Future En Route 

Workstation (FEWS) workstation, which is ERAM with 

more automation capabilities integrated according to 

best human factors principles. The workstations were 

compared with and without data communications and 

with staffing of either one or two controllers per sector. 

Controller performance was best with the FEWS in the 

two-person configuration with data communications. 

The results of this simulation and a previous FEWS I 

simulation show the potential for an increase in control 

efficiency of at least 130 percent over current levels. (Air 

Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors)

• Controller Displays for Severe Weather Avoidance: 

Developed display concepts for air traffic controller 

workstations that will enable controllers to ensure pilots, 

particularly general aviation (GA) pilots, remain clear of 

hazardous weather conditions. An automated support 

tool called AIRWOLF was developed also that alerts 

controllers to potential conflicts between aircraft and 

severe weather. These new capabilities have the potential 

to increase controller weather situational awareness and 

increase the safety of GA in adverse weather conditions. 

This is particularly important since two-thirds of all 

GA accidents that occur in IMC are fatal. (Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human Factors)

• Air Traffic Control Safety Risk Assessment Analysis: 

Conducted a study to assess the probability that an 

air traffic control operational error (OE) will occur 

by taking into account the amount of time spent on 

position during normal operations. Without other 

variables, the overall cumulative probability of an OE 

was found to be very low (0.05 percent). This means 

that for any two-hour period, the chance for an OE to 

occur during a position change is 5 out of 10,000. This 

highlights the rarity of a controller experiencing an OE. 

The probability is so low that it is difficult to design a 

human-centered approach to eliminate the possibility of 

an OE. As a result, greater attention should be paid to 

managing the most severe OEs once they do occur, using 

automation and/or procedures that provide multiple 

backups in case the human system fails. (Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human Factors).

• Air Traffic Control Selection Instruments: Conducted 

an assessment to validate the Air Traffic Selection and 

Training tests that will be used to select ANSP personnel 

for the NextGen system. The tests were shown to predict 

outcomes for 74 percent of the trainees. (Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human Factors)
Chapter 2 33 

• Cockpit Task Demands: Published a book, titled 

Multitasking in Real World Operations: Myths and Realities

that summarizes the results of a multi-year ethnographic 

study of cockpit tasks and crew performance in normal 

flight operations. The study found that the dynamic and 

concurrent nature of task demands in today’s airliner 

was a major source of inadvertent failures to perform 

intended actions. It identifies situations in which pilots 

may forget to perform intended actions and discusses 

potential reasons why even very experienced pilots are 

vulnerable to error. The book contains detailed guidance 

on countermeasures individuals and organizations can 

take to reduce vulnerability to error in these common 

situations. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/ Systems Integration 

Human Factors)

• Methods to Assess Applicant Temperament and 

Emotional Stability: Replaced the 16 Personality Factor 

(16 PF) test with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality 

Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) test to psychologically screen ATC 

Specialists. Such screening is mandated by FAA Order 

3930.3A. The MMPI-2 was found to be a more sensitive 

indicator of potential psychopathology than the 16PF. 

Now candidates who are flagged with the MMPI-2 test 

will be offered secondary screening. The assessment 

process has also moved from a paper-and-pencil task 

requiring 2 hours to administer and a week to score, to an 

on-line experience requiring only 35 minutes to administer 

with near-instantaneous scoring. Using the MMPI-2 

and the improved secondary screening process, the FAA 

is now more likely to identify applicants with medically 

disqualifying conditions as early in the application process 

as possible. (Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors)

• Weather-related Training and Testing for GA 

Pilots: Developed advanced flight simulation 

scenarios to train and evaluate GA pilot use 

of basic weather knowledge and decisionmaking skills when using visual flight rules 

and flying into IMC. The scenarios provide 

a tool to improve pilot decision-making and 

reduce fatal GA accidents. (Flightdeck/

Maintenance/System Integration Human 

Factors, Weather Program)

• Understanding Human Performance in Aviation: Produced 

two reports that address barriers to effective airline pilot and 

dispatcher performance resulting from temporary changes 

to either the Notices to Airman (NOTAM) system or the 

data regarding the condition of aircraft operating surfaces 

at airports (field condition, or FICON reports). The 

reports were: NOTAM System Modernization: The Pilots’ 

Perspective. Report Summarizing Input from the Pilot Input 

to NOTAM System Modernization Working Group, and Field 

Conditions Data: The Airline Dispatchers’ Perspective. Report 

Summarizing Input from the Dispatch Aviation Safety Action 

Program (ASAP) Field Conditions (FICON) Working Group. 

(Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors)

• Advanced Systems for Air Traffic Workforce Training: 

Used an en route trainer prototype to develop functional 

requirements and specifications for an automated simulation 

pilot capability and aviation-specific speech recognition 

algorithm for the En Route Automation Modernization. 

An advanced technology terminal trainer prototype that 

includes voice synthesis, game technology, simulation, 

and interactive design was developed. The prototype 

was approved for field evaluation in 2009. Its use will 

strengthen air traffic controller training and reduce the time 

and resources required to provide instruction. (CAASD)

• Air Traffic Control Specialist Biographical Data and 

Interview Selection Procedures: Developed a structured 

interview process for Air Traffic Control (ATC) 

Specialist applicants. The interview is used to make 

a placement decision, based on past experience, 

and assess candidate suitability for the job. 

(Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors)

• Color Vision Tests for ATC 

Specialist Applicants: 

Developed a new color 

vision test for selecting 

air traffic controllers to 

ensure that they have 

adequate color vision to 

operate the color displays 

in ATC facilities. (Air 

Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors)
34 Chapter 2 

Human-centered design

Aerospace systems that adapt to, compensate for, and augment 

the performance of the human

R&D target

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.

Method of validation

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, air traffic controller productivity tools, and network-enabled collaborative decision-making to 

increase capacity, reduce delays, and promote safety.
Chapter 2 35 

Milestones

Roles and responsibilities

Define the changes in roles and responsibilities, between pilots 

and controllers and between humans and automation, required 

to implement NextGen. (NextGen - Air Ground Integration, 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors - Controller Efficency and Air Ground Integration)

2011: Develop initial taxonomy describing the 

relationship between human pilots and controllers 

with associated automated systems.

2012: Complete initial research to evaluate and 

recommend procedures for negotiations and shared 

decision-making between pilots and controllers.

2016: Complete research to enable safe and effective 

changes to pilot and controller roles and 

responsibilities for NextGen procedures. 

Human system integration

Define human and system performance requirements for design 

and operation of aircraft and air traffic management systems. 

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. (NextGen - Air Ground Integration)

2012: Initiate research to assess pilot performance in normal 

and non-normal NextGen procedures, including single 

pilot operations. (NextGen - Air Ground Integration)

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)

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)

Error management

Develop and apply error management strategies, mitigate risk 

factors, and reduce automation-related errors. (NextGen 

- Air Ground Integration, 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 mid-term 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.

Integrated demonstrations

Conduct incremental and full-mission demonstrations to increase 

the likelihood of successful implementation of research results. 

(NextGen - Air Ground Integration, NextGen - Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human Factors - Controller 

Efficiency and Air Ground Integration, William J. Hughes 

Technical Center Laboratory Facility)

2017: Functional demonstration – demonstrate integrated 

pilot and controller functional capabilities.
36 Chapter 2 

Funding requirements

The funding levels listed for years 2011 to 2014 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero funding listed supply 

only coordinated FAA staff resources towards the R&D goal.

Progress in FY 2008: Human-centered design

• Separation Management Project: Conducted a cognitive 

walkthrough with a panel of subject matter experts 

to identify information requirements for separation 

management in different air traffic control situations. 

Based on the results of the initial walkthrough, 

researchers selected several separation management 

concepts for future implementation in the laboratory air 

traffic control simulator. (Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors)

• Airport Ground Access Mode Choice Models: 

Documented the state of practice for airport ground 

access and egress mode choice models. This project 

addresses the issues needed to develop and use these 

models in airport planning and management and to 

provide guidance on their use and development. The 

results will help focus research and development efforts 

to improve the state of the art for modeling airport 

ground access mode choice. (Airport Cooperative 

Research – Capacity) 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Notes

A11.h. System Safety Management/

Aviation Safety Risk Analysis R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only

A11.g. Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors R,E&D 7,465 7,128 7,208 7,264 7,323 7,384 100% of total program

A12.a. Joint Planning and Development 

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

A12.d. NextGen - Air Ground 

Integration R,E&D 2,554 5,688 11,355 11,536 11,716 11,701 100% of total program

NextGen - ATC/Tech Ops 

Human Factors (Air Ground 

Integration)

F&E 2,900 0 0 0 0 0 100% of total program

1A08A

NextGen - ATC/Tech Ops Human 

Factors - Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground Integration

F&E 0 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 45% of total program

1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence Recategorization F&E 0 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only

A12.f. NextGen - Weather Technology 

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

A14.b. William J. Hughes Technical 

Center Laboratory Facility R,E&D 3,536 3,614 3,728 3,841 3,959 4,084 100% of total program

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

A11.i. Air Traffic Control/Technical 

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

Total ($000) 16,455 21,130 26,991 27,341 27,698 27,869
Chapter 2 37 

• En Route Information Display System Analyses: 

Collected data on the usage and benefits of the 

En Route Information Display System (ERIDS) as 

compared to usage before it was implemented. It is 

an interactive, real-time electronic information display 

system developed to replace the current, paper-based 

air traffic control information system. Results were 

mixed. Data maintenance for system required fewer 

labor hours, but there were a number of human 

factors issues and potential solutions identified that 

could improve system usability. (Air Traffic Control/

Technical Operations Human Factors)

• Color Vision Requirements for Pilots: Completed a 

color vision/hypoxia study that examined the effects of 

mild hypoxia on normal and color-deficient pilots’ color 

discrimination. The study measured the colors used in 

modern glass cockpit displays, including a Boeing 777, an 

MD-80, and several military aircraft. The chromaticity 

of airport lighting systems, including the Precision 

Approach Path Indicator, Visual Approach Slope 

Indicator, taxiway, and runway lights, were measured 

at 20 airports. This research will determine whether 

current color vision screening tests are adequate, given 

the increased use of color in the cockpit. (Flightdeck/

Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

• Air Traffic Control Display Standard - Terminal Color: 

Developed human factors standards that are specific 

to terminal ATC primary situation displays, providing 

very detailed guidance for the most important display 

elements. Measured colors currently used by ATC 

primary situation displays on different monitors and 

applied current human factors standards to develop 

specific color values for specific display elements. This 

project produced a standard terminal color palette for 

primary situation displays that: 1) follows human factors 

guidelines and best practices, 2) considers the operational, 

procedural, and environmental factors of terminal ATC, 

3) is specific with regard to display elements and color 

values, and 4) provides standards that can be directly 

implemented by system developers. (Air Traffic Control/

Technical Operations Human Factors)

• Pilot Training and Experience with Transport Category 

Rudder Control Systems: Conducted a pilot survey 

to understand the factors associated with inadvertent, 

erroneous, and unsafe rudder usage; determined the 

influence of rudder design on pilot input/response; and 

recommended what types of design requirements and 

training procedures may prevent accidents. More than half 

of the pilots responded that more training in transport 

airplane rudder usage would be beneficial and over 

three-quarters indicated that recurrent training would be 

beneficial. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration 

Human Factors)

• Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Database: 

Published a technical report that classifies GA accident 

causal factors by Human Factors Analysis and Classification 

System (HFACS) categories and traditional demographic data. 

HFACS is a tool for investigating and analyzing human error 

associated with accidents. The HFACS database contains 

nearly 34,000 U.S. accidents for the period 1990-2006 across 

all types of operations. Over 28,500 have been coded for 

human error as identified by the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB). Accident data coding and analyses 

have been completed. Discussions were held with the 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) 

program office about transitioning the on-line database to 

their network server to foster the sharing and centralizing data 

among the FAA workforce. ASIAS has agreed to assume the 

database in coming years. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors)

• GA Data Collection: Explored whether safety data could 

be captured for GA, enabling more proactive approaches 

to risk management. Twenty-one pilots were interviewed 

regarding their experiences during a flight assist, emergency, 

or weather encounter. These interviews enhanced the data 

in the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System 

and analyses of weather accidents for general aviation. 

(Flightdeck/Maintenance/ System Integration Human 

Factors, Weather Program)

• Future Terminal Workstation: Identified the requirements 

for the future terminal workstation platform that will serve 

as the basis for future human-in-the-loop simulations. The 

prototype workstation will be used to conduct human 

factors research on NextGen operational concepts 

and procedures to determine their effect on controller 

performance, decision-making, and workload, and how the 

information needed by NextGen in the terminal domain 

can be best presented and integrated onto the controller 

workstation. (Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors)

• Operational Voice Communications between Native and 

Foreign Airline Pilots and Controllers during Oceanic 

Operations: Completed research on the effect of ATC 

message length and complexity on en route pilot read-back 

performance, and pilot English language proficiency and 

the prevalence of communication problems. The ICAO 

has mandated an English language proficiency requirement, 

and the FAA lacks baseline data to gauge its effect on NAS 

operations and safety. This research will enable the FAA to 

measure how the English language proficiency requirements 

will affect ATC operations and safety. (Flightdeck/

Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 
38 Chapter 2 

R&D target

By 2015, demonstrate a two-thirds reduction in the rate of aerospace-related fatalities and significant injuries. 12

Method of validation

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 the safe aerospace vehicle 

goal will contribute to the interim and final measurements of the reduction. The safety evaluation (under the System 

knowledge goal) 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.

Human protection

A reduction in fatalities, injuries, and adverse health impacts 

due to aerospace operations

Milestones

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)

2012: Validate mathematical models to evaluate whether 

aircraft designs meet requirements for evacuation and 

emergency response capability. (Aeromedical Research)

Turbulence

Prevent injuries and fatalities due to turbulence.

2011: Transition convectively induced turbulence forecast 

capability for implementation. (Weather Program)

Hazardous weather

Prevent injuries and fatalities due to hazardous weather.

2014: Develop data and methods supporting the 

evaluation of aircraft engines for operation in high 

ice water content environments. (Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System Safety) 12 Joint Planning and Development Office, Next Generation Air Transportation 

System Integrated Plan, December 2004, http://www.jpdo.gov/library/NGATS_

v1_1204r.pdf. The two thirds reduction in the rate of aviation fatalities and 

injuries is based on the JPDO objective for 2025 of three times increase in 

capacity using a 2004 baseline. The target for this goal is to demonstrate in 

2015 that it is possible to achieve operationally the fatality and injury rate reduction of two thirds by 2025.
P

Chapter 2 39 

Commercial space

Identify the requirements for safe commercial space 

transportation operations.

2008: Conduct a study to provide a basic understanding of 

what is necessary in an Informed Consent form for 

commercial space flight participants. (Commercial 

Space Transportation Safety) [COMPLETED, see 

first bullet under Progress in FY 2008]

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. 

(Commercial Space Transportation Safety)

Human aeromedical safety and health 

risk management

Identify and manage human aeromedical safety and health 

risks. (Aeromedical Research)

2015: Incorporate aerospace medical issues in the 

development of safety strategies concerning upset 

recovery, controlled flight into terrain, and other 

forms of loss of aircraft control. As adaptivecontrol techniques are developed, assess pilot 

performance relative to aeromedical considerations.

2015: Develop advanced methods to extract aeromedical 

information for prognostic identification of 

human safety risks.

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.

2015: Apply and develop advances in gene 

expression, toxicology, and bioinformatics 

technology and methods to define human 

response to aerospace stressors. 

Occupant restraint

Improve occupant restraint systems to reduce injuries 

and fatalities.

2012: 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)

Airports

Prevent injuries and fatalities due to aircraft overrun.

2011: Evaluate new formulations for soft ground arrestor 

systems. (Airport Technology Research - Safety, 

Airport Cooperative Research - Safety)

2011: Complete evaluation of new airport runway 

pavement groove shape to reduce risk of overrun 

due to hydroplaning. (Airport Technology 

Research - Safety)

Cabin air quality

Reduce health risk to aircrew and passengers due to cabin 

environmental threats. (Aeromedical Research)

2010: Develop and analyze methods to detect and analyze 

aircraft cabin contamination including chemicalbiological hazards and other airborne irritants.

2010: Validate computational models of chemical air 

contaminants, such as volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), to evaluate health and safety impacts on 

passengers and crew.

2011: Apply and validate advanced air sensing 

technology for VOCs in the aircraft cabin 

environment.

2011: Develop bleed air contamination models of 

engine compressors and high temperature air 

system for effects on the health and safety of 

passengers and crew.

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.
40 Chapter 2 

Funding requirements

The funding levels listed for FY 2011 to 2014 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero funding listed supply 

only coordinated FAA staff resources towards the R&D goal.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Notes

A11.c. Advanced Materials/Structural 

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

A11.j. Aeromedical Research R,E&D 8,395 10,378 10,621 10,848 11,086 11,334 100% of total program

-- Airport Cooperative Research – 

Safety AIP 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 60% of total program

-- Airport Technology Research – 

Safety AIP 3,584 4,157 4,157 4,157 4,192 4,157 35% of total program

A11.d. Atmospheric Hazards/Digital 

System Safety R,E&D 1,451 1,345 1,356 1,364 1,370 1,378 30% of total program

-- Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety Ops 73 73 73 73 73 0 50% of total program

A11.a. Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 5,586 6,551 6,670 6,775 6,885 7,000 84% of total program

A11.k. Weather Program R,E&D 1,527 1,511 1,492 1,463 1,432 1,399 9% of total program

Total ($000) 23,616 27,015 27,369 27,680 28,038 28,268
Chapter 2 41 

Progress in FY 2008: Human Protection

• Informed Consent: Released a report that provides 

background on the origin of informed consent, describes 

its place in traditional legal framework, discusses how 

much information should be given to a space flight 

participant based on past cases, and recommends what a 

space flight participant should be told about the possible 

effects of space flight on the human body. The report 

enables the government to make an informed decision 

on “informed consent” as required by the Commercial 

Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 and provides 

commercial space flight operators information on what 

they need to do to satisfy the regulatory requirements 

of 14 CFR Part 460, specifically at § 460.45(a)(1). This 

section requires a launch operator to inform space 

flight participants of each known hazard and risk that 

could result in a serious injury, death, disability, or 

total or partial loss of physical and mental function. 

(Commercial Space Transportation Safety)

• Biomarkers: Initiated several studies to assess the effect 

of alcohol and fatigue on gene expression. Initial results 

show that, for men in their early 20’s, approximately 400 

genes change expression level at some point between 

blood alcohol levels of 0.00 percent and 0.08 percent, the 

legal limit for automobile operations in most states. The 

results also showed that over 150 genes alter expression 

levels in subjects exposed to a thirty-six hour sleepless 

period. Validation of these results is in progress as 

well as the analysis of data on the affect of altitude on 

biomarkers. (Aeromedical Research)

• Side-Facing Seat Safety Criteria: Completed a study 

of the injury potential of side-facing seats using a 

specialized anthropomorphic test dummy. The study 

developed safety criteria for side-facing seat designs and 

determined the benefits of inflatable shoulder restraints 

(airbags) in crash survival. (Aeromedical Research)

• Aircraft Overrun and Undershoot Analysis: Collected 

and analyzed historical data related to both overrun 

and undershoot occurrences to assist airport operators 

evaluate runway safety areas. Data studied include 

accident and incident characteristics, such as aircraft type, 

occupancy, exit speed, overrun/undershoot distance, 

weather, elevation, pavement condition, and other 

characteristics pertinent to the occurrences. (Airport 

Cooperative Research – Safety)

• Comprehension of Safety Material and Signs: Completed 

an evaluation to determine the comprehension of airliner 

exit signs and the effectiveness of passenger safety 

briefing materials. Findings from nearly 800 subjects, 

including cabin safety professionals, showed the use of 

the word “EXIT,” as required by current regulations 

to designate emergency doors, was more effective than 

symbolic exit signs. (Aeromedical Research)

• Evacuation Models: Developed and demonstrated a 

computer simulation of airliner emergency evacuation 

for both narrow and wide body aircraft. The simulation 

includes aircraft seat and door configurations in normal 

and damaged modes, passenger behavior, crew actions, 

and other features that impact emergency evacuation. 

The simulation is being used to assess the potential value 

of emergency egress assist devices relative to evacuation 

time. (Aeromedical Research)

• Alternative Pavement Grooving Evaluation: Installed 

and evaluated an alternative pavement grooving 

technique, called trapezoidal grooving, at Chicago 

O’Hare Airport and Quantico Marine Corp Facility. 

The new shaped groove was found to resist damage 

from sweeping, snow plowing, and aircraft traffic. The 

standard (rectangular) groove has been susceptible 

to damage and is typically replaced after a few years. 

(Airport Technology Research - Safety) 
42 Chapter 2 

• Evaluation and Mitigation of Aircraft Slide Evacuation 

Injuries: Identified challenges associated with the use of 

aircraft evacuation slides at airports, focusing on causes of 

injuries and ways to reduce them. A report was produced 

that includes: a literature review of known incidents 

where aircraft evacuations occurred via the slides and 

identified causes of known injuries; a survey/interview 

of airport operators and emergency responders involved 

in those incidents, slide manufacturers, and aircraft 

manufacturers, as appropriate; a review of tools relative 

to aircraft slide evacuations available to first responders; 

and recommended guidance for airport operators 

and emergency personnel to prepare for aircraft slide 

evacuations that includes best practices for minimizing 

injury rates. (Airport Cooperative Research - Safety)

• Acute Human Exposure Limits for Gaseous Halocarbon 

Extinguishing Agents: Developed acute human exposure 

limits for FAA-approved halon replacement agents 

in hand-held extinguishers in ventilated aircraft. The 

guidance material will appear in a proposed Advisory 

Circular (AC) and is expected to allay concerns related 

to harmful halon replacement agent exposure in small 

aircraft and compartments. (Fire Research and Safety) 

• Engineered Material Arresting Systems: Completed 

full-scale, arctic testing of the system with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and 

Engineering Laboratory. Additional test were conducted 

on individual components of the system that are 

designed to provide protection from harsh environments. 

This research supports the formulation of existing 

systems and provides a baseline for further testing of 

new soft ground arrestor system concepts. (Airport 

Technology Research - Safety)

• Next Generation High-Reach Extendable Turret: 

Completed testing of the non-fire portion of the next 

generation turret. This testing brings the aviation 

community a step closer to providing a technology that 

can pierce both the first- and second-level passenger 

cabin in a post-crash fire situation. It will allow fire 

fighters to pierce the fuselage skin, apply fire fighting 

agents into the cabin, and extinguish an interior fire as 

well as knock down the heat and toxic smoke. This 

will make the conditions in the cabin more survivable, 

increasing the chances for safe evacuation of passengers. 

(Airport Technology Research - Safety)

• Burning Behavior of Cabin Materials: Developed a 

one-dimensional computational model of the burning 

behavior of a material. The model is a product of 

far-term research to improve our understanding of how 

a material burns and attempt to predict the burning 

behavior under more complex conditions. (Fire 

Research and Safety)
Chapter 2 43 

• Operation of New Large Aircraft – Second Level Fire 

Fighting Evaluation: Partnered with the U.S. Air Force 

Research Lab at Tyndall Air Force Base to construct a 

mockup of a full-scale section of a new large aircraft 

that will enable researchers to address issues concerning 

what kinds of specialized tools, training, strategies, and 

agents will be required to handle a large-scale fire. This 

will enable the FAA to update Aircraft Rescue and Fire 

Fighting service standards and recommended practices to 

improve passenger survivability in post-crash fires in new 

large aircraft. (Airport Technology Research - Safety)

• Powered Air Purifying Respirator Feasibility Study: 

Measured the impact of wearing powered air purifying 

respirators (PAPRs) on task performance, including 

speech intelligibility, visual acuity, visual detection, ability 

to perform physical tasks, and subjective comfort. 

The most profound impact was found on speech 

intelligibility, particularly in face-to-face communication, 

with error levels exceeding minimally acceptable levels. 

Determining the impact of PAPRs on the performance 

of ATC and maintainer tasks will help to develop an 

effective overall crisis contingency plan. (Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human Factors)

• Thermal Acoustic Insulation Burn-through Resistance 

Certification and Installation Guidance Material: 

Developed significant technical input to update AC 

25.856-2A on thermal acoustic insulation burn-through 

resistance. The AC documents a new fire test burner for 

showing compliance with FAA fire safety regulations and 

contains guidance on the proper installation of insulation 

blankets to achieve maximum post-crashfire burn-through protection. (Fire 

Research and Safety)

• Icing Forecasting: Completed development of the 

Forecast Icing Product-Severity. This product will alert 

users to areas of forecasted in-flight icing by graphically 

displaying the probability that icing will occur along 

their planned flight path. These capabilities will allow 

users to plan more effective flight routes that will avoid 

hazardous icing areas. In-flight icing causes more than 

25 accidents annually, with over half of these resulting 

in fatalities and destroyed aircraft. This equates to $100 

million in injuries, fatalities, and aircraft damage per year. 

(Weather Program)

• Turbulence: Deployed the NEXRAD Turbulence 

Detection Algorithm on all U.S. NEXRADs as part of 

the Open Radar Build 10 software. This data will be 

used to produce a three-dimensional in-cloud turbulence 

map that will be integrated into other turbulence 

products, including the Graphical Turbulence Guidance 

Nowcast. The algorithm provides a valuable tool for 

identifying potentially hazardous regions of in-cloud 

turbulence and will allow users to plan more effective 

and safer routes of flight that will avoid hazardous 

turbulence areas. (Weather Program)

• Side-Facing Seat Crash Dynamics: Completed cadaver 

testing and obtained data to develop neck injury criteria 

for side-facing seats. The testing determined the ability 

of the human neck to handle tension and moment 

loading from a deceleration during a crash. The results 

were compared to analytical models for the prediction 

of stresses and strains associated with side impact 

and revealed that the conventional wisdom of using 

a three-point restraint system may not provide the 

expected protection. Additional testing is now needed 

to complete the stress envelope experienced by the 

human body in side facing seats. The initial testing has 

helped to develop an understanding of the dynamics 

of side-facing seat reactions and provide an analysis 

of side-facing seat restraint requirements. (Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety)

• Terminal Area Safety: Conducted pilot-in-the-loop 

evaluations on laser safety by using the FAA Boeing 

737-800 advanced flight simulator equipped with a 

laser system that realistically mimics a laser 

flashed at an aircraft flight deck from 

the ground. The results supported the 

development of new practices that are 

contained in the draft version of SAE 

Aerospace Recommended Practices 

document, Laser Illuminations: 

Pilot Operational Procedures. 

(Aviation Safety Risk Analysis/

System Safety Management)
44 Chapter 2 

Safe aerospace veh icles

R&D target

By 2015, demonstrate damage and fault tolerant vehicle and systems.

Method of validation

The approach includes preventing accidents due to engine failures, structural failures, and system failures; developing a 

fireproof cabin; integrating unmanned aircraft into the NAS; and addressing safety problems specific to GA. 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 the human protection goal.

A reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle 

design, structure, or subsystems

Rulemaking on Fuel Tank Inerting

On July 16, 2008, acting FAA Administrator Robert Sturgell announced 

rulemaking that “will close the book on fuel tank explosions.” The FAA’s 

final rule on fuel tank inerting requires installation of flammability reduction means (FRM) as a retrofit in vulnerable transport airplanes and in 

certain new production airplanes.

Eliminating flammable fuel/air vapors in fuel tanks has been the focus 

of intense scrutiny since the loss of flight TWA 800 in 1996. Experts 

from around the world considered a then-widely-used military solution for 

inerting fuel tanks impractical for use in commercial airplanes. Yet over the 

course of seven years, a team of FAA researchers at the William J. Hughes 

Technical Center designed, built, and tested a practical, low cost, and effective fuel tank inerting system. Close cooperation with the FAA Transport 

Airplane Directorate, NASA, Boeing, and Airbus lead to a series of 

successful flight tests that demonstrated the ability to continuously generate 

nitrogen that replaced air and fuel vapors in a fuel tank. This landmark 

R&D effort made the FAA rulemaking action possible.

In August 2008, only one month after the FAA rule, new Boeing 737s were 

being equipped with nitrogen generation systems based on the FAA system 

for center fuel tanks. Similar systems were installed in Boeing 777s beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008 and in Boeing 747-8’s in 2009.
Chapter 2 45 

Milestones

Engines

Prevent engine failures.

In-flight icing

2013: Develop methods for the airworthiness 

testing of engines in simulated high ice 

water content environments. (Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System Safety)

Engine and component structures

2010: Complete development of damagetolerant design methods as the basis for 

propeller structural design and assess 

impacts on propeller weight. (Continued 

Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft)

2012: Complete a certification tool 13 that will 

predict the risk of failure of rotor disks 

containing 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)

Structures

Prevent accidents due to structural failures or fire.

2010: Develop certification methods for damage 

tolerance and fatigue of composite airframes. 

(Advanced Materials/Structural Safety)

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/Aging Aircraft)

2012: Define criteria for use of embedded sensors in 

fault-tolerant structures. (Advanced Materials/

Structural Safety)

Unmanned aircraft

Integrate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the civil airspace.

2015: Conduct field evaluation of detect, sense, and 

avoid (DSA) technology; command, control, and 

communications (C3) technologies; and flight 

termination procedures. (Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research)

Systems

Prevent accidents due to system failures.

Avionics

2013: Evaluate development and integration techniques 

that will produce software for complex highly 

integrated systems that must comply with 

airworthiness requirements. (Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System Safety)

Flight controls

2010: Complete the study in usage, design, and training 

issues for rudder control systems in transport 

aircraft. (Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft)

General aviation

Reduce GA accidents.

2012: Complete development of methods and data for 

damage tolerance analysis of rotorcraft structure. 

(Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft)

2013: Develop technical data on rotorcraft that provide 

guidance for certification of Health and Usage 

Monitoring Systems (HUMS) for usage credits. 

(Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft)

Commercial space

Identify the requirements for safe commercial space 

transportation vehicles.

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. (Commercial Space Transportation Safety)

13 Design Assessment Reliability and Inspection (DARWIN)
46 Chapter 2 

Funding requirements

The funding levels listed for years 2011 to 2014 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero funding listed supply 

only coordinated FAA staff resources towards the R&D goal.

Progress in FY 2008: Safe aerospace veh icles

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Notes

A11.c. Advanced Materials/Structural 

Safety R,E&D 2,920 2,448 2,476 2,495 2,515 2,537 100% of total program

A11.e. Continued Airworthiness/Aging 

Aircraft R,E&D 14,005 10,506 10,581 10,615 10,648 10,684 96% of total program

A11.f. Aircraft Catastrophic Failure 

Prevention Research R,E&D 436 1,545 1,557 1,564 1,570 1,577 100% of total program

A11.d. Atmospheric Hazards/Digital 

System Safety R,E&D 3,387 3,137 3,165 3,182 3,198 3,214 70% of total program

-- Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety Ops 73 73 73 73 73 73 50% of total program

A11.a. Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 1,064 1,248 1,271 1,290 1,311 1,333 16% of total program

A11.b. Propulsion and Fuel Systems R,E&D 3,669 3,105 3,150 3,186 3,224 3,264 100% of total program

A11.l. Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Research R,E&D 1,576 2,912 2,922 2,920 2,916 2,913 84% of total program

Total ($000) 27,130 24,974 25,195 25,325 25,455 25,595 

• Friction Stir Welded Aviation Structures Design Criteria: 

Determined that many of the parameters initially 

thought critical to friction stir welded aviation structure 

design do not change the structural performance 

of the weld. A standard joint configuration can 

be described that is path-independent (processing 

parameters do not effect the outcome) and an in-situ 

rivet process can be repeated without proprietary 

processing information. These two findings will be 

the basis for standardizing the process to develop 

joint values that can be compared from location to 

location to understand the manufacturer’s process 

control and to develop preliminary design capabilities 

that can be used to evaluate the potential of the 

process in new applications. Efforts were initiated 

to adopt these methodologies in standard practice 

and material allowable handbooks such as Metallic 

Materials Properties Development and Standardization. 

(Advanced Materials/Structural Safety)

• Surface Condition Determination for Reliable Processing 

for Bonded Structures and Repair: Identified the surface 

contaminants that cause degradation; documented 

technologies that identify surface contaminants; and 

evaluated equipment that can assess surfaces for those 

contaminants. This work will allow applicants and 

operators to provide repair procedures that incorporate 

reliable methods for accurate determination of surface 

suitability for durable structural bonds. This will enable 

the use of more bonded structures in future aircraft while 

providing expected level of safety. (Advanced Materials/

Structural Safety)

• Integrated Modular Avionics Research: Completed 

research on real-time operating systems and component 

integration considerations in Integrated Modular 

Avionics (IMA) systems. Research results will be used by 

certification authorities and industry for integrating realtime operating systems into IMA systems. (Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System Safety)
Chapter 2 47 

• Geometry Conversion Tool for Rotorburst Vulnerability 

Reduction: Developed a Fast Shot-Line Generator 

(FASTGEN) preference to decrease the time required 

to build the models for commercial users. Users of the 

Uncontained Engine Debris Damage Assessment Model 

(UEDDAM) have had difficulty converting commercial 

aircraft geometry into the FASTGEN format used by the 

UEDDAM analysis code. The converter preserves the 

geometry and material identification of components and 

helps users build a vulnerability analysis model that can 

be used for either an infinite energy rotorburst analysis, 

per AC 20-128A, or the multiple fragment MonteCarlo analysis anticipated for future designs. (Aircraft 

Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research)

• Propulsion Malfunction Research: Developed concepts 

for information-based oil system displays to minimize crew 

troubleshooting in the cockpit. The study focused on the 

pilot informational needs and looked at the best means of 

displaying the information. Four concepts were developed 

and programmed into the Boeing 777 CAB simulator. 

(Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research)

• Microprocessors Evaluations for Safety-Critical, Real-Time 

Applications: Completed a report that includes an in-depth 

analysis of functional test and validation of microprocessors, 

emerging microprocessor features safety issues, system on 

a chip (SoC) safety issues, and nondeterministic approaches 

to demonstrate safety evidence. The report contains an 

evaluation of feature modeling techniques proposed as a 

part of the Microprocessor Approval Framework (MAF), an 

investigation of the feasibility of using third party simulation 

tools for microprocessor and SoC safety analysis, and an 

evaluation of the applicability of the proposed MAF to 

commercial-off-the-shelf microprocessors. (Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System Safety Program)

• Cargo Fire Suppression Effectiveness of a Halon 

1301/Nitrogen-Enriched Air Mixture: Examined the 

effectiveness of a mixture of Halon 1301 and nitrogenenriched air to inert against cargo compartment fires. The 

results show that small concentrations of theses gases can 

be effective together, indicating it may be feasible to use 

nitrogen-enriched air from a fuel tank inerting system to 

also provide for cargo fire suppression, thereby improving 

the cost benefit of a fuel tank inerting system. (Fire 

Research and Safety)

• In-flight Fire Exposure of Aluminum and Composite 

Fuselage Materials: Examined and compared the heat 

transfer effects on composite and aluminum fuselage 

materials exposed to an overhead in-flight fire. The 

wind tunnel test data provided insight into the possible 

differences in hidden fire behavior between legacy 

(aluminum) and new all-composite (e.g., 787) aircraft. 

(Fire Research and Safety)

• Qualification of Airborne Electronic Hardware 

Tools: Completed Phase 1 of research that will 

be used by certification authorities and industry 

to determine the major safety issues of tools 

supporting airborne electronic hardware design 

and verification and for making recommendations 

to address these issues in the assessment and 

qualification process. (Atmospheric Hazards/

Digital System Safety Program)

• Low False Alarm Cargo Compartment 

Fire Detector Prototype: Developed and 

demonstrated a cargo compartment detector 

design that would significantly reduce the 

incident of false alarms. The prototype 

detector incorporates multiple sensors and 

algorithms to differentiate between real 

fire and false alarm sources. The reported 

incidence of cargo detector false alarms can 

be a factor of 100 or more greater than real 

fire detection. (Fire Research and Safety)

• Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Completed 

an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 

technology survey to provide the FAA with 

a detailed overview of UAS technology 

status in reference to the existing NAS. 

Using the existing FAA regulatory 

framework, the UAS technology survey 

was conducted in five technical areas: 

airframe; propulsion; see and avoid; 

command, control, and communication; 

and flight termination. Completed 

the technology survey and associated 

regulatory gap analyses in the first 

four technical areas. Results are being 

published in FAA technical reports. 

(Unmanned Aircraft Systems)
48 Chapter 2 

separation Assurance

R&D target

By 2016, develop initial standards and procedures for self-separation.

Method of validation

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 the JPDO plan for self-separation.

A reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle 

operations in the air and on the ground

Reduced separation (NextGen - Self Separation)

2011: 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.

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 (NextGen - Self Separation)

2011: Complete 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 high-density en route corridors.

Milestones

Surface/runway operations awareness (NextGen - 

Self Separation)

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 

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.

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.
Chapter 2 49 

Funding requirements

The funding levels listed for years 2011 to 2014 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero funding listed supply 

only coordinated FAA staff resources towards the R&D goal.

Progress in FY 2008: separation Assurance

Funding of programs associated with this goal starts in FY 2009.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Notes

A11.i. Air Traffic Control/Technical 

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

A11.g. Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

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

A12.a. Joint Planning and Development 

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

A12.e. NextGen - Self Separation R,E&D 8,025 8,247 10,076 10,243 10,411 10,410 100% of total program

1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence Recategorization F&E 0 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only

Total ($000) 8,025 8,247 10,076 10,243 10,411 10,410 
50 Chapter 2 

Situational awareness

R&D target

By 2015, demonstrate common, real-time awareness of ongoing air operations, events, crises, and weather at all types of 

airports by pilots and controllers.

Method of validation

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.

Common, accurate, and real-time information of aerospace 

operations, events, crises, obstacles, and weather

Wind Turbine Farm Illumination

The U.S. Department of Energy has mandated that renewable energy 

sources, such as wind turbines, provide 5% of the nation’s electricity by 

2020. As a result, wind turbine farms are proliferating across the United 

States. Already some of these farms include hundreds of turbines that 

spread up to 20 miles along ridgelines. With heights well above 400 feet, 

these structures are considered obstructions to air navigation. Lighting 

these structures requires a balance between safe flying and the quality of 

life for surrounding communities.

FAA researchers worked with the Department of Energy to develop and 

test lighting concepts that made the wind turbine farms visible to pilots 

while minimizing impact to nearby communities. The research team 

investigated 11 wind turbine sites from the air in day- and nighttime flying 

scenarios. They concluded that simultaneous flashing lights from carefully 

selected turbines made the wind farm appear as one very large structure, 

significantly improving the situation awareness of the pilot. FAA amended 

Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1K Obstruction Marking and Lighting on 

February 1, 2007 to include this guidance. 

The wind turbine industry has embraced this new guidance material, citing 

the research results as being less expensive to adopt with better acceptance 

by the local communities. New wind turbine sites across the country are 

being marked and illuminated in accordance with new FAA guidelines.
Chapter 2 51 

Milestones

Weather situational awareness

Develop common situational awareness for weather.

Weather Information Improvements (Weather Program)

2009: Transition for operational readiness the 

National Ceiling and Visibility forecast for 

CONUS.

2011: Transition in-flight icing Alaska forecast 

for implementation.

2013: Transition the volcanic ash forecast for 

operational readiness.

Weather Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC)14 (NextGenWeather Technology in the Cockpit)

2010: Develop concepts of operation and user 

requirements for the provision, integration, 

and use of weather information in the cockpit.

2010: 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 decisionmaking and shared situational awareness 

among pilots, dispatchers, and air traffic 

controllers supported by NextGen air and 

ground capabilities.

Airports

Ensure safe airport operations.

2010: Develop system enhancements for runway status 

lights. (Runway Incursion Reduction)

2010: Develop advisory material to install new visual 

guidance systems. (Airport Technology Research - 

Safety, Airport Cooperative Research - Safety)

2011: Develop a radar-based, national bird strike advisory 

system for airports and their vicinity. (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, Airport 

Cooperative Research - Safety)

14 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.
52 Chapter 2 

Funding requirements

The funding levels listed for years 2011 to 2014 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero funding listed supply 

only coordinated FAA staff resources towards the R&D goal.

Progress in FY 2008: Situational awareness

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Notes

-- Airport Cooperative Research – 

Safety AIP 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 40% of total program

-- Airport Technology Research – 

Safety AIP 6,655 7,719 7,719 7,719 7,784 7,719 65% of total program

A11.i. Air Traffic Control/Technical 

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

4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation 

System Development F&E 2,649 2,683 2,683 2,744 2,808 2,873 12% of total program

A12.a. Joint Planning and Development 

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

1A01D NAS Weather Requirements F&E 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,300 3,400 100% of total program

1A08 NextGen Demonstrations 

andInfrastructure Development F&E 0 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only

A12.f. NextGen - Weather Technology 

in the Cockpit R,E&D 8,049 9,570 10,320 10,497 10,674 10,681 100% of total program

1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction F&E 12,000 10,000 5,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 100% of total program

A12.b. Wake Turbulence R,E&D 2,762 3,026 3,010 3,097 3,306 3,230 27% of total program

A11.k. Weather Program R,E&D 13,744 13,599 13,430 13,163 12,884 12,592 81% of total program

A11.g. Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

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

Total ($000) 48,859 49,597 45,162 43,220 45,756 45,495 

• Weather in the Cockpit Baseline Assessment: 

Documented current and projected weather information 

needs and assessed gaps in current and projected weatherinformation products. An assessment of weather 

information use in Airline Operations Centers was 

started. This research begins to establish criteria for the 

organization and presentation of weather information in 

the cockpit to allow pilots to more safely and efficiently 

reach their intended destination without encountering 

significant weather hazards. (Weather Program) 

• Vision Model to Predict Target Detection and 

Recognition: Conducted controlled laboratory 

experiments to measure visibility of a range of aircraft 

for a set of human observers. The data were used to 

validate a new general model that can be used in a broad 

range of aviation human factors applications. (Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human Factors)
Chapter 2 53 

• Quarantine Facilities for Arriving Air Travelers: 

Developed guidance for airport operators to identify 

potential quarantine facilities on or off the airport and 

for continuity of airport operations. The guidance is 

based on evaluation of requirements and constraints, 

including such factors as: physical needs of individuals, 

non-airport resources available, structural requirements 

for such facilities, potential existing facilities at airports 

or in community, operational and financial impacts of 

identifying on-airport facilities, and planning guidelines 

for expected maximum number of individuals to be 

quarantined. (Airport Cooperative Research – Safety)

• Automated Foreign Object Debris Detection System 

Evaluation: Completed the evaluation of the millimeterwave radar Foreign Object Debris (FOD) system at the 

T. F. Green Airport in Providence, Rhode Island. The 

evaluation is based on data collected over 12 months by 2 

seperate units, with particular attention to data collected 

over winter months. The results will be used to create a 

national standard for FOD detection. These systems can 

find very small items on the surface of the runway, and 

automatically report them to the airport operator. Further 

testing of additional FOD detection systems, including a 

hybrid system that uses both millimeter-wave radar and 

high-powered cameras, an intellegent vision system, and a 

mobile detection system, are taking place at trial airports 

like Boston Logan International Airport and Chicago 

O’Hare. (Airport Technology Research - Capacity)

• Application of Sequential Decision-making to Traffic Flow 

Management: Developed a sequential decision-making 

simulation capability in which traffic and weather forecast 

prediction uncertainty is quantified and used to develop 

efficient congestion resolution actions. A weather-induced 

airspace congestion scenario was explored that revealed a 

number of useful applications for the simulation capability 

including: as a prototype of a real-time congestion 

resolution decision-support system; as a platform to study 

decision-making strategies and to develop heuristics for 

near-term congestion resolution tools and procedures; and 

as a tool to conduct cost-benefit analyses including the 

benefits of sequential, probabilistic decision-making as 

compared to today’s manual approaches. (CAASD)

• Runway Safety Alerting: Developed a laboratory 

simulation of a flight-deck-based surface conflict 

awareness and alerting capability that augments existing 

CDTI. This will improve the awareness of potential 

surface conflict situations and provide alerting to flight 

crews. Also, completed work on a ground-based directwarning capability, Runway Status Light (RWSL), by 

conducting human-in-the-loop evaluations of three 

possible lighting configurations to be used as the RWSL’s 

Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal warning for 

aircraft arrival. Results showed that a RSWL system would 

be highly effective. (CAASD) 

• Sensory Deficiencies in the Operation of Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems: Completed a technical report on the 

integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into 

the NAS. The report includes a comparison of manned 

sensory information to sensory information available to 

the unmanned aircraft pilot, a review of remediation for 

sensory deficiencies from the current UAS inventory, a 

review of human factors research related to enhancing 

sensory information available to the UAS pilot, and a 

review of current FAA regulations related to sensory 

information requirements. Analyses demonstrated that 

pilots of UAS receive less and fewer types of sensory 

information compared to pilots of manned aircraft. One 

consequence is that UAS pilots have more difficulty 

recognizing and diagnosing anomalous flight events that 

could endanger flight safety. One way to resolve this is to 

incorporate multi-sensory alert and warning systems into 

UAS control stations. (Flightdeck/ Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors) 

• Model Development and Enhancement: Implemented 

the experimental rapid refresh Weather Research and 

Forecasting modeling system at the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The system 

provides an hourly update across North America, 

including Alaska, for aviation hazards including icing, 

convection, turbulence, and ceiling and visibility. This 

will provide the capability to conduct a real-time 

demonstration and ensure that the system meets all 

National Weather Service operational requirements 

prior to operational implementation in FY 2010. Full 

operational implementation will provide enhanced 

forecasts of aviation hazards, enhancing both NAS safety 

and capacity. (Weather Program)
54 Chapter 2 

System knowledge

R&D target

By 2016, understand economic (including implementation) and operational impact of system alternatives.

Method of validation

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, and environmental goals. Validation of the R&D target will include 

analysis, modeling, prototypes, and demonstrations. The evaluation efforts under this goal support the interim assessment of 

progress and validation of the R&D targets under the human protection; clean and quiet; and fast, flexible, and efficient goals.

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
P

Chapter 2 55 

m ilestones

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. (NextGenSystem Safety Management Transformation)

2009: Evaluate current information protection and 

assurance models and evaluate potential conflicts 

with privacy and consumer advocacy groups. 

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/Aviation Safety Risk Analysis)

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. 

Capacity evaluation

Develop methods, metrics, and models to demonstrate that 

the system can handle growth in demand up to three times 

current levels.15 (Operations Concept Validation, NextGen - 

Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling; System 

Capacity, Planning, and Improvement; Airspace Management 

Laboratory; Airspace Management Program)

2008: Demonstrate capacity increase to 130% current 

levels. [COMPLETED, see first bullet under 

Progress in FY 2008]

2011: Demonstrate capacity increase to 166% current levels.

2013: Demonstrate capacity increase to 230% current levels.

Safety management system

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/

Aging Aircraft)

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)

2012: Develop risk management concepts, models, 

and tools for unmanned aircraft systems. 

(Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research)

2012: Develop risk management concepts, models, and 

tools for transport category airplanes. (System 

Safety Management/Aviation Safety Risk Analysis)

2014: Demonstrate a National Level System 

Safety Assessment capability that will 

proactively identify emerging risk across 

NextGen. (NextGen - System Safety 

Management Transformation)

Safety evaluation16

Develop methods and metrics to measure progress in reducing 

the rate of fatalities and significant injuries by two-thirds17. 

(System Safety Management/Aviation Safety Risk Analysis)

2010: Demonstrate a one-third reduction in the rate of 

fatalities and injuries.

2012: Demonstrate a one-half reduction in the rate of 

fatalities and injuries.

2015: Demonstrate a two-thirds reduction in the rate of 

fatalities and injuries18.

2016: Demonstrate capacity increase to 300% current levels.

16 For these milestones, demonstrate means to show that the methods 

and metrics developed are valid and that, with the systems improvements 

planned, it is possible to reduce the rate of fatalities and injuries by the 

stated amounts.

17 This supports demonstration of the R&D target under the human 

protection goal.

18 These milestones have targets that are purposely more aggressive than 

those in the Flight Plan, as R&D goals should be stretch goals.

15 This supports demonstration of the R&D target under the fast, flexible, and 

efficient goal.
56 Chapter 2 

Environmental evaluation

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.19 (NextGen 

– Operational Assessments)

Funding requirements

The funding levels listed for years 2011 to 2014 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero funding listed supply 

only coordinated FAA staff resources towards the R&D goal.

19 This supports demonstration of the R&D target under the clean and quiet goal.

20 In FY 2009 this program was funded by NextGen – Environment and Energy (Validation Modeling); starting in FY 2010, this program will be funded 

by NextGen – Operational Assessments.

21 By FY 2010, this program will have matured beyond research activities and be functioning on a day-to-day operational basis.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Notes

A11.e. Continued Airworthiness/Aging 

Aircraft R,E&D 584 438 441 442 444 445 4% of total program

Airspace Management Lab 21 F&E 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 100% of total program

1A01E Airspace Management Program F&E 3,000 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 100% of total program

A11.h. System Safety Management/

Aviation Safety Risk Analysis R,E&D 12,488 12,698 12,668 12,566 12,460 12,350 100% of total program

4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation 

System Development F&E 3,263 3,305 3,305 3,380 3,460 3,539 14% of R&D program in FY 2009

NextGen - Environment and 

Energy (Validation Modeling) F&E 4,500 0 0 0 0 0 100% of total program

1A08F

NextGen – Operational 

Assessments (Environment and 

Energy)

F&E 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 40% of total program

1A08F

NextGen – Operational 

Assessments (Capacity and 

Safety)

F&E 0 4,500 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 60% of total program

A12.a. Joint Planning and Development 

Office R,E&D 4,340 4,322 4,306 4,264 4,221 4,176 30% of total program

1A08C

NextGen - Operations Concept 

Development Validation 

Modeling

F&E 4,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 100% of total program

1A08G NextGen - System Safety 

Management Transformation F&E 16,300 16,300 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 100% of total program

1A01C Operations Concept Validation F&E 7,400 8,000 8,000 8,000 6,000 6,000 100% of total program

1A01B System Capacity, Planning, and 

Improvement F&E 6,500 4,100 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 100% of total program

A11.l. Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Research R,E&D 300 555 557 556 556 555 16% of total program

A11.j. Aeromedical Research R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only

Total ($000) 66,675 70,218 78,777 78,708 76,641 76,565

2009: Demonstrate no environmental constraints at 130% capacity. 20

2011: Demonstrate no environmental constraints at 166% capacity.

2013: Demonstrate no environmental constraints at 230% capacity.

2016: Demonstrate no environmental constraints at 300% capacity.
57 

Progress in FY 2008: System knowledge

• NextGen Towers: Developed a concept of operations 

for both staffed and automated NextGen towers that 

will improve operational efficiency and enable costeffective expansion of air traffic services to a significantly 

larger number of airports than would be possible with 

traditional methods of service delivery. Completed a 

technology assessment for staffed towers and alternatives. 

(Operations Concept Validation)

• Airport Economic Impact Methods and Models: 

Examined how airports determine the economic impact 

of an airport today, which is quite different from the 

traditional convention of incremental economic cost/

benefit analysis of investing in an airport project. The 

project focused on the methods and models used 

to: define and identify, evaluate and measure, and 

communicate the different facets of economic impact 

that local airports are having on communities and 

regions. (Airport Cooperative Research – Capacity)

• Aviation Medical Examiner Survey: Collected survey 

data from aviation medical examiners about their 

satisfaction with the aeromedical certification services 

provided by the FAA. Overall, domestic, non-military 

examiners reported being satisfied with the personnel 

who provide certification services, but fewer were 

satisfied with the technological tools used for medical 

certification applications. Examiners identified specific 

areas for improvement, including the standards and 

guidelines for deferrals, training, digital ECG system, 

AMC Internet Subsystem, and the FAA’s OAM website. 

The survey results will be used by senior managers to: 

1) evaluate the degree of customer satisfaction with 

aerospace medical certification services, 2) identify areas 

in which improvements in service delivery can be made, 

and 3) assess change in customer satisfaction as a result 

of those improvements. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/

Systems Integration Human Factors)
58 Chapter 2 

World leadersh ip

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.

Method of validation

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 and conducting analyses. The 

research results listed under the subheading of Products are generated by 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 

method of validation for the individual research results is provided under the respective goal for each result.

A globally recognized leader in aerospace technology, 

systems, and operations
P P

Chapter 2 59 

Milestones

Products

Leverage research results22.

2008: Modify procedures to allow use of closely spaced parallel 

runways for arrival operations during non-visual conditions. 

(Wake Turbulence) [COMPLETED, see third bullet under 

Fast, Flexible, and Efficient Progress in FY 2008]

2010: Develop a preliminary planning version of an Aviation 

Environmental Design Tool that quantifies and assesses 

interrelationships among noise and emissions at the local 

and global levels. (Environment and Energy)

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. (NextGen Environmental 

Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics, 

Airport Cooperative Research - Environment)

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. (NextGen - 

System Safety Management Transformation)

2013: Complete development of ANSP wake separation 

standards that better use aircraft flight characteristics and 

information concerning surrounding weather conditions. 

(NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization)

2014: Deploy the Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management 

Tool that will provide the cost/benefit methodology needed 

to harmonize national aviation policy and environmental 

policy. (Environment and Energy)

2015: Enable reduced and delegated separation in oceanic 

airspace and high density en route corridors. 

(NextGen - Self Separation)

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., fewer operational errors) through 

automation and standardization of operation, procedures, 

and information. (NextGen - Air Traffic Control/

Technical Operations Human Factors - Controller 

Efficiency and Air Ground Integration)

Management

Manage ongoing research. (System Planning and 

Resource Management)

2008: Manage R&D portfolio, conduct advisory 

committee reviews of R&D, and publish the 

NARP. [COMPLETED, see bullet under 

Progress in FY 2008]

Manage research collaborations. (System Planning and 

Resource Management)

2010: Determine measures for the exchange of 

research information. 

2011: Develop a strategic mapping for 

international collaboration. 

2011: Identify a process to measure quality, 

timeliness, and value of collaboration. 

2016: Determine final value of collaboration. 

22 These milestones were selected from the other nine goals to 

show international collaboration.
60 Chapter 2 

Funding requirements

The funding levels listed for years 2011 to 2014 are estimates and subject to change. Programs with zero funding listed supply 

only coordinated FAA staff resources towards the R&D goal.

Progress in FY 2008: World leadersh ip

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Notes

A11.a. Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only

1A08A

NextGen - ATC/Tech Ops Human 

Factors - Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground Integration

F&E 0 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only

A13.a. Environment and Energy R,E&D 0 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only

A12.f. NextGen - Weather Technology 

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

A14.a. System Planning and Resource 

Management R,E&D 1,817 1,766 1,741 1,702 1,664 1,620 100% total program

1A08G NextGen - System Safety 

Management Transformation F&E 0 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only

1A08E NextGen – Wake Turbulence – 

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

-- Airport Cooperative Research 

–Environment AIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 coordination only

A12.e. NextGen - Self Separation R,E&D 0 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 0 coordination only

Total ($000) 1,817 1,766 1,741 1,702 1,664 1,620 

• Portfolio Management: The Research, Engineering, 

and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

provided guidance on the FAA FY 2010 R&D portfolio 

on October 3, 2007. The 2008 National Aviation Research 

Plan (NARP) was submitted to Congress on February 

4, 2008. The R&D Executive Board (REB) developed 

the proposed FY 2010 R&D portfolio between 

November 2007 and February 2008. The five REDAC 

subcommittees reviewed the portfolio in February 

2008, and the REDAC provided its final review of the 

FY 2010 R&D portfolio to the FAA on March 5, 2008. 

The NextGen Review Board approved the NextGen 

portion of the FY 2010 R&D portfolio on May 19, 

2008. The FAA Executive Council approved the FY 

2010 R,E&D budget on May 27, 2008, and the Joint 

Resources Council approved it on June 4, 2008. The 

FAA FY 2010 R,E&D budget was submitted to the 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation on July 30 

and August 15, 2008, and to Office of Management and 

Budget on September 8, 2008.
Chapter 2 61 
CHAPTER 3

64 Chapter 3 

Over the past year, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has refined its approach to implement the next generation air 

transportation system (NextGen). The newly created position of Senior Vice President of NextGen and Operations Planning 

(ATO-P) within the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) provides the needed focus on NextGen, enhancing the synergy with the 

Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) that was reorganized under the ATO-P.

The FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP), released in June 2008 and updated in January 2009, reflects an intensive effort 

to focus the FAA and the aviation community on making firm commitments to implement new operational improvements 

(OIs) in a coordinated, timely fashion. The OIs identified in the NGIP are identical to the operational improvements 

displayed in the National Airspace System (NAS) Enterprise Architecture’s service roadmaps. Within the FAA, NextGen 

implementation requires planning and execution across all lines of business. Three key management structures are responsible 

for NextGen decision-making and progress monitoring: the NextGen Management Board, the NextGen Review Board, 

and the Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning. The roles and responsibilities of the two boards are 

provided in Chapter 4 under the Evaluation section.

The FAA NextGen R&D programs, which began in fiscal year 2009, will contribute to the R&D needs identified by the NGIP

and the JPDO NextGen Integrated Work Plan (IWP). This chapter describes how the FAA R&D goals and activities listed in 

Chapter 2 map to the mid-term OIs in the NGIP. Other linkages to the IWP are described in Appendix E.

There are four sections to this chapter. The first section provides definitions of NGIP domains and solution sets. The second 

section describes the NextGen portfolio management process. The third section describes how the FAA NextGen R&D 

programs align with the OIs identified in the NGIP. The fourth section presents the FAA NextGen R&D program budget.
Chapter 3 65 

NextGen Doma ins 

and Solution Sets

This section defines the domains and solution sets of the 

NGIP. There are three domains: Air Traffic Operations; 

Aircraft and Operator Requirements; and Airport 

Development. Under the Air Traffic Operations domain, 

there are seven solution sets. The descriptions of the 

domains and solution sets are adapted from the NGIP.

A ir Traffic Operations 

Domain

This domain focuses on implementing transformational 

capabilities to improve the U.S. air traffic management system, 

which encompasses operational rules, regulations and procedures 

as well as the infrastructure network of U.S. airspace; air 

navigation facilities, equipment and services; airports or landing 

areas; aeronautical charts, information, and services; technical 

information; and manpower and material. The seven solution 

sets under the air traffic operations domain are as follows.

Initiate Trajectory-Based Operations

This solution set focuses primarily on en route cruise 

operations and specific aircraft requirements, such as that 

equipment needed for required navigation performance (RNP). 

Air traffic control will shift from voice and clearance-based 

control to trajectory-based control negotiated between the pilot 

and the air traffic manager. The pilot will fly a predetermined 

preferred route characterized by three-dimensional position 

and time achieved at certain periods of flight. Sectors will be 

managed automatically. Aircraft separation will be variable, 

based on wake turbulence and aircraft capabilities.

Increase Arrivals/Departures in HighDensity Airports

This solution set focuses on increasing capacity at the 

busiest airports (the Operational Evolution Partnership 

(OEP) 35 airports) and in the busiest airspace to achieve 

and maintain greater throughput. Requirements include the 

same capabilities of flexible terminals and airspace as well as 

integrated tactical and strategic flow capabilities. Additional 

requirements include higher performance navigation and 

communications capabilities, more efficient airport surface 

movements, reduced spacing and separation requirements, 

and improved overall traffic flow management.

Increase Flexibility in the Terminal Environment

This solution set focuses on expanding use of secondary 

and reliever airports to meet higher traffic levels. 

Requirements consist of more reliable access to non-hub 

airports in low-visibility conditions; improved pilot and 

controller situational awareness; and more flexible use of 

terminal airspace, including required navigation (RNAV)/

RNP routings, continuous-descent approaches, dynamic 

terminal airspace, and other performance-based procedures.

Improve Collaborative Air Traffic Management

This solution set strives to adjust airspace and other assets 

to satisfy forecast demand, rather than constraining demand 

to match available assets. If constraints are required 

because of capacity, safety, security, or environmental 

concerns, collaborative decision-making will maximize the 

operators’ opportunities to resolve those constraints based 

on the operators’ preferences.

Reduce Weather Impact

This solution set allows users and controllers to plan 

operations based on the predicted impact of weather, rather 

than attempting to mitigate the effects of weather once the 

weather has changed. Integrated weather observations and 

forecasts will lead to better decision-making.
66 Chapter 3 

Increase Safety, Security, and 

Environmental Performance

Inherent in all evolving aspects of NAS operations and protocol 

are the three areas of safety, security, and the environment. This 

solution set is composed of three subsets.

•	Safety

This subset involves sharing and proactively analyzing 

aviation safety information to assess and manage risks 

before incidents occur. Additionally, the sharing and 

analysis of aviation safety information will support 

safety assessments at the system level. With the 

projected increase in operations, it is not sufficient 

to maintain the current low accident rate. Therefore, 

safety must improve to ensure the number of accidents 

does not increase. This will require a transition to 

safety management systems (SMS), a formal, systematic, 

business-like approach to managing safety risk.

•	Security

This subset involves airspace security capabilities. 

Information security is integral to the baseline 

of each NAS program. NAS institutional 

information security processes and protocols 

deliver robust information security. As 

information security technology and best practices 

advance, NAS-based information security will be 

upgraded accordingly.

•	Environment

This subset involves activities that relate directly 

to improvements of aviation energy efficiency 

and reducing environmental impacts. The 

primary environmental constraints on the 

capacity and flexibility of NextGen will likely be 

noise, emissions, local air quality, global climate 

changes, water quality, and energy production 

and consumption.

Transform Facilities

This solution set involves all activities related to the 

establishment or removal of NAS facilities, and the 

transition to the NextGen facility concept. This 

includes the optimized allocation of staffing and 

facilities to provide enhanced services, the use of more 

cost-effective and flexible information sharing, general 

management and training of human assets, and removal 

of unneeded systems.

A irport Development 

Domain

This domain focuses on adding new airport surface 

infrastructure at the OEP 35 airports, and in the 15 major U.S. 

metropolitan areas likely to experience the greatest population 

and economic growth through 2025. The NGIP efforts will 

provide for significant capacity increases, including new runways, 

runway extensions, and end-around taxiways; planning and 

environmental assessments; and growth in metropolitan areas.

A ircraft and Operator 

Requirements Domain

This domain identifies the gaps between current avionics 

capabilities and NextGen operational requirements, and 

will help FAA focus future research and development and 

prioritize the development of new standards and criteria. 

The avionics requirements will include communications, 

navigation, and surveillance capabilities, and refined 

weather equipment and displays.
Chapter 3 67 

NextGen Portfolio 

Management 

Process

To enhance FAA performance and management control, 

the FAA NextGen Integration and Implementation (I&I) 

Office manages each NextGen investment. That office 

ensures effective and efficient application, planning, 

programming, budgeting, and execution of the FAA 

NextGen portfolio, including the NextGen R&D 

programs. The NextGen I&I Office is responsible for 

consolidated tracking and reporting of financial and 

program information on all NextGen initiatives and 

manages the NextGen portfolio across all FAA lines 

of business using resource planning documents and 

automated financial management tools. That office is 

also responsible for all NextGen-related decision-making 

processes and accountability across the Agency.

FAA NextGen 

Research 

Requirements

The FAA NextGen R&D programs are a subset of the 

FAA R&D goals, targets, and milestones listed in Chapter 

2. Table 3.1 links the NextGen R&D to the mid- and 

far-term OIs in the NGIP. A NextGen R&D program may 

support more than one NGIP OI. Appendix E provides 

a more detailed description of the linkage to the mid- and 

far-term OIs in the NGIP and to the far-term OIs in the 

JPDO IWP. There are fewer linkages in the mid-term, 

since the bulk of NextGen R&D funding is planned to 

start in FY 2009 and a substantial lead time is typically 

required between the completion of R&D activities and 

their contribution to implementation.
68 Chapter 3 

Table 3.1: Mapping of FAA NextGen R&D Programs to the FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan 

for the Air Traffic Operations Domain
Chapter 3 69 
70 Chapter 3 

Details of R&D NextGen Programs in F&E 2009

($000)

2010

($000)

2011

($000)

2012

($000)

2013

($000)

2014

($000)

R&D

Goal

1A07 NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development 28,000 33,774 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 1

NextGen - ATC/Tech Ops Human Factors (Air Ground 

Integration) 2,900 0 0 0 0 0 4

NextGen - ATC/Tech Ops Human Factors (Controller 

Efficiency) 3,800 0 0 0 0 0 3

1A08A NextGen - ATC/Tech Ops Human Factors - Controller 

Efficiency/Air Ground Integration 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 3

1A08B NextGen - New ATM Requirements 5,400 13,200 1,800 31,200 32,000 50,100 1

1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Development Validation 

Modeling 4,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 9

NextGen - Environment and Energy - (Validation Modeling) 4,500 0 0 0 0 0 9

NextGen - Environment and Energy – Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction & Validation Modeling 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 2

1A08D

NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental 

Management System and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction

0 7,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 2

1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence Re-categorization 2,000 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 1

1A08F NextGen - Operational Assessments 0 7,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 9

1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 16,300 16,300 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 9

1A08H NextGen - Initial Operation Test & Evaluation 0 100 0 0 0 0 9

1A08 Subtotal NextGen - System Development (1A08A-1A08H) 41,400 66,100 70,800 100,200 101,000 119,100 

69,400 99,874 100,800 130,200 131,000 149,100 

Key: 

Budget

FAA NextGen R&D program five-year budget plan by line item and appropriation is summarized in Table 3.2 and 3.3. 

Figures are shown in the thousands of dollars.

Table 3.2: NextGen R&D Funding Levels in F&E23 

• Goal 1 - Fast, flexible, and efficient

• Goal 2 - Clean and quiet

• Goal 3 - High quality teams and individuals

• Goal 4 - Human-centered design

• Goal 9 - System knowledge
Chapter 3 71

23 The total R&D program is summarized in Tables 4.1 through 4.4 of Chapter 4 in this report. The funding levels listed for fiscal years 2011 through 

2014 are estimates and subject to change. 

Details of R&D NextGen Programs in R,E&D 2009

($000)

2010

($000)

2011

($000)

2012

($000)

2013

($000)

2014

($000)

R&D

Goal

A12.a. Joint Planning and Development Office 14,466 14,407 14,352 14,214 14,070 13,919 10

A12.b. NextGen Wake Turbulence 7,370 7,605 7,740 7,745 7,626 7,661 1

A12.d. NextGen - Air Ground Integration 2,554 5,688 11,355 11,536 11,716 11,701 4

A12.e. NextGen - Self Separation 8,025 8,247 10,076 10,243 10,411 10,410 7

A12.f. NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit 8,049 9,570 10,320 10,497 10,674 10,681 8

A13.b. NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, 

Fuels, and Metrics 16,050 19,470 20,510 20,858 21,207 21,219 2

56,514 64,987 74,353 75,093 75,704 75,591 

Key: • Goal 1 - Fast, flexible, and efficient

• Goal 2 - Clean and quiet

• Goal 4 - Human-centered design

• Goal 7 - Separation assurance

• Goal 8 - Situational awareness

• Goal 10 - World leadership

Table 3.3: NextGen R&D Funding Levels in R,E&D23 
CHAPTER 4

74 Chapter 4 

This chapter summarizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) research and development (R&D) program according to 

its FY 2010 budget submission. The chapter explains what the FAA is doing (programs), how much it is spending (budget), 

how it performs its programs (partnerships), and how well it executes its programs (evaluation).

Sponsors

The FAA R&D program supports regulation, certification, and standards development; modernization of the national 

airspace system (NAS); and policy and planning. To support the FAA goals, R&D addresses the specific needs of sponsoring 

organizations, including Aviation Safety; the Air Traffic Organization; Airports; Commercial Space Transportation; and Aviation 

Policy, Planning and Environment. The Office of Research and Technology Development under NextGen and Operations 

Planning in the Air Traffic Organization manages the FAA research program for the Agency.

Programs

The R&D programs are funded in four appropriation accounts: Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D); Facilities 

and Equipment (F&E); the Airport Improvement Program (AIP); and Operations (Ops). In general, the R,E&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.24 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 capacity development, and safety and security needs; and funds grants 

for aircraft noise compatibility planning and programs and low emissions airport equipment.25 It also funds administrative 

and technical support costs to support airport programs. The commercial space transportation program’s R&D operating 

expenses are funded under the Ops account.

The programs in the FY 2010 R&D budget request are listed by appropriation in the following sections. Appendix A provides 

detailed information for each program, including intended outcomes, outputs, programmatic structure, partnerships, and a 

five-year program plan.

24 FAA Order 2500.8A, Funding Criteria for Operations, Facilities and Equipment (F&E), and Research, Engineering and Development 

(R,E&D) Accounts, dated April 9, 1993.

25 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.
Chapter 4 75 

Fire Research and Safety (A11.a.)

Fire Research and Safety (A11.a.): The program 

develops technologies, procedures, and test methods 

that can prevent accidents caused by fires and fuel tank 

explosions and improve survivability during a post-crash 

fire. Near-term activities include improvements in fire 

test methods and materials performance criteria, fire 

detection and suppression systems, fuel tank explosion 

protection, and hazardous materials fire safety. Far-term 

research focuses on the enabling technology for ultrafire-resistant interior materials.

Propulsion and Fuel Systems (A11.b.)

The program develops and validates technologies, tools, 

methodologies, and materials 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 constructed 

of advanced composite materials by developing analytical 

and testing methods to understand how design, load, and 

damage can affect composite structures and by developing 

maintenance and repair methods. The program also increases 

the ability of passengers to survive aviation accidents by 

improving the crash characteristics of aircraft structures 

through modeling and testing crash events, and verification 

of analytical crash prediction methodologies.

Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety 

(A11.d.)

The program develops technologies and methods to detect 

or prevent frozen contamination and predicts anti-icing fluid 

failure, and ensures safe operations in atmospheric icing 

conditions. It improves aircraft safety by ensuring the safe 

operation of advanced, flight-critical, digital (software-based 

and programmable logic-based) airborne systems technology. 

It also assesses how this technology may be safely employed 

in flight-essential and flight-critical systems such as fly-bywire, augmented manual flight controls, navigation and 

communication equipment, and autopilots.

Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft 

(A11.e.)

The program develops technologies, technical 

information, procedures, and practices to help ensure 

the continued airworthiness of aircraft structures, 

engines, and systems. It assesses the causes and 

consequences of fatigue damage of aging aircraft; 

ensures the continued safe operation of aircraft 

electrical, mechanical, and flight control systems; 

detects and quantifies damage through nondestructive 

inspection techniques; updates and validates 

airworthiness standards; develops and validates guidance 

for health monitoring systems; and establishes damagetolerant design and maintenance criteria.

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention 

Research (A11.f.)

The program develops technologies and methods to 

assess risk and prevent the occurrence of potentially 

catastrophic defects, failures, and malfunctions in aircraft, 

aircraft components, and aircraft systems. It also uses 

historic accident data to investigate turbine engine uncontainment events and propulsion malfunctions.

Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors (A11.g.)

The program provides the human factors research for 

guidelines, handbooks, ACs, 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 human factors are 

considered in certifying new aircraft and in designing and 

modifying equipment.

Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) Appropriation
76 Chapter 4 

System Safety Management/Aviation Safety 

Risk Analysis (A11.h.) 

The program monitors and analyzes aviation 

system operations and safety risks and develops risk 

management methodologies, prototype tools, technical 

information, procedures, and practices to improve 

aviation safety. It develops an infrastructure that 

enables the free sharing of de-identified, aggregate 

safety information from various government and 

industry sources in a protected, aggregated manner. 

It also conducts research to evaluate proposed new 

technologies and procedures, which will improve safety 

by making relevant information available to the pilot 

during terminal operations.

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations

Human Factors (A11.i.) 

The program identifies and analyzes trends in air traffic 

operational errors and technical operations incidents, and 

develops and implements strategies to mitigate errors 

and incidents. It manages human error hazards, their 

consequences, and recovery methods in early stages of 

system design or procedural development; and assesses 

concepts and technology to modernize workstations and 

improve controller performance.

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.

Weather Program (A11.k.) 

The program develops new technologies to provide 

weather observations, warnings, and forecasts that are 

accurate, accessible, and efficient. These efforts will 

reduce the impacts of adverse weather on the operational 

capacity of the NAS and will enhance flight safety.

Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Research (A11.l.) 

The program ensures safe integration of unmanned 

aircraft systems (UAS) into the nation’s aviation 

system. It also provides information to support 

certification procedures, airworthiness standards, 

operational requirements, maintenance procedures, 

and safety oversight activities for UAS civil 

applications and operations.

Joint Planning and Development Office

(JPDO) (A12.a.) 

The program plans and designs the next generation air 

transportation system by coordinating goals, priorities, 

and implementation requirements within the federal 

government and with the U.S. aviation community.

Wake Turbulence (A12.b.) 

The program provides a better understanding of 

the wake turbulence generated by aircraft, develops 

mechanisms to reduce wake turbulence separation to 

enhance capacity safely, and develops requirements to 

implement these mechanisms.

NextGen - 

Air Ground Integration (A12.d.) 

The program addresses flight deck and air traffic 

service provider integration for NextGen operational 

capabilities with a focus on those human factors issues 

that primarily affect the pilot side of the air-ground 

integration challenge (i.e., the challenge of ensuring that 

the right information is provided to pilots, at the right 

time, to make the right decisions, and to allow pilots 

to successfully collaborate with air navigation service 

provider personnel to operate in the NAS safely and 

efficiently). Through the use of 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.
Chapter 4 77 

NextGen - Self Separation (A12.e.) 

The program addresses human performance and 

coordination requirements for pilots and air navigation 

service providers 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 selfseparation 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.

NextGen - Weather Technology in the 

Cockpit (A12.f.) 

The program ensures the integration of cockpit, 

ground, and communication technologies, practices, and 

procedures to provide pilots with shared and consistent 

weather information to enhance common situational 

awareness. It will do this by providing airborne 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 policy 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 policy, standards, and guidance, including 

training, procedures, and error management. 

Environment and Energy (A13.a.) 

The program develops and validates methodologies, 

models, metrics, and tools to assess and mitigate the 

effect of aircraft noise and aviation emissions. It 

analyzes and balances the interrelationships between 

noise and emissions, considers local and 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 addresses the NextGen goal to 

increase capacity three-fold while reducing significant 

environmental impacts in absolute terms. The program 

is focused on reducing current levels of aircraft noise; 

investigating local air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, 

and energy use; and advancing alternative fuels for 

aviation use. The program also supports research to 

determine the appropriate goals and metrics to manage 

NextGen aviation environmental impacts that are needed 

to support Environmental Management Systems (EMSs).

System Planning and Resource 

Management (A14.a.) 

The program manages the R&D programs to meet 

customer needs, to increase program efficiency, and to 

reduce management and operating costs. It works to 

increase customer and stakeholder involvement in the 

FAA programs, and foster acceptance of U.S. standards 

and technology to meet global aviation needs.

William J. Hughes Technical Center 

Laboratory Facility (WJHTC) (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.
78 Chapter 4 

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 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 ATO to increase 

operational predictability 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 weatherrelated services and technologies for the ATO.

Airspace Management Program (1A01E) 

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.

Wake Turbulence Research (1A01I) 

The program evaluates air traffic control wake turbulence 

mitigation decision support tool prototypes as possible 

enablers to meet NextGen, projected demand for 

increased capacity in the nation’s airspace and airports. It 

evaluates technology research and development and new 

wake separation concept modeling and simulation efforts 

for application to NextGen.

Facilities and Equ ipment (F&E) Appropr iation
Chapter 4 79 

NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure 

Development (1A07) 

The program demonstrates and tests concepts related 

to NextGen, including trajectory-based operations and 

super density operations to mature technologies, support 

investment decisions, and deploy new capabilities. It 

identifies early implementation opportunities, refines 

longer-term objectives, and may eliminate certain 

concepts from further consideration if results dictate.

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical

Operations Human Factors - Controller

Efficiency and Air Ground Inegration

(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 

air navigation service provider personnel. It examines 

how air navigation service provider personnel can 

achieve higher efficiency levels through the integration 

of automation, decision support tools, workstation 

displays, and procedures. It also addresses the air traffic 

service provider perspective and works together with 

the flight deck human factors program to address the 

air-ground 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.

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management

Requirement (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.

NextGen - Oprations Concept Validation -

Validation Modeling (1A08C)

The program develops methods, metrics, and 

models to demonstrate that the system can handle 

growth in demand 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 or not 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 identifies advances in communication, 

navigation, and surveillance or satellite technologies 

and demonstrates how to leverage their capabilities to 

increase capacity while reducing noise, fuel burn, and 

emissions through the use of procedures, sequencing, 

and timing that optimize en route, arrival, departure, 

and surface operations. The program also develops 

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. It measures the improvements provided 

by the products from the other components of the 

Environment and Energy program.

NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Recategorization (1A08E)

The program develops enhanced methods to define 

wake turbulence separation between aircraft. Wake 

characterization models will be developed to include 

various aircraft design parameters for defining wake 

vortices. Enhanced wake turbulence separation 

standards and procedures will be evaluated through 

field measurements, analyses, and human-in-theloop simulations.
80 Chapter 4 

A irport Improvement 

Program (AIP) Appropr iation

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 airportrelated hazardous air pollutants, airport impact on climate 

change, alternative aviation fuels, and advanced noise and 

emissions models.

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 and designs 

and improves runway pavement design, construction, 

and maintenance. It ensures 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 - 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.

NextGen - Operational Assessments

(1A08F)

The program researches and develops systemwide assessment of NAS performance, safety, and 

environmental impacts. The transition to NextGen 

requires the conduct of operational assessments 

to ensure that safety, environmental, and system 

performance considerations are addressed throughout 

the integration and 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.

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 the FAA’s far-term requirements.

Operations (Ops)

Appropr iation

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. 
Chapter 4 81 

Budget

This section provides four tables that present the 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 2010. The funding levels listed 

for FYs 2011 to 2014 are estimates and subject to change.

Appropriation account – Table 4.1 shows the FAA R&D 

budget planned for FY 2010, including the five-year plan 

through FY 2014, grouped by appropriation account. 

The previous section listed the programs for the four 

appropriation types. The F&E budget in Table 4.1 includes 

four main line items: Advanced Technology Development 

and Prototyping (ATD&P), line item 1A01; NextGen 

Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development, 1A08; 

NextGen System Development, 1A07; and the CAASD, 

4A08. ATD&P and NextGen Systems Development have 

several programs under them. Both the F&E and the Ops 

appropriations have programs that are not R&D; however, 

only R&D programs are shown.

Sponsoring organization – Table 4.2 shows the FAA R&D 

budget planned for FY 2010, including the five-year plan 

through FY 2014, grouped by sponsoring organization. 

Sponsoring organizations are: Aviation Safety; Air Traffic 

Organization; Airports; Commercial Space Transportation; 

and Aviation Policy, Planning, and Environment.

R&D category – The FAA research includes both applied 

research and development as defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11.26 Table 4.3 

shows the FAA R&D program according to these categories 

with the percent of applied research and development for FY 

2010 through 2014.

Performance goal – Table 4.4 shows the FAA R&D 

budget by performance goal as defined in Exhibit II of the 

FAA budget request for FY 2010. The R&D programs 

apply to three performance goals – safety, mobility, and 

environment. 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 2010.

26 OMB Circular A-11, “Preparation, Submission and Execution of 

the Budget,” June 2006, section 84, page 8 (www.whitehouse.gov/

OMB/circulars).
82 Chapter 4 

Table 4.1: Planned R&D Budget by Appropriation Account

Project

Number

FY 2009 

Budget

Line Item Program

Appropriation

Account

2008

Enacted

Budget

($000)

2009

Planned

($000)

2010

Planned

($000)

2011

Planned

($000)

2012

Planned

($000)

2013

Planned

($000)

2014

Planned

($000)

061-110 A11.a. Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 7,350 6,650 6,819 6,935 7,057 7,185

063-110 A11.b. Propulsion and Fuel Systems R,E&D 4,086 3,669 3,720 3,724 3,729 3,733

062-110/111 A11.c. Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R,E&D 7,083 2,920 2,965 2,975 2,986 2,997

064-110/111 A11.d. Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety R,E&D 3,574 4,838 4,921 4,949 4,979 5,010

065-110 A11.e. Aging Aircraft/Continued Airworthiness R,E&D 15,945 14,589 14,780 14,779 14,778 14,777

066-110 A11.f. Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research R,E&D 2,202 436 458 480 504 529

081-110 A11.g. Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors R,E&D 9,200 7,465 7,580 7,604 7,630 7,656

060-110 A11.h. Aviation Safety Risk Analysis/System Safety Management R,E&D 9,517 12,488 12,589 12,497 12,401 12,300

086-110 A11.j. Aeromedical Research R,E&D 7,760 8,395 8,699 8,976 9,267 9,573

041-110 A11.k. Weather Program R,E&D 16,888 16,968 16,954 16,615 16,259 15,885

069-110 A11.l. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research R,E&D 2,920 1,876 1,929 1,970 2,012 2,057

111-110 A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration R,E&D 0 2,554 11,337 11,720 11,521 11,322

111-120 A12.d NextGen - Self Separation R,E&D 0 8,025 9,805 10,136 9,963 9,790

111-140 A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit R,E&D 0 8,049 9,867 10,202 10,040 9,878

Subtotal R,E&D 86,525 98,922 112,423 113,562 113,126 112,692

M49.01-02 1A09G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation ATO Capital 0 16,300 19,000 19,700 19,700 20,000

Aviation Safety Total 86,525 115,222 131,423 133,262 132,826 132,692

082-110 A11.i. Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors R,E&D 10,000 10,469 10,768 10,998 11,240 11,494 

027-110 A12.a. Joint Planning and Development Office R,E&D 14,321 14,494 14,560 14,382 14,195 13,999

041-150 A12.b. Wake Turbulence R,E&D 12,813 10,132 10,369 10,580 10,408 10,235

-- -- GPS Civil Requirements R,E&D 3,100 0 0 0 0 0 

011-130 A14.a. System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 1,184 1,817 1,836 1,839 1,803 1,768

011-140 A14.b. William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility R,E&D 3,415 3,536 3,674 3,804 3,941 4,084

Subtotal R,E&D 44,833 40,448 41,207 41,603 41,587 41,580

S09.02-00 1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction ATO Capital 8,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 3,000 3,000

M08.28-00 1A01B System Capacity, Planning and Improvement ATO Capital 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500

M08.29-00 1A01C Operations Concept Validation ATO Capital 3,000 7,400 8,000 8,000 8,000 6,000

M08.27-00 1A01D NAS Weather Requirements ATO Capital 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,300

M08.28-02 1A01E Airspace Management Lab ATO Capital 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

M08.28-04 1A01F Airspace Redesign ATO Capital 5,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 

W10.01-00 1A01I Wind Profiling and Weather Research Juneau ATO Capital 4,000 1,100 0000

M08.36-01 -- Wake Turbulence ATO Capital 3,000 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

N12.02-01 -- Local Area Augmentation Sysm (LAAS) ATO Capital 1,000 00000

M36.01-00 -- Safe Flight 21 - Alaska Capstone ATO Capital 15,000 00000

M49.01-01 1A08 NextGen Demonstration ATO Capital 20,000 28,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 /1 

M49.01-02 1A09A NextGen - ATC/Tech Ops Human Factors (Controller Efficiency) ATO Capital 0 3,800 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700

M49.01-02 1A09B NextGen - ATC/Tech Ops Human Factors (Air/Ground Integration) ATO Capital 0 2,900 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700

M49.01-02 1A09E NextGen - New ATM Requirement ATO Capital 0 5,400 27,500 27,900 29,200 31,900

M49.01-02 1A09F NextGen - Operations Concept Development (Validation Modeling) ATO Capital 0 4,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

M49.01-02 1A09H NextGen - Wake Turbulence (Re-categorization) ATO Capital 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

M03.02-00 4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation System Development ATO Capital 24,640 28,728 34,020 43,092 44,982 47,250 /2 

Subtotal ATO Capital 95,140 107,828 156,420 165,892 167,082 172,350

Air Traffice Organization Total 139,973 148,276 197,627 207,495 208,669 213,930

-- -- Airports Technology Research - Capacity AIP 8,907 9,109 9,109 9,109 9,109 9,109

-- -- Airports Technology Research - Safety AIP 9,805 10,239 10,239 10,239 10,239 10,239

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research Program - Capacity AIP 2,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research Program - Environment AIP 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research Program - Safety AIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Airports Total 28,712 34,348 34,348 34,348 34,348 34,348

091-110/111/116 A13.a. Environment and Energy R,E&D 15,469 15,608 15,670 15,467 15,253 15,028

M49.01-02 A13.b. NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics R,E&D 0 16,050 19,700 20,368 20,034 19,700

Subtotal R,E&D 15,469 31,658 35,370 35,835 35,287 34,728

M49.01-02 1A09C NextGen - Environment & Energy (Noise and Emissions Reduction) ATO Capital 0 2,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500

M49.01-02 1A09D NextGen - Environment & Energy (Validation Modeling) ATO Capital 0 4,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500

Subtotal ATO Capital 0 7,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Aviation Policy, Planning and Environment Total 15,469 38,658 55,370 55,835 55,287 54,728

-- -- Commercial Space Transportation Safety S&O 128 125 125 125 125 125

Commercial Space Transportation Total 128 125 125 125 125 125

TOTAL $270,808 $336,629 $418,893 $431,065 $431,255 $435,823

Notes:

/1

/2

/3 The funding levels listed for years 2010 to 2013 are estimates and subject to change.

The amount shown for CAASD includes only the R&D portion of the total CAASD line item amount. R&D represents 30.8% in FY 2008 and 37.8% in FY 2009 and beyond.

Table 4.2

Commercial Space Transportation (AST)

FAA R&D Program Budget by Sponsoring Organization

Aviation Safety (AVS)

Air Traffic Organization (ATO)

Aviation Policy, Planning and Environment (AEP)

Airports (ARP)

The amount shown for NextGen Demonstration is 40% of the total line item in FY 2008 and 100% in FY 2009 and beyond.
Chapter 4 83 

Table 4.2: Planned R&D Budget by Sponsoring Organization
84 Chapter 4 

Table 4.3: Planned R&D Budget by Research Category
Chapter 4 85 

Table 4.4: Planned R&D Budget by Performance Goal (Budget Exhibit II)
86 Chapter 4 

Partnerships and Other Research Mechanisms

The FAA enhances and expands its R&D capabilities by working with other government, academic, and industry organizations 

using a variety of mechanisms, such as partnerships, grants, and contracts. These research mechanisms help leverage 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 formal agreements, 

such as memoranda of understanding/agreement (MOU/MOA); cooperative efforts, such as 

interagency integrated product teams; and technical coordination, such as on-site personnel 

at field offices at other federal research laboratories and centers. 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.
Chapter 4 87 

Joint Planning and Development Office

The JPDO provides government-wide planning and 

coordination for aviation R&D. The JPDO members 

include: the Departments of Defense, Transportation, 

Homeland Security, and Commerce; FAA; NASA; and the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy. 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.

Memoranda of Understanding/Agreement

Joint research activities are performed via MOUs/MOAs 

that set forth areas for cooperative endeavor. 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 and is used to implement a broader MOU. 

An MOA includes interagency agreements (IAs) that are 

written agreements between the FAA and other agencies 

in which the FAA agrees to receive from, or exchange 

supplies or services with, the other agency. Appendix C 

lists the FAA MOUs, MOAs, and IAs.

FAA Field Offices

The FAA has field offices at the NASA Ames and 

Langley Research Centers to foster and provide 

technical coordination of research that contributes to 

modernization efforts and safety enhancements of the 

air transportation system. The first field office opened 

in 1971 at NASA Ames Research Center, located in 

Moffett Field, California. The second office opened in 

1978 at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, 

Virginia. Both offices report to the Office of Research 

and Technology Development in the ATO-P.

The Climate Change Science Program

Thirteen federal departments and agencies participate 

in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program to 

coordinate scientific research across a wide range 

of related climate and global change issues. The 

research addresses the Earth’s environmental and 

human systems, which are undergoing changes caused 

by a variety of natural and human-induced causes. 

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan27 

provides the research areas and questions the program 

addresses. The FAA supports this program by 

identifying the impact of aviation on the climate due 

to cruise altitude emissions in the upper troposphere 

and lower stratosphere. For more information, see 

http://www.climatescience.gov.

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 & water quality monitoring, modeling, and 

emissions. Under GEOSS, the FAA works with the 

Environmental Protection Agency to address air 

quality and emissions issues facing aviation. For more 

information, see http://www.epa.gov/geoss.

27 Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program, report by the Climate 

Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Climate Change 

Research, July 2003 (http://www.climatescience.gov).
88 Chapter 4 

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. The 

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 the FAA 

to share facilities, equipment, services, intellectual 

property, personnel resources, and other resources with 

private industry, academia, or state and local government 

agencies. Appendix C provides a list the Agency’s active 

FY 2008 CRDAs. For more information on using 

CRDAs, see http://www.tc.faa.gov/technologytransfer.

Contracts

The FAA awards contracts 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 

(SBIR) 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 property are inventions, which 

may be protected by patents. Appendix C provides a 

current list of the FAA’s patents.
Chapter 4 89 

Academ ia

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 mechanisms:

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.

Aviation Research Grants

All colleges, universities, and legally incorporated 

non-profit research institutions qualify for research 

grants. Research grants may use any scientific 

methodology deemed appropriate by the grantee. At 

the FAA, the evaluation criteria for grant proposals 

include the potential application of research 

results to the FAA’s far-term goals for civil aviation 

technology. Appendix C provides a summary of 

grants issued in FY 2008. For more information, 

see http://www.tc.faa.gov/logistics/grants.

Air Transportation Centers of Excellence

The FAA currently has five Air Transportation Centers 

of Excellence (COEs) through cooperative agreements 

with academic institutions to assist in mission-critical 

research and technology that focus on the areas of 

advanced materials, airliner cabin environment research, 

airport technology, general aviation, and noise and 

emissions mitigation. Through these multi-year, 

collaborative, cost-sharing efforts, the government and 

university-industry teams leverage each other’s resources 

to advance the technological future of the nation’s 

aviation community. Appendix C provides a summary 

of COE activities. For more information, see http://

www.coe.faa.gov.

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.
90 Chapter 4 

EUROCONTROL

The European Organization for the Safety of Air 

Navigation (EUROCONTROL) is a civil and military 

organization with the goal to develop a seamless, panEuropean air traffic management (ATM) system. In 

1986, EUROCONTROL and the 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.

Under the MOC, Action Plan 25 (called Support to 

Planning, Monitoring and Analysis of ATM R&D) was 

developed to aid collaboration between Europe and the 

FAA on managing, harmonizing, sharing, and exchanging 

knowledge about ATM R&D plans. This collaboration is a 

foundation for coordination between EUROCONTROL’s 

Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) and 

NextGen. The scope of this Action Plan entails both 

programmatic and technical content of R&D activities.

Transport Canada

In the spring of 2004, Transport Canada joined the 

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 the International Civil Aviation 

Authority (ICAO), is working to reduce smog-forming 

pollutants from the aviation sector and participates in 

the COE partnership to advance the state of knowledge 

in many key areas.

International

The FAA uses cooperative agreements with European and North American aviation organizations to participate in air traffic 

management modernization programs and to leverage research activities that harmonize operations and promote a seamless 

air transportation system worldwide.
Chapter 4 91 

Internal Program Reviews

The FAA R&D program receives continuous internal review 

to ensure that it meets sponsor needs, is high quality, and is 

well managed.

Integrated Capability Maturity Model 

(iCMM®)

The FAA uses the iCMM® to evaluate and improve the 

quality of its processes. The iCMM® provides a single 

model of best practice for enterprise-wide improvement. 

As a result of an internal review, the FAA created 

processes to improve its management of the R&D 

program. These processes received maturity ratings of 

level 2 and 3.

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, and recommend research priorities 

and programs.

R&D Executive Board

When R&D program formulation is complete, the 

FAA R&D Executive Board (REB) provides program 

approval. The REB is made up of senior executives 

representing the major R&D sponsors of the FAA. This 

process helps the FAA establish research priorities to 

meet its strategic goals and objectives.

The NextGen Review Board and the 

NextGen Management Board

The NextGen Review Board (formerly the OEP Review 

Board) provides oversight, status, prioritization, and guidance 

on existing and proposed NextGen initiatives. It is focused 

on making firm commitments to implement new operational 

capabilities in a coordinated, timely fashion. This will 

assist with integration, timely rulemaking, identification 

of required policy changes, and understanding of funding 

impacts. It assesses funded NextGen R&D programs and 

drives budget plans. The NextGen Review Board provides 

recommendations to the NextGen Management Board.

The NextGen Management Board (formerly called 

the OEP Associates Team), chaired by FAA’s Deputy 

Administrator, takes an enterprise approach to developing 

and executing FAA’s NextGen plan. With representatives 

from all key Agency lines of business, the Board has the 

authority to force timely resolution of emerging NextGen 

implementation issues. The Board’s focus includes: 

measuring the progress of deployments and of key activities 

that support decision-making; ensuring essential resources 

are available, including reprioritizing resources as necessary; 

issuing policies and guidance; and identifying leaders within 

their organizations who will be accountable for delivering 

system changes. For more information, see http://www.faa.

gov/about/initiatives/nextgen/.

Joint Resources Council

The Joint Resources Council (JRC) is the FAA’s corporatelevel 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 portfolios.

Evaluation

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. Instead, evaluation of R&D requires consideration of its quality, relevance, and performance. Today, the FAA 

conducts evaluation through formal and informal reviews performed by internal and external groups.
92 Chapter 4 

External Program Reviews

The FAA R&D program 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 also present 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 the FAA research activities are coordinated 

with other government agencies and industry. REDAC 

considers aviation research needs in five areas: NAS 

operations, airport technology, aircraft safety, human 

factors, and environment and energy28. A maximum of 

30 members can serve on the REDAC and represent 

corporations, universities, associations, consumers, 

and government agencies. For more information, see 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_

offices/ato/service_units/nextgen/research_planning/

redac/.

During 2008, the REDAC held three committee meetings 

and eleven subcommittee meetings and produced two 

reports. Appendix D provides the recommendations 

from these reports and the Agency responses. It also 

includes the FAA response to the REDAC Report of the 

Weather-ATM Integration Working Group.

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory 

Committee

Established in 1984, the Commercial Space Transportation 

Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) advises the 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-seven members. Each member is recommended 

by the Administrator and appointed by the Secretary of 

Transportation for 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 the 

FAA commercial space R&D reports and activities. For more 

information, see: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/

headquarters_offices/ast/industry/advisory_committee.

During 2008, the COMSTAC held two committee meetings 

and six working group meetings and produced the report, 2008 

Commercial Geosynchronous Orbit Launch Demand Forecast.

28 Aviation Safety Research Act of 1988, Public Law Number 100-591, 

November 3, 1988, and the FAA Research, Engineering and Development 

Authorization Act of 1990, Public Law Number 101-508, November 5, 1990.
Chapter 4 93 

National Academy of Science - 

Aeronautics and Space 

Engineering Board

The National Academy of Science established 

the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board 

(ASEB) in 1967 to focus talents and energies 

of the engineering community on significant 

aerospace policies and programs. The Board 

recommends priorities and procedures for 

achieving aerospace engineering objectives and 

offers a way to bring engineering and other 

related expertise to bear on aerospace issues 

of national importance. In response to the 

2005 NASA Authorization Act (P.L. 109-155), 

NASA tasked ASEB to assemble the Committee 

to Conduct an Independent Assessment of 

the Nation’s Wake Turbulence Research and 

Development Program. The Committee was 

tasked with prioritizing wake vortex research 

challenges, identifying gaps in federal research 

programs, and identifying the extent of federal 

leveraging of non-federal research.

The Committee completed the task and 

produced a report, Wake Turbulence: An Obstacle 

to Increased Air Traffic Capacity, in 2008. The 

report includes findings and recommendations 

on both the organizational and technical 

challenges to addressing wake turbulence and a 

proposal for a wake turbulence program plan. 

For more information, see http://www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=12044.

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 Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) 

for the FAA with program oversight and governance provided 

by representatives of airport operating agencies.

The ACRP Oversight Committee announced their FY 2009 

projects in August 2008. They will examine 14 different 

research areas that target near-term 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.

National Academy of Public Administration

The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) 

is an independent, non-partisan organization chartered by 

Congress to assist federal, state, and local governments in 

improving their effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. 

Federal agencies, Congress, and state and local governments 

seek the Academy’s assistance in addressing both near- and 

far-term challenges, including budgeting and finance, 

alternative agency structures, performance measurement, 

human resources management, information technology, 

devolution of federal programs, strategic planning, and 

managing for results.

In July 2007, the FAA chartered a NAPA study with two 

primary objectives:

• Identify the skill sets required by FAA’s ATO to integrate 

and implement NextGen, including, but not limited to, 

technical and contract management skills

• Define the strategies to obtain the expertise necessary to 

manage, integrate, and implement the complex activities 

inherent in the transformation to NextGen

The report, Identifying the Workforce to Respond to a National 

Imperative – The Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen), is available online at www.napawash.org. 
AC Advisory Circular

ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance

AIP Airport Improvement Program 

(appropriations account)

AMC Aerospace Medical Certification

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider

ASAP Aviation Safety Action Program

ASEB Aeronautics and Space Engineering 

Board

ASIAS Aviation Safety Information Analysis 

and Sharing

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATD&P Advanced Technology Development 

and Prototyping

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATO Air Traffic Organization (FAA)

ATOP Advanced Technologies and Oceanic 

Procedures

ATO-P Air Traffic Organization - NextGen and 

Operations Planning (FAA)

CAASD Center for Advanced Aviation System 

Development

CAVS-S Cockpit Display of Traffic Information 

Assisted Visual Separation

C3 Command, Control, and 

Communications

CDA Continuous Descent Approach

CDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIP Capital Investment Plan

COE Center of Excellence

COMSTAC Commercial Space Transportation 

Advisory Committee

CONUS Continental United States

CoSPA Consolidated Storm Product for 

Aviation

CRDA Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement

DARWIN Design Assessment of Reliability with 

INspection

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOC Department of Commerce

DoD Department of Defense

DOT Department of Transportation

DSA Detect, Sense, and Avoid

EA Enterprise Architecture

EDMS Emissions and Dispersion Model 

System

EDS Environment Design System

EMS Environmental Management System

ERAM En Route Automation Modernization

ERIDS En Route Information Display System

EUROCONTROL European Organization for the Safety 

of Air Navigation

F&E Facilities and Equipment 

(appropriations account)

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FASTGEN Fast Shot-Line Generator

FEWS Future En Route Workstation

FICON Field Condition

FOD Foreign Object Debris

FRM Flammability Reduction Means

FSS Flight Service Specialists

FY Fiscal Year

GA General Aviation

GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of 

Systems

GIAA Grant-in-Aid for Airports 

(appropriations account, see AIP)

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

HFACS Human Factors Analysis and 

Classification System

HUMS Health and Usage Monitoring Systems

IA Interagency Agreement

I&I Integration and Implementation

ICAO International Civil Aviation 

Organization

iCMM® Integrated Capability Maturity Model

IMA Integrated Modular Avionics

IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions

IWP JPDO Next Generation Air 

transportation System (NextGen) 

Integrated Work Plan: A Functional 

Outline

JPDO Joint Planning and Development Office

JRC Joint Resources Council

MAF Microprocessor Approval Framework

MMPI Multiphasic Personality Inventory

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOC Memorandum of Cooperation

Acronyms and Abbrev iations

94 
Photo Credits:

(cover)-Nino Andonis - www.ninoandonis.com; ii-Robert Bach; iii-Paul Anderson; iv-Clara Natoli; 1‐Alex DeClerk; 11-Peter Dell - pilot, Rogério 

Medeiros Pinho - airport check-in, Janet Daisy Durham - airport runways; 13-Daniele Musella; 14-Simon Jackson; 15‐Gregory Akers - www.

flickr.com/photos/gtarded/; 23-Dani Simmonds; 24-Gregory Akers - www.flickr.com/photos/gtarded/; 25-Kenn W. Kiser; 29-Christiaan van 

Heijst - www.pbase.com/flying_dutchman/; 30-James P. Richardson (L), Mike Meade (R); 31 & 33-James P. Richardson; 34-Christiaan van Heijst 

- www.pbase.com/flying_dutchman/; 37 & 40‐Gregory Akers - www.flickr.com/photos/gtarded/; 42 & 43-Doug McAbee; 44-Christiaan van 

Heijst - www.pbase.com/flying_dutchman/; 50-David Loudon; 51 & 53‐Christiaan van Heijst - www.pbase.com/flying_dutchman/; 54‐Gregory 

Akers - www.flickr.com/photos/gtarded/; 58-Kevin Rosseel; 59-Bekah Healey; 61-Robert Bach; 63-Dani Simmonds; 64, 65 & 66‐Gregory Akers 

- www.flickr.com/photos/gtarded/; 73‐Kenn W. Kiser; 74‐Gregory Akers - www.flickr.com/photos/gtarded/; 77-Robert Bach; 78‐Gregory Akers 

- www.flickr.com/photos/gtarded/; 81 & 86‐Robert Bach; 88-Dani Simmonds; 89-Robert Bach; 92-www.NASA.gov

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAPA National Academy of Public 

Administration

NARP National Aviation Research Plan

NAS National Airspace System

NASA National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

NEO Net Enabled Operations

NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation 

System

NGIP FAA’s Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen) 

Implementation Plan

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NOTAM Notice to Airmen

NOx Nitrogen Oxide

NTSB U.S. National Transportation Safety 

Board

OAM Office of Aerospace Medicine (FAA)

OE Operational Error

OEP Operational Evolution Partnership

OI Operational Improvements

OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget

OPD Optimized Profile Descent

Ops Operations (appropriations account)

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

PAPR Powered Air Purifying Respirators

PARTNER Partnership for AiR Transportation 

Noise and Emissions Reduction

R&D Research and Development

R,E&D Research, Engineering and 

Development (appropriations account)

REB FAA R&D Executive Board

REDAC Research, Engineering, and 

Development Advisory Committee

RNAV Required Navigation

RNP Required Navigation Performance

RWSL Runway Status Lights

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research

SMS Safety Management System

SoC System on a Chip

TBO Trajectory Based Operations

TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance 

System

TMA Traffic Management Advisor

TRB Transportation Research Board

UEDDAM Uncontained Engine Debris Damage 

Assessment Model

UAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems

VFR Visual Flight Rules

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

WJHTC William J. Hughes Technical Center

WTIC Weather Technology in the Cockpit

95 

2009 

National Aviation Research Plan 

(NARP) 

Appendices 

A - Program Descriptions 

B - 2008 R&D Annual Review 

C - Partnership Activities 

D - Research, Engineering, and 

Development Advisory Committee 

E - Alignment of FAA NextGen R&D 

Programs 

F - Acronyms and Abbreviations 

June 22, 2009 

Report of the Federal Aviation Administration 

to the United States Congress 

pursuant to 49 U.S. Code 44501(c) 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-i 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item R&D Program Title Page 

R,E&D A11.a. Fire Research and Safety A-1 

R,E&D A11.b. Propulsion and Fuel Systems A-7 

R,E&D A11.c. Advanced Materials/Structural Safety A-13 

R,E&D A11.d. Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety A-19 

R,E&D A11.e. Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft A-27 

R,E&D A11.f. Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research A-33 

R,E&D A11.g. Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors A-38 

R,E&D A11.h. System Safety Management/Aviation Safety Risk Analysis A-44 

R,E&D A11.i. Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors A-52 

R,E&D A11.j. Aeromedical Research A-60 

R,E&D A11.k. Weather Program A-74 

R,E&D A11.l. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research A-80 

R,E&D A12.a. Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) A-85 

R,E&D A12.b. Wake Turbulence A-92 

R,E&D A12.d. NextGen – Air Ground Integration A-98 

R,E&D A12.e. NextGen – Self Separation A-105 

R,E&D A12.f. NextGen – Weather Technology in the Cockpit A-113 

R,E&D A13.a. Environment and Energy A-118 

R,E&D A13.b. NextGen Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics A-130 

R,E&D A14.a. System Planning and Resource Management A-138 

R,E&D A14.b. William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility A-142 

F&E 1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction A-148 

F&E 1A01B System Capacity, Planning and Improvement A-152 

F&E 1A01C Operations Concept Validation A-158 

F&E 1A01D NAS Weather Requirements A-163 

F&E 1A01E Airspace Management Program A-168 

F&E 1A01I Wake Turbulence Research A-174 

F&E 1A07 NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development A-178 

F&E 1A08A NextGen – ATC/Technical Ops Human Factors – Controller Efficiency & 

Air/Ground Integration A-184 

F&E 1A08B NextGen – New Air Traffic Management Requirement A-191 

F&E 1A08C NextGen – Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling A-197 

F&E 1A08D NextGen – Environment and Energy – Environmental Management 

System and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction A-201 

F&E 1A08E NextGen – Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization A-208 

F&E 1A08F NextGen - Operational Assessments A-213 

F&E 1A08G NextGen – System Safety Management Transformation A-217 

F&E 4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development (CAASD) A-222 

AIP * Airport Cooperative Research– Capacity A-228 

AIP * Airport Cooperative Research– Environment A-233 

AIP * Airport Cooperative Research– Safety A-237 

AIP * Airport Technology Research – Capacity A-241 

AIP * Airport Technology Research – Safety A-246 

OPS * Commercial Space Transportation Safety A-251 

*Budget line item numbers are not used for these programs within the Operations (OPS) and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) appropriations. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-ii 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item R&D Program Title Page 

R,E&D A11.c. Advanced Materials/Structural Safety A-13 

R,E&D A11.j. Aeromedical Research A-60 

R,E&D A11.i. Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors A-52 

R,E&D A11.f. Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research A-33 

AIP * Airport Cooperative Research– Capacity A-228 

AIP * Airport Cooperative Research– Environment A-233 

AIP * Airport Cooperative Research– Safety A-237 

AIP * Airport Technology Research – Capacity A-241 

AIP * Airport Technology Research – Safety A-246 

F&E 1A01E Airspace Management Program A-168 

R,E&D A11.d. Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety A-19 

F&E 4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development (CAASD) A-222 

OPS * Commercial Space Transportation Safety A-251 

R,E&D A11.e. Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft A-27 

R,E&D A13.a. Environment and Energy A-118 

R,E&D A11.a. Fire Research and Safety A-1 

R,E&D A11.g. Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors A-38 

R,E&D A12.a. Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) A-85 

F&E 1A01D NAS Weather Requirements A-163 

R,E&D A12.d. NextGen – Air Ground Integration A-98 

F&E 1A08A NextGen – ATC/Technical Ops Human Factors – Controller Efficiency & 

Air/Ground Integration A-184 

F&E 1A08D NextGen – Environment and Energy – Environmental Management 

System and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction A-201 

F&E 1A08B NextGen – New Air Traffic Management Requirement A-191 

F&E 1A08F NextGen - Operational Assessments A-213 

F&E 1A08C NextGen – Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling A-197 

R,E&D A12.e. NextGen – Self Separation A-105 

F&E 1A08G NextGen – System Safety Management Transformation A-217 

F&E 1A08E NextGen – Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization A-208 

R,E&D A12.f. NextGen – Weather Technology in the Cockpit A-113 

F&E 1A07 NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development A-178 

R,E&D A13.b. NextGen Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics A-130 

F&E 1A01C Operations Concept Validation A-158 

R,E&D A11.b. Propulsion and Fuel Systems A-7 

F&E 1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction A-148 

F&E 1A01B System Capacity, Planning and Improvement A-152 

R,E&D A14.a. System Planning and Resource Management A-138 

R,E&D A11.h. System Safety Management/Aviation Safety Risk Analysis A-44 

R,E&D A11.l. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research A-80 

R,E&D A12.b. Wake Turbulence A-92 

F&E 1A01I Wake Turbulence Research A-174 

R,E&D A11.k. Weather Program A-74 

R,E&D A14.b. William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility A-142 

*Budget line item numbers are not used for these programs within the Operations (OPS) and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) appropriations.
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-1 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.a. Fire Research and Safety $7,799,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Increased Safety. 

Intended Outcomes: The Fire Research and Safety Program helps achieve FAA’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. The program develops technologies, procedures, test 

methods, and fire performance criteria that can prevent accidents caused by hidden in-flight fires and fuel 

tank explosions and improve survivability during a post-crash fire. Fire safety research focuses on nearterm improvements in fire test methods and materials performance criteria, fire detection and suppression 

systems, aircraft fuel tank explosion protection, and long-range development of ultra-fire resistant cabin 

materials. 

Agency Outputs: 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. Through this research, which is also producing new materials and governmentowned patents, FAA provides industry with state-of-the-art safety products and information. 

Research Goals: The 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 and structural materials, improved fuel tank inerting systems and extended inerting applications, 

and new or improved fire detection and extinguishment systems. Additionally, long-term research will be 

conducted to develop the enabling technology for a fireproof aircraft cabin constructed of ultra-fire resistant 

materials. The following milestones directly support the ultimate strategic goals of in-flight fire prevention, 

fuel tank explosion prevention and improved post-crash fire survivability: 

• By FY 2010, develop and validate a methodology for predicting flammability of wing fuel tanks of 

aluminum or composite construction. 

• By FY 2011, provide comprehensive fire safety guidance for high energy density lithium batteries in 

passenger carry-on items, shipped as cargo and in aircraft power systems. 

• By FY 2012, define composite fuselage fire safety design criteria 

• By FY 2013, demonstrate the improvements in post-crash fire survivability, provided by ultra-fire 

resistant materials using full-scale test simulations. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: 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 – These representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies 

annually review the program’s research activities. 

• Technical Community Representative Groups – The FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to 

ensure that 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. 

• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) – The 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) – The FAA works with PHMSA to 

cooperatively develop requirements/guidelines for the safe transport of hazardous materials 

(current focus on lithium batteries). 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-2 

R&D Partnerships: 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 the international regulatory authorities. 

• Arrangements with Fortune 100 companies to share development costs for new fire resistant 

materials. 

Accomplishments: The FAA operates the world’s most extensive aircraft fire test facilities. The FAA 

certification engineers receive training in these facilities each year and, 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 on-line at 

http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/reports.asp) highlighting research results that have led to major improvements in 

aircraft safety. 

Outstanding program accomplishments include: 

FY 2008: 

• Measured and compared the flammability of composite and aluminum wing fuel tanks under 

simulated flight conditions. 

• Measured and compared the heat transfer from an in-flight fire in composite and aluminum 

fuselage constructions. 

• Developed safe acute exposure limits for gaseous halocarbon extinguishing agents in ventilated 

aircraft 

• Developed a one-dimensional thermo-kinetic burning model for combustible materials. 

FY 2007: 

• Developed a cabin crew training video for fighting in-flight fires. 

• Characterized the flammability of epoxy-graphite structural composites. 

• Developed and standardized a next generation burner for insulation burn-through resistance. 

• Evaluated the flammability of non-halogen, ultra-fire resistant plastics. 

FY 2006: 

• Evaluated the cabin hazards caused by outgassing from a composite fuselage material subjected to 

a simulated post-crash fuel fire. 

• Determined the fire hazards of lithium ion batteries shipped as air cargo. 

• Conducted engine nacelle fire extinguishment tests to determine the suitability of a promising new 

environmentally friendly agent, NOVEC 1230, as a replacement for the currently used halon. 

FY 2005: 

• Issued the first Department of Transportation licenses to manufacture the FAA-patented microscale 

combustion calorimeter for evaluating the heat release rate of extremely small research samples of 

advanced ultra-fire resistant material. 

• Developed technology to support the use of low false alarm cargo fire/smoke detectors. 

Previous Years: 

• Developed and demonstrated a simple and cost effective fuel tank inerting system. 

• Determined the limiting concentration of oxygen to prevent fuel tank explosions. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-3 

• Developed improved and new flammability tests for thermal acoustic insulation, measuring in-flight 

fire resistance and post-crash burn-through resistance, respectively. 

• Developed minimum performance test standards for halon replacement agents. 

• Developed and demonstrated an onboard cabin water spray system for significantly improving 

post-crash fire survivability. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Fire Safety Improvements 

• Developed guidance for the effective extinguishment of cabin fires involving lithium batteries in 

passenger carry-on items. 

• Developed fire test criteria to limit the emission of hazardous gases during post-crash fire exposure 

of a burn-through resistant fuselage, including composite construction. 

• Demonstrated the application of non-intrusive oxygen measurement technology in aircraft fuel 

tanks. 

• Developed analytical model to predict the flammability in wing fuel tanks. 

Fire Resistant Materials 

• Fabricated small-scale samples of ultra-fire resistant thermoplastic components (e.g., seat tray or 

passenger service unit applications) and measure fire and mechanical performance; down select 

optimal thermoplastic materials for aircraft cabin. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

• Research on in-flight fire safety will address all-cargo (freighter) aircraft and the growing problem 

with lithium battery fire hazards. This research responds to improved freighter fire safety 

recommendations issued by NTSB and the escalating incidence of lithium battery fires. 

• Research related to the fire behavior of structural composites is driven by the new Boeing 787, the 

first large transport aircraft with a composite fuselage and wings. A number of fire safety concerns 

will be studied, associated with the replacement of aluminum with a combustible composite 

material that can burn and is a poor conductor of heat. 

• Research will also continue on the improvement of existing required flammability tests and the 

development of new tests for novel applications of materials that may impact future aircraft fire 

safety; namely, new magnesium alloy seat structure which offers potential large weight savings. 

• Fuel tank explosion protection research will focus on supporting the proposed introduction of fuel 

tank inerting systems in the U.S. Fleet, and understanding and predicting the flammability of wing 

fuel tanks, which is an immediate concern for aluminum and composite (e.g., B-787) constructions. 

• Long term, applied research will continue to develop the enabling technology for ultra-fire resistant 

interior materials, and facilitate the transfer of that technology to the private sector through 

patents, reports, publications, and international standards. In addition, work will continue on the 

development of a numerical computer model to simulate full-scale aircraft fire tests to determine 

the improvement in post-crash fire survivability provided by ultra-fire resistant interior materials. 

New Initiatives 

No new initiatives are planned in FY 2010. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Fire Safety Improvements 

• Evaluate adequacy of certification tests used to demonstrate freighter smoke/fire detection 

compliance with regulatory requirements. 

• Determine the cost/benefit of freighter on-board fire detection and suppression systems. 

• Examine the effectiveness of de-pressurization to control cargo fires in freighter aircraft. 

• Evaluate the relative fire hazards of state-of-the-art fuel cell technology. 

• Develop a small-scale test that measures the in-flight fire resistance of composite fuselage 

materials. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-4 

• Evaluate the fire hazards of magnesium alloy seat structure during full-scale post-crash fire tests. 

Fire Resistant Materials 

• Fabricate small-scale samples of ultra-fire resistant fabrics and foams (e.g., seat cushions 

application) and measure fire and mechanical performance; down select optimal fabric and foam 

materials for aircraft cabin. 

• Extend the FAA thermal-kinetic burning model (ThermaKin) to charring materials and 

laminates/composites. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-5 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 148,348 

FY 2009 Appropriated 6,650 

FY 2010 Request 7,799 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 32,535 

Total 195,332 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

Fire Research and Safety 2,570 2,816 3,355 2,961 3.495

Personnel Costs 3,379 3,588 3,650 3,443 3,940

Other In-house Costs 233 234 345 246 364

 Total 6,182 6,638 7,350 6,650 7,799

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 6,182 6,638 7,350 6,650 7,799

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 6,182 6,638 7,350 6,650 7,799
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-6 

A11.a. - Fire Research and Safety Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

061-110 Fire Research & Safety 

Fire Resistant Materials 337

Fabricate/test small-scale cabin plastics ♦ 

Fabricate/test small-scale cabin fabrics and foams ◊ Evaluate improvement in post-crash fire survivability 

provided by ultra-fire resistant materials using full-scale 

fire test simulations ◊ 

Demonstrate ThermaKin model for charring materials 

and laminates/composites ◊ 

Fire Safety Improvement 3,158 

Assess need/develop improved fire test criteria for 

hidden materials not previously addressed ♦ 

Examine aircraft lithium battery technology for fire safety 

risks ♦

Develop guidance for extinguishment of lithium battery 

fires in passenger carry on items ♦

Develop fire test criteria gas emissions during burnthrough resistant fuselage post-crash fire exposure ♦

Develop analytical model wing fuel tank flammability ♦ 

Demonstrate oxygen measurement technology for fuel 

tanks ♦ 

Develop and validate wing fuel tank prediction method 

(aluminum and composite) ◊ 

Examine fuel cell technology for fire safety risks ◊

Evaluate freighter fire detection certification tests ◊

Determine cost/benefit of freighter detection/suppression 

systems ◊ 

Examine effectiveness of depressurization for cargo fire 

control ◊ 

Develop in-flight fire resistance test for composite 

materials ◊

Full-scale tests on magnesium seat structure ◊

Provide comprehensive guidance on lithium battery fire 

safety ◊ 

Standardize composite fire tests ◊ 

Develop a small-scale test for seat structure, if warranted ◊ Define composite fuselage fire-safety design criteria ◊ 

Develop fire safety improvements in freighter ◊ 

Develop detection/extinguishing system to suppress 

hidden in-flight fires ◊ 

Examine fire safety aspects of aircraft oxygen systems ◊

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 4,304

Total Budget Authority 7,799 6,650 7,799 7,941 8,065 8,196 8,333

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-7 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.b. Propulsion and Fuel Systems $3,105,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Increased Safety. 

Intended Outcomes: The Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program helps achieve FAA’s strategic goal of 

increasing aviation safety by reducing the number of accidents associated with the failure of aircraft 

engines, components, and fuel systems. 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. To improve safety, the program conducts research needed 

to develop tools, guidelines, and data to support improvements in turbine engine certification requirements. 

The program also conducts research to test new unleaded fuels and piston engine modifications to seek a 

safe alternative to current leaded aviation gasoline (avgas), as well as the testing and development of jet 

fuel made from alternative sources. 

Agency Outputs: The FAA issues certification standards, Advisory Circulars, and reviews the specifications 

and practices recommended by recognized technical societies (ASTM International, 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. 

Research Goals: There are two main research areas within the Propulsion and Fuels Program. The first 

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 Advisory Circular 

AC33.14-1, “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 second research area is aviation fuels. One goal is to find an unleaded replacement for current leaded 

avgas (100LL) used in piston engines. The replacement fuel should be equivalent in performance to 100LL 

and be a seamless, transparent change to a general aviation (GA) pilot. In addition, research will be 

conducted evaluating technologies for modification of piston engines to enable their safe operation using 

unleaded fuel. Extensive laboratory and test cell dynamometer engine testing will evaluate and characterize 

all new fuel formulations provided by industry for consideration. Lastly, research will be conducted related 

to developing jet fuel from alternative sources such as coal, natural gas, and biomass. 

• By FY 2012, 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 2012, develop a certification tool that will predict the risk of failure of rotor disks containing 

material and manufacturing anomalies. 

• By FY 2014, evaluate the technology of modifying general aviation piston engines to run on 

unleaded fuels. 

• Through FY 2014, evaluate and characterize all candidate replacement formulations for 100LL. 

• Through FY 2014, evaluate and characterize candidate formulations for jet fuel made from 

alternative sources. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program works with the 

following industry and government groups: 

• Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory 

Committee – representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually 

review the program’s activities. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-8 

• Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to 

ensure that the program’s research projects support new rule making and development of 

alternate means of compliance with existing rules. 

• The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development Group – 

representatives from Texaco, Exxon Mobil, Phillips Petroleum, Chevron, British Petroleum, Cessna, 

Raytheon (Beech), Teledyne Continental, and Textron Lycoming facilitate two-way transfer of 

technology between government and industry to benefit all participants. 

• The CRC Molecular Marker Ad Hoc Committee – representatives from turbine engine 

manufacturers, major oil companies and FAA provide oversight to ensure the safe implementation 

when adding molecular markers to jet fuel. 

• The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) – working subcommittees on rotor integrity and rotor 

manufacturing. 

• The National Transportation Safety Board – Recommendations A-90-89 and A-90-90 recommend 

that a damage tolerance philosophy be implemented in the design and maintenance of failure 

critical engine parts and A-98-28 recommends that FAA in cooperation with industry address the 

uncontained engine failures caused by cold dwell fatigue. 

R&D Partnerships: Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program R&D partners include: 

• Turbine Rotor Material Design Program - Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) has teamed with 

Pratt and Whitney, General Electric, Honeywell, and Rolls Royce to provide DARWINTM (Design 

Assessment of Reliability With INspection), a probabilistic-based rotor life and risk 

management certification tool. 

• The AIA working subcommittees on rotor integrity and rotor manufacturing. 

• The Ohio State University, is conducting research on a failure mode of titanium rotor disks known 

as cold dwell fatigue. 

• SwRI is conducting research to determine the acceptable level of fuel dye contamination allowable 

for the safe, continuous operation of turbine engines in partnership with the Defense Energy 

Support Center, Internal Revenue Service, Air Transport Association, American Petroleum Institute, 

General Electric Aircraft Engines, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, Honeywell and Boeing. 

• CRC Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development Group – includes Texaco, Exxon-Mobil, Phillips 

Petroleum, Chevron, British Petroleum, Cessna, Raytheon (Beech), Teledyne Continental, and 

Textron Lycoming; this group facilitates two-way transfer of technology between government and 

industry to benefit all participants. 

• Cooperative Research & Development Agreements (CRDA) with various industry partners. 

• The FAA General Aviation Center of Excellence in conjunction with direct grants with the University 

of North Dakota, South Dakota State University and Baylor University – these relationships produce 

feasibility studies for the use of ethanol fuel blends as a possible unleaded piston fuel replacement 

for 100LL avgas. 

Accomplishments: Outstanding program accomplishments include: 

FY 2008: 

• Released an enhanced version of the DARWINTM probabilistic rotor design code with capabilities for 

surface damage of turned surfaces and blade slots. 

• Published final report on full scale engine tests of 45 fuel formulations provided by the CRC 

FY 2007: 

• Completed an enhanced version of the DARWINTM code with the following new features: new 

analysis mode for titanium hard alpha anomalies, probabilistic treatment of multiple anomalies, and 

a crack formation module. 

• Completed full scale engine tests of 45 fuel formulations provided by the CRC. 

FY 2006: 

• Continued the enhancement of the DARWINTM probabilistic rotor design code. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-9 

• Completed research on an experimental GA fuel provided by Exxon-Mobil under a cooperative 

research and development agreement; results demonstrated that amine-based additives show 

some promise as a replacement for 100LL. 

• Completed research investigating the feasibility of using ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), an ethanol 

fuel blend, as a GA fuel; results showed there are significant range penalties associated with this 

fuel that make it an undesirable replacement for 100LL. 

FY 2005: 

• Completed an enhanced version of the DARWINTM code that addresses multiple subsurface defects 

in turbine engine rotor disks. 

FY 2004: 

• Populated a rotor manufacturing induced anomaly database for use by the engine industry in 

sharing lessons learned in the manufacture of critical rotating engine parts to prevent future 

accidents caused by manufacturing defects. 

• Completed an industrial demonstration of the pool power controller for the vacuum arc remelting 

process that will aid in producing defect-free titanium material for the manufacturer of turbine 

engine rotor disks. 

• Completed research on the performance in a GA piston engine of 30 unleaded fuel formulations 

specified by the CRC Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development Group. The research showed that 

none of the candidate formulations match the detonation suppression capability of 100LL. 

Previous Years: 

• Demonstrated, verified, and industrialized the probabilistic rotor design and life management code 

known as DARWINTM for titanium alloys that provides turbine engine manufacturers a tool to 

augment their safe life approach. 

• Demonstrated and verified the DEFORMTM defect deformation code for analysis of titanium alloy 

defects during the rotor disk forging process. 

• Proved that the fleet octane requirement is the single most critical parameter for development of 

high octane unleaded aviation gasoline and that the motor octane rating of any potential candidate 

must be 100 or greater. 

• Defined detonation detection procedures that were adopted by the American Society for Testing 

and Materials as a test standard (ASTM D6424) for use on candidate unleaded replacement fuels. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Turbine Engine Research 

• Released an enhanced version of the DARWINTM probabilistic rotor design code with capabilities for 

automatic rotor modeling. 

• Completed experiments to calibrate and verify analytical methods for time-dependent crack growth 

and thermo-mechanical fatigue crack growth. 

Aviation Fuels and Fuel System Safety Research 

• Continued laboratory characterization and engine ground testing of candidate unleaded fuels to 

replace 100LL avgas. 

• Completed research on the effects of molecular markers in Jet A fuel with results published in a 

final report. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

• Continue to advance DARWINTM, the probabilistically based turbine engine rotor design and life 

management code to enhance its predictive capability. This code is an FAA approved means to 

support a damage tolerant based certification enhancement to the current safe life design 

approach. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-10 

• 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. 

• Continue to 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. 

• Continue laboratory characterization and engine ground testing of candidate unleaded fuels to 

replace 100LL avgas. 

New Initiatives 

• Conduct research into technology of modifying general aviation piston engines to run on unleaded 

fuels. 

• Conduct research related to developing jet fuel from alternative sources such as coal, natural gas, 

and biomass. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Turbine Engine Research 

• Release an enhanced version of the DARWINTM probabilistic rotor design code with second 

generation capabilities for automatic rotor modeling. 

Aviation Fuels and Fuel System Safety Research 

• Continue laboratory characterization and engine ground testing of candidate unleaded fuels to 

replace 100LL avgas. 

• Conduct research into technology of modifying general aviation piston engines to run on unleaded 

fuels. 

• Conduct research related to developing jet fuel from alternative sources such as coal, natural gas, 

and biomass. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-11 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 97,916 

FY 2009 Appropriated 3,669 

FY 2010 Request 3,105 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 12,824 

Total 117,514 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

Propulsion And Fuel Systems 4,508 2,592 2,463 2,415 1,579

Personnel Costs 1,155 1,366 1,476 1,168 1,400

Other In-house Costs 78 90 147 86 126

 Total 5,741 4,048 4,086 3,669 3,105

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 5,741 4,048 4,086 3,669 3,150

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 5,741 4,048 4,086 3,669 3,150
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-12 

A11.b. - Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

063-110 Propulsion and Fuel Systems 

Turbine Engine Research 1.579 Develop certification tool that will predict the risk of 

failure of rotor disks containing material and 

manufacturing anomalies 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Release an enhanced version of the DARWINTM 

probabilistic rotor design code with capabilities for 

automatic rotor modeling 

♦ 

Release an enhanced version of the DARWINTM 

probabilistic rotor design code with second generation 

capabilities for automatic rotor modeling 

 ◊ 

 Complete experiments to calibrate and verify analytical 

methods for time-dependent crack growth and thermomechanical fatigue crack growth. 

♦ 

Develop 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. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Unleaded Fuels and Fuel System Safety 

Research 0 

Complete research on the effects of molecular markers in 

Jet A fuel. ♦ 

Evaluate the technology of modifying general aviation 

piston engines to run on unleaded fuels ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Evaluate and characterize all candidate replacement 

formulations for 100LL ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Evaluate and characterize candidate formulations for Jet 

fuel made from alternative sources ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 1,526 

Total Budget Authority 3,105 3,669 3,105 3,150 3,186 3,224 3,264 

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-13 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.c. Advanced Materials/Structural Safety $2,448,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Increased Safety. 

Intended Outcomes: The Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program helps FAA achieve its strategic 

goal of increasing aviation safety by preventing accidents that would occur as a result of structural failure. 

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. 

Agency Outputs: 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 

The 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 20-107A, 

“Composite Structure” has been published, advances in technologies and materials require periodic updates 

and expansion of the Advisory Circular. The FAA Chief Scientist and Technical Advisor disseminates current 

technical information developed in this program to regulatory personnel through technical reports, 

handbooks, and guidance. The goal of this data exchange is to allow regulatory processes to keep pace 

with industry advances and benefit from state-of-the-art technology and design. This provides the most 

efficient safety and certification information to the FAA certification service and industry. 

Structural Safety 

The 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. The 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). 

Research Goals: To prevent accidents associated with the airframe use of advanced materials and to 

improve the crashworthiness of airframes in the event of accidents, the 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. 

• By FY 2010, generate data using full-scale structure with a goal of uniform, accepted certification 

methodology for damage tolerance and fatigue of composite airframe. 

• By FY 2010, develop test and analysis protocols for repeated loads and damage threats. 

• By FY 2011, identify required data and test methods for high temperature materials to assure 

safety of new constructions. 

• By FY 2012, initiate study of ceramics as they are used in engine components. 

• 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, define criteria for use of embedded sensors in fault tolerant structures. 

• By FY 2013, develop criteria for damage tolerance assessments of laminate composite structures. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-14 

• By FY 2013, generate methodology for demonstrating aircraft structure crashworthiness 

certification by analysis. 

• By FY 2014 evaluate threats from flight line activities on composite aircraft structures. 

• By FY 2014 evaluate the ability of models to predict off-axis and multiple terrain impacts. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: 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 – sets priorities to develop technologies, conduct data analysis for current aircraft, 

and anticipate problems related to future aircraft. 

• The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) – this FAA committee and its subcommittees 

help to ensure the effectiveness of the agency’s rule making by identifying R&D requirements and 

priorities, providing guidance for the update of documents, such as the Advisory Circular (AC) 

AC20-107A, 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 that the program’s research projects support new rule making and development of 

alternate means of compliance for existing rules. 

R&D Partnerships: The Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program benefits from a close working 

relationship with the Joint Center of Excellence (COE) for Advanced Materials and Structures (JAMS) lead 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, 

manufacturing and product usage. On recommendations by the ARAC, material data contained in this 

handbook are acceptable for use in the certification process. 

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. 

Accomplishments: The Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program provides technical reports 

(available on-line at http//actlibrary.tc.faa.gov), handbooks, ACs, and certification guidance to FAA 

organizations, aircraft manufacturers, maintainers, and operators. Outstanding program accomplishments 

include: 

FY 2008: 

• Developed chemical characterization tests to ensure adequate surface preparation for bonded 

joints. 

• Developed safety criteria for damage tolerance of fiber/metal laminates and friction stir welded 

joints. 

• Assessed the severity of control surface stiffness degradation and its effect on dynamic 

characteristics. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-15 

• Developed analytical method to evaluate anthropomorphic test device (ATD) model results for 

crash testing 

• Completed research of computer modeling of aircraft water impacts to help determine revised 

rotorcraft water impact and ditching standards. 

FY 2007: 

• Completed the validation of analytical methodology to predict residual strength of a composite 

sandwich structures following an impact event. 

• Established feasibility of embedded sensors to track damage in composite structures. 

• Evaluated aging composite aircraft by a destructive evaluation and testing. 

• Developed an updated ATR 42-300 model to analyze critical fuselage frame failure observed in the 

vertical drop test. 

• Developed occupant protection criteria for side facing seats commonly used in business jets. 

Currently, no criteria exist. 

• Evaluated the use of reticulated foam to mitigate post-crash fires using full-scale sled tests. 

FY 2006: 

• Developed software for analyzing bonded joints that can be used by the general aviation industry. 

• Developed a web-based course on maintenance of composite airframe structures. 

• Developed analytical models that predict durability of braided materials. 

• Generated data on human neck injury criteria for side-facing aircraft seats that may be used to 

develop safety criteria for business jet with side-facing seats. Currently, no criteria exist for these 

seats. 

Previous years: 

• Developed an aircraft seat cushion replacement methodology that may have the potential to 

replace future requirement for full-scale sled test currently required when replacing aircraft seat 

cushions. 

• Established common practices for bonded joints in composites structures that served as a basis for 

an Advisory Circular. 

• Developed data on the procurement and processing of composites that resulted in a published 

Advisory Circular. 

• Analyzed data from ATR42-300 drop test to help establish crashworthiness criteria for commuter 

aircraft. 

• Developed an economical data reduction method, characterizing statistically composite materials 

through shared databases, that is now used worldwide by the general aviation industry. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Advanced Materials 

• Generated composite material dynamic properties. 

• Initiated studies for the types of threats to composite aircraft structures while at the service gate 

and on the flight line. 

• Provided data to the FAA Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) in support of the revision of AC 20-107A 

to AC 20-107B 

• Continued to develop consensus for a damage tolerance and fatigue certification protocol. 

Structural Safety 

• Develop analytical modeling techniques of aircraft crash conditions. 

• Initiate review of the need for off axis analysis capabilities to assist in certification of structures for 

crashworthiness. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-16 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

The program will continue to focus on damage tolerance and fatigue issues of composite airframes. In 

addition it will focus on the aging of composite materials. Composite control surfaces degradation on 

transport airplanes will be explored and linked to aircraft safety issues. Bonded joints will be studied for 

damage tolerance and durability. Researchers will also explore savings in maintenance costs, of using 

embedded sensors to monitor in-service damage and will investigate the long-term safety friction stirwelded parts and fiber/metal laminates proposed for use in new aircraft. In addition, they will collect data 

for new materials and applications, such as ceramics and high temperatures. 

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. 

New Initiatives 

No new initiatives are planned in FY 2010. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Advanced Materials 

• Verify accepted certification methodology for damage tolerance and fatigue using full-scale test 

data. 

• Develop test and analysis protocols for repeated loads and damage threats 

Structural Safety 

• Develop analytical modeling techniques of aircraft structures crash conditions 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-17 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 98,081 

FY 2009 Appropriated 2,920 

FY 2010 Request 2,448 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 10,023 

Total 113,472 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

Advanced Materials 4,383 1,211 6,054 1,838 1,368

Structural Safety 174 165 0 0 0

Personnel Costs 1,247 1,394 945 1022 1,004

Other In-house Costs 77 73 84 60 76

 Total 5,881 2,843 7,083 2,920 2,448

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 5,881 2,843 7,083 2,920 2,448

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 5,881 2,843 7,083 2,920 2,448
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-18 

A11.c. – Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

062-111 Advanced Materials Structures 

Advanced Materials 1,368 

Generate composite materials dynamic properties ♦ 

Verify accepted certification methodology for damage 

tolerance and fatigue using full-scale test data. ◊ 

Develop test and analysis protocols for repeated loads 

and damage threats ◊ 

Identify data and test for materials at elevated 

temperatures ◊ 

Initiate research in ceramic composites ◊ 

Develop criteria for damage tolerance assessments of 

laminate composite structures ◊ 

Evaluate threats from flight line activities on composite 

aircraft structures. ◊ 

Define criteria for use of embedded sensors in fault 

tolerant structures. ◊ 

062-110 Structural Safety 0 

Structural Safety 

Develop analytical modeling techniques of aircraft 

structures crash conditions ♦ ◊ 

Develop analytical model protocols and detailed 

requirements for crashworthiness certification analysis ◊ 

Evaluate the ability of models to predict off-axis and 

multiple terrain impacts. ◊ 

Establish design criteria for restraint systems at highest 

levels that aircraft can sustain ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 1,080 

Total Budget Authority 2,448 2,920 2.448 2,476 2,495 2,515 2,537

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-19 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.d. Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety $4,482,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Increased Safety. 

Intended Outcomes: The Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety Research Program supports FAA’s 

strategic goal of increased safety by reducing the number of accidents or potential accidents associated with 

aircraft icing and failures to software-based digital flight controls and avionics systems in preparation for the 

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). The 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) 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 inservice engine events, many resulting in power loss and at least six in multiple engine flameouts, occurred 

in high ice water content environments over the period 1988 to 2003. A current collaborative research 

effort will address this issue. 

The program will develop new guidelines for testing, evaluating, and qualifying digital flight controls and 

avionics systems for the certification of aircraft platforms. 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 systems 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. 

Agency Outputs: The FAA establishes rules for the certification and operation of aircraft that encounter 

icing conditions as well as rules for the use of software, digital flight controls, and onboard avionics systems. 

The agency uses the research results to generate 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. 

Research Goals: 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 that airframes and engines can safely operate in atmospheric icing conditions, and 

ensure the proper operation of software, complex electronic hardware, and digital systems. 

Atmospheric Hazards 

• By FY 2011, complete characterization of high ice water content atmospheric environments 

potentially hazardous to engines. 

• By FY 2012, complete experimental work on the physics of engine icing in high ice water content 

environments. 

• By FY 2013, develop methods for the airworthiness testing of engines in simulated high ice water 

content environments. 

• By FY 2014, develop data and methods supporting the evaluation of aircraft engines for operation 

in high ice water content environments. 

Digital System Safety 

• By FY 2011, determine potential safety, security, and certification issues of connecting aircraft 

systems to external systems, per onboard network security and integrity. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-20 

• By FY 2011, develop new methods of evaluation for airborne electronic hardware to include 

semiconductor device wear out, system effects produced by microprocessors, reliability prediction, 

and lifecycle maintenance, while dealing with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology in 

complex and safety-critical systems. 

• By FY 2013, evaluate development and integration techniques that will produce software for 

complex highly integrated systems that must comply with airworthiness requirements. 

• By FY 2013, evaluate complex hardware techniques and tools for qualification, verification, and 

assurance to develop additional evaluation methods that may improve the certification process for 

complex hardware. 

• By FY 2013, evaluate alternatives to existing verification and validation techniques; improved 

techniques will provide a way to identify system requirement errors early in the development 

process before implementation into the system. 

• By FY 2014, determine applicability of safety engineering and reliability engineering to software 

development assurance standards (i.e., Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and 

Equipment Certification (DO-178B). 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety Research 

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 Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety Research Program. 

• Technical Community Representatives Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to 

ensure that the program’s R&D projects support new rule making and the development of alternate 

means of compliance with existing rules. 

• Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group and Engine Harmonization Working Group of the FAA 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee – groups that ensure the effectiveness of the agency’s 

rule making. Members of the working group and full committee identify research requirements and 

priorities. 

• G-12 Aircraft Ground Deicing Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) – this 

subcommittee assists in updating holdover time guidelines and establishing standards for de/antiicing methodologies, deicing fluids, and ground ice detection. 

• SAE AC-9C Aircraft Icing (In-flight) Subcommittee – this subcommittee assists in updating the 

Aircraft Icing Handbook, including the Icing Bibliography, and in establishing standards for icing 

simulation methods. 

• RTCA (formerly known as Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) – members of this U.S. 

Federal Advisory Committee and its special committees help to ensure the effectiveness of the 

agency’s rulemaking by identifying research requirements and priorities and providing guidance for 

Aircraft Certification Office engineers and the update of documents, such as avionics software, and 

electromagnetic hazards. 

• Certification Authorities Software Team (CAST) – a group of international certification software and 

complex electronic hardware (CEH) specialists who collaborate and make recommendations to 

regulatory authorities on the resolution of software and CEH aspects of safety. 

• Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Volpe National Transportation Center – 

U.S. DOT organization that is leading information security research for U.S. transportation and is 

providing collaborative research inputs for the FAA research in aeronautical system security that 

supports the onboard network security goal. 

R&D Partnerships: 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 inflight icing conditions. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-21 

• Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute (AVSI) – cooperative industry, government, and academia 

venture for investigation and standardization of aerospace vehicle systems to reduce life-cycle cost 

and accelerate development of systems, architectures, tools, and processes. 

Accomplishments: Significant program accomplishments include: 

Aircraft Icing 

FY 2008: 

• Completed analysis of data from propeller icing test at McKinley Climatic Laboratory to provide data 

for guidance to ensure safe flight of propeller aircraft in icing conditions. 

• Continued research to characterize high ice water content environments for engines to ensure their 

safe operation in such conditions. 

• Continued experimental work on the physics of engine icing in high ice water content environments 

• Developed improved methods for simulation of ice pellet, mixed, and other conditions for 

determination of fluid failure and holdover times. 

• Continued study of aerodynamic effects of runback ice for thermal ice protection for simulated 

flight conditions. 

FY 2007: 

• Conducted propeller icing test in McKinley Climatic Chamber and processed and published data. 

• Conducted testing at flight Reynolds numbers on full-scale airfoil model of simulated runback ice 

for a thermal ice protection system. 

• Developed technical data for the use of ground ice detectors. 

FY 2006: 

• Developed snow generation system to test the time of effectiveness of modern de/anti-icing fluids 

in a controlled laboratory environment. 

• Completed development of facility simulation capability for SLD icing testing to show safe operation 

in SLD environments in accordance with new proposed rules. 

• Completed documentation and analysis of residual and inter-cycle ice for pneumatic boots at low 

airspeeds to provide data for guidance to ensure safe operation of pneumatic boots on low speed 

aircraft in icing conditions. 

FY 2005: 

• Investigated and documented characteristic features of runback ice for thermal ice protection 

systems to provide data for guidance to ensure safe operation of thermally protected aircraft in 

icing conditions. 

• Enhanced in-flight icing simulation capability at the McKinley Climatic Laboratory suitable for testing 

of full scale engines and rotor blades for substantiation of safe operation of engines and helicopters 

in icing conditions. 

FY 2004: 

• Investigated and analyzed atmospheric icing environment - supercooled water and mixed-phase 

conditions – to provide data for formulation of expanded atmospheric icing envelopes for new 

proposed rules. 

Digital System Safety 

FY 2008: 

• Determined additional microprocessor evaluation issues pertaining to risk and safety that included 

advancing past the stage of the use of a feature modeling approach to assure microprocessor 

system safety to a system-level behavioral approach; results used to provide important inputs into 

a Microprocessor Selection and Evaluation Concepts Document. 

• Evaluated Phase 3 onboard network security and integrity issues, Aeronautical Security 

Requirements to Ensure Aircraft Safety, which provided the Phase 4 inputs of airworthiness 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-22 

security analysis, electronic maintenance security procedures for aircraft, cyber security for 

unmanned aircraft systems, and inputs for Phase 4. The results are essential for the continuation 

Phase 4 effort, development of RTCA SC-216 (Aeronautical Systems Security) minimum aviation 

system performance standards, and assurance/assessment processes and methods. 

• Evaluated CEH tools to determine the major safety issues in the qualification process and CEH 

items for sufficiency of verification coverage analysis that includes development of criteria. The 

results used for developing policy and guidance. 

FY 2007: 

• Completed research of COTS component integration and verification for integrated modular 

avionics (IMA) systems on a generic aviation platform. The results are useful for FAA and industry 

practitioners of integrating IMA systems on aircraft, and will lead to more effective systems 

development and enhance the certification of digital flight controls and avionics systems. The 

results are published in a technical report and handbook. 

• Developed and documented evaluation criteria for airworthiness of newly proposed databases that 

will define a suitable approach to develop and evaluate data networks for safety-critical avionics; 

results will provide guidance to FAA certification engineers. 

• Defined and documented a safe, secure process for implementing LANs onboard aircraft; results 

will provide a network assurance process for FAA certification engineers. 

FY 2006: 

• Completed research on object-oriented technology (OOT) in aviation that will provide input for 

policy and guidance on the use of OOT systems and support harmonization with international 

certification authorities on the use of OOT. 

• Evaluated the criteria and use of microprocessors in aviation and the identification of safety 

concerns for microprocessors; results will be used to develop test methods for modern, complex 

microprocessors that will improve the process of certifying aircraft avionics. 

Previous Years: 

• Studied deterministic operations of Ethernet equipment and provided evaluation criteria for the 

certification of Ethernet databases; results were incorporated into a handbook that provides 

network designers with guidelines for developing Ethernet databases that will be deployable in 

certifiable avionics systems. 

• Completed research on software development tools that led to a handbook for developers and 

certifying authorities to use to evaluate the tools from the system and software safety perspective 

and provided a basis for future software development tool qualification guidelines. 

• Completed research on software verification tools that identified specific evaluation criteria that 

could be used to determine whether the performance of the tool was acceptable and thereby 

improve the ability of the certification engineer to qualify software using these tools. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Aircraft Icing 

• Continued collaborative flight research to acquire atmospheric data for high ice water content 

environments. 

• Continued experimental work on the physics of engine icing in high ice water content 

environments. 

• Completed the development of methods for simulation of ice pellet and mixed conditions for 

determination of fluid failure and holdover times. 

• Began development of methods to test engines in simulated high ice water content environments. 

• Completed investigation of runback ice formation and size and velocity effects on aerodynamic 

impact of runback ice for thermal ice protection for simulated flight conditions. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-23 

Digital System Safety 

• Completed an additional microprocessor evaluation pertaining to risk and safety that includes a 

Microprocessor Selection and Evaluation Handbook that will be used by the FAA and industry to 

assure the safety of aircraft microprocessor systems. 

• Completed the first phase of CEH techniques and tools for qualification, verification, and assurance 

that will be used to develop policy and guidance. 

• Evaluated Phase 4 onboard network security and integrity issues to identify potential security 

vulnerabilities to aircraft, proposes protection requirements, and applies previous research in data 

networks, Ethernet, and COTS software and airborne electronics. 

• Evaluated COTS technology in complex and safety-critical systems for obsolescence and life cycle 

maintenance of aviation electronics to improve compliance to airworthiness directives through a 

better recognition of availability and affordability of parts and better ways to implement corrective 

actions. 

• Evaluated verification and validation techniques for safety-critical digital systems to ensure that 

they comply with regulations and perform their intended functions under all foreseeable operating 

conditions. 

• Investigated the feasibility of using reverse engineering as a viable alternate means of compliance 

for achieving objectives of DO-178B versus what has become the standard approach to software 

development assurance. Cover gaps in compliance with DO-178B and mitigate safety issues 

resulting from these gaps. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

Researchers will continue to refine laboratory methods to determine de-icing fluid holdover times in a 

variety of environmental conditions. Will study the enhancement and validation of icing simulation methods, 

with an emphasis on engine testing in high ice water content conditions will continue. Researchers will also 

continue to evaluate onboard network security and integrity issues, integration and development techniques 

for highly-integrated aircraft systems, COTS technology in complex and safety-critical systems, and 

verification and validation techniques. 

New Initiatives 

None. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Aircraft Icing 

• Begin analysis of data for characterization of high ice water content environments potentially 

hazardous to engines. 

• Continue experimental work on the physics of engine icing in high ice water content environments. 

• Complete the development of methods for simulation of ice pellet and mixed conditions for 

determination of fluid failure and holdover times. 

• Continue development of methods to test engines in simulated high ice water content 

environments. 

Digital System Safety 

• Evaluate Phase 5 onboard network security and integrity issues to insure security protection 

requirements are consistent with aircraft safety. 

• Continue to evaluate COTS technology in complex and safety-critical systems for obsolescence and 

life cycle maintenance of aviation electronics. 

• Determine software development assurance level for highly integrated aircraft systems. 

• Continue to evaluate verification and validation techniques for safety-critical digital systems. 

• Evaluate model-based development criteria considered by industry and address technical and 

certification issues. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-24 

• Complete investigation into the feasibility of using reverse engineering as a viable alternate means 

of compliance for achieving objectives of DO-178B. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-25 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 90,393 

FY 2009 Appropriated 4,838 

FY 2010 Request 4,482 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 18,226 

Total 114,365 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010

Request

Contracts: 

Digital System Safety 232 842 737 1,080 1,158

Atmospheric Hazards 1,287 1,316 1,052 1,811 1,526

Personnel Costs 1,786 1,614 1,653 1,832 1,660

Other In-house Costs 102 76 132 115 138

 Total 3,407 3,848 3,574 4,838 4,482

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 3,407 3,848 3,574 4,838 4,482

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3,407 3,848 3,574 4,838 4,482
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-26 

A11.d. – Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System Safety Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

064-110 Digital System Safety 

Digital System Safety 1,158 Complete an additional microprocessor evaluation 

pertaining to risk and safety ♦ 

Evaluate CEH techniques and tools for qualification, 

verification, and assurance ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Evaluate onboard network security and integrity ♦ ◊ ◊ Evaluate COTS technology in complex and safetycritical systems ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Determine software development assurance level ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Evaluate verification and validation techniques ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Evaluate model-based development criteria ◊ ◊ 

Investigate the feasibility of using reverse 

engineering. ♦ ◊ 

Determine applicability of safety engineering and 

reliability engineering ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

064-111 Atmospheric Hazards 

Aircraft Icing 1,526 

Characterize high ice water content atmospheric 

environments for engines ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct experimental work on the physics of 

engine icing in high ice water content 

environments. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop improved methods for simulation of ice 

pellet, mixed, and other conditions for 

determination of fluid failure and holdover times ♦ 

Develop methods to test engines in simulated high 

ice water content environments ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Investigate formation and aerodynamic effects of 

runback ice for thermal ice protection for simulated 

flight conditions. 

♦ 

Develop data and methods supporting the 

evaluation of aircraft engines for operation in high 

ice water content environments ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 1,798 

Total Budget Authority 4.482 4,838 4,482 4,521 4,545 4,568 4,592

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-27 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.e. Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft $10,944,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Increased Safety. 

Intended Outcomes: The Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft Program (formerly known as the Aging 

Aircraft Program) contributes to FAA’s strategic goal of increasing aviation safety by reducing the number of 

accidents associated with failure of aircraft structure, engines, and systems. The program develops 

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 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), mechanical systems, and flight controls. 

Agency Outputs: The FAA issues rules and advisory materials for regulating aircraft design, construction, 

operation, modification, inspection, maintenance, repair, and safety. Technologies, procedures, technical 

data, and analytical models produced by the Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft Program provide a 

major source of technical information used in developing these regulations and related advisories. Through 

this research, FAA also provides the aviation community with critical new safety technologies and data. 

Research Goals: The goal of the Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft 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, develops 

technologies and processes, and assesses current practices in order to eliminate or mitigate the potential 

failures related to aircraft aging processes, thereby reducing the number and severity of accidents. 

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 development of nondestructive inspection (NDI) 

technologies 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. 

• BY FY 2011, complete a study of safe life and risk-based fleet management for small-airplane 

continued operational safety. 

• BY FY 2011, assess performance of in-situ damage detection technologies for inspection of remote 

and inaccessible areas in aircraft. In-situ monitoring provides the means to monitor structural 

behavior and identify damage not normally found between major maintenance checks. 

• By FY 2011, complete study to assess need for new rudder design standards in transport category 

aircraft and need for new pilot training standards with regard to rudder usage. 

• BY FY 2012, 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 find hidden damage in 

these joints. 

• By FY 2013, develop technical data on rotorcraft that provide guidance for certification of Health 

and Usage Monitoring Systems (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. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft Program coordinates 

with an extensive network of government and industry groups, including: 

• Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory 

Committee – representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually 

review program activity, progress, and plans. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-28 

• Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to 

ensure that the program’s research projects support new rule making and the development of 

alternate means of compliance with existing 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. 

R&D Partnerships: The Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft Program activities are closely coordinated 

with industry, NASA, and the Department of Defense (DoD). The FAA maintains interagency agreements 

with NASA, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, and the Department of Energy. The FAA, DoD, and NASA 

have co-sponsored 11 joint Aging Aircraft Conferences. 

The FAA collaborates closely with several private and public organizations, including: 

• The National Rotorcraft Technology Center – comprised of the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, FAA, and 

NASA. 

• Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (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 repair technologies. 

Accomplishments: The Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft Program conducts a broad array of 

projects to meet the goals described above. Technical reports documenting the accomplishments of most 

projects are available on-line at http://actlibrary.tc.faa.gov. 

Outstanding program accomplishments include: 

FY 2008: 

• Developed software for predictive methodology for the risk assessment and risk management of 

small airplane continued operational safety with regard to fatigue crack initiation. 

• Completed assessment of reliability of various advanced inspection technologies in detecting 

second layer cracks in typical transport aircraft fuselage structure. 

• Completed validation and demonstration of HUMS processes and methods for flight regime 

recognition on Bell 206 rotorcraft using the HUMS AC. 

• Completed initial study on certification standards and design issues for rudder control systems. 

• Completed an advanced risk assessment tool for conducting hazard analysis of EWIS systems. The 

tool used a probabilistic method to support compliance with FAR 25.1309 requirements. 

FY 2007: 

• Completed the airworthiness evaluation of an aged Raytheon Beech 1900D. 

• Completed the destructive and extended fatigue testing of fuselage sections from a retired Boeing 

727. Results support formulation of policy on use of teardown data for airworthiness certification. 

• Conducted the field test of a magnetic carpet probe for rapid and wide-area inspection of aircraft 

engine critical rotating components. 

• Completed assessment of ASTM and new fatigue crack growth test methods for use in addressing 

rotorcraft fatigue life. 

• Developed methodology to evaluate mechanical systems on current transport category aircraft for 

safety and reliability. 

FY 2006: 

• Completed development of the MMPDS Handbook of FAA accepted material properties, which 

replaces MIL-HDBK-5 previously cancelled by the DoD. The MMPDS Handbook is an essential 

reference for aircraft manufacturer design engineers and is used by FAA for aircraft certification. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-29 

• Completed aircraft wire degradation research on common types of aircraft electrical wire as a 

function of laboratory controlled aging processes. Data generated are used to evaluate potential 

methods of monitoring wire performance in aircraft and wire reliability assessment methods. 

• Completed research on the use of composite doublers as a safer, more cost-effective means for 

repair of damaged metallic aircraft structure. 

• Completed development of a low cost, field prototype, generic scanning and imaging system that 

can be readily coupled to existing aircraft inspection devices, thereby improving flaw detection in 

metal and composite structure. 

• Completed second-phase development of a magnetic carpet probe for rapid and wide-area 

inspection of aircraft engine critical rotating components. This technology is a potential 

replacement of fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI). 

FY 2005: 

• Completed airworthiness evaluations of two aging Cessna airplanes, a 402A and 402C, and a 

teardown evaluation of a T-34A accident aircraft. 

• Evaluated and verified methods to assess multiple site damage. 

• Developed the fatigue crack growth database that is used in support of damage tolerance 

assessments of airframe structure. 

• Developed and demonstrated a prototype micro-energy, high-voltage nondestructive test method 

for inspecting aircraft wiring. 

• Completed research to determine the interrelationship of landing gear lateral loads on the body 

and wing gear during ground turns of FAA’s multiple main gear B-747SP aircraft. Results of this 

research support development of landing gear certification standards. 

Previous Years: 

• Established the FAA Arc Fault Evaluation Laboratory and initiated the evaluation of advanced circuit 

protection technologies and experiments to quantify damage created by arc fault conditions. 

• In cooperation with industry, developed, validated, and facilitated the adoption of improved 

inspection procedures for detecting cracks and corrosion in rotorcraft. 

• Demonstrated phased array inspection technology for critical engine titanium forgings. Phased 

array technology reliably detects smaller material flaws in critical engine component forgings. 

• Developed rotorcraft component damage part database that allows determination of the origin and 

causal factors of rotorcraft structure and component failures. 

• Developed and flight tested aircraft arc-fault circuit breaker prototypes; they mitigate the 

hazardous effects of potentially catastrophic arc-faults. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Developed a comprehensive analysis tool for the risk assessment and risk management of small 

airplane continued operational safety with regard to fatigue crack initiation. 

• Completed studies to quantitatively determine the impact of process variables on the performance 

of FPI and integrate results into industry inspection standards. 

• Developed technical data for a draft rotorcraft HUMS certification plan to substantiate HUMS AC. 

• Conducted research on advanced NDI technologies for composite structures and for evaluation of 

the strength of bonded structures. 

• Continued research on damage tolerance and durability issues for emerging structural technologies 

to ensure safety, support maintenance, and support future certification policies and guidance. 

• Completed initial evaluation of thermal acoustic technology as a potential replacement for FPI in 

inspecting critical engine components. 

• Completed nondestructive evaluation of manufacturing-induced anomalies in critical engine 

components. 

• Completed testing of single-element, dual-load-path flight control linkages from transport category 

aircraft for corrosion and other anomalies that could affect safety. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-30 

• Completed upgrade of Arc Fault Evaluation Laboratory to accommodate more sophisticated 

separation and segregation testing of aircraft wiring (EWIS research). 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

The FY 2010 funding request will support Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft research requirements that 

contribute to FAA’s aviation safety goal. The program will continue its focus on developing technologies, 

technical information, procedures, and practices that help ensure the safety of aircraft structures and 

systems in the civil aircraft fleet. Research will continue on the development of certification processes for 

health and usage monitoring systems for rotorcraft. Research will continue on the development and 

evaluation of risk assessment and risk management methods for the continued operational safety of small 

airplanes. Research will continue on flight controls and mechanical systems, focusing on design, 

maintenance and pilot training to increase safety. Researchers will also continue efforts on investigation of 

nondestructive evaluation techniques for critical engine components. Research on nondestructive inspection 

of structures will continue its focus on the development of methods and technologies to assure the long 

term safety of metallic, composite, and bonded structures. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Continue development of probabilistic structural risk assessment and risk management 

methodologies for small airplanes. 

• Continue damage tolerance and durability research for emerging structural technologies such as 

integral structure fabricated by friction stir welding to ensure safety, support maintenance, and 

support future policies and guidance. 

• Develop technical data for certification process for rotorcraft health and usage monitoring systems 

using condition-based maintenance approach for mechanical systems. 

• Complete interim reliability assessments of conventional and advanced inspection devices to detect 

hidden flaws in thick, complex composite laminates. 

• Complete study on usage, design, and training issues for rudder control systems in transport 

aircraft. 

• Develop advisory guidance and recommendations for the separation and segregation of EWIS in 

transport aircraft. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-31 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 390,955

FY 2009 Appropriated 14,589 

FY 2010 Request 10,944 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 44,300 

Total 460,788 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010

Request

Contracts: 

Aging Aircraft 14,881 14,211 11,680 9,839 6,847

Personnel Costs 4,631 4,159 3,946 4,447 3,831

Other In-house Costs 295 251 320 303 266

 Total 19,807 18,621 15,946 14,589 10,944

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 19,807 18,621 15,946 14,589 10,944

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 19,807 18,621 15,946 14,589 10,944
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-32 

A11e –Continued 

Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 

065-110 Continued Airworthiness Structural Integrity and Inspection Systems 

Research 4,637 

Develop risk-based fleet management methods for 

small-airplane continued operational safety ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct research on application of damage tolerance 

methods to emerging structural technologies ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Assess the effect of FPI process variables on inspection 

performance and reliability ♦ 

Assess performance of in-situ damage detection 

technologies for inspection of remote and inaccessible 

areas in aircraft ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Investigate advanced NDI systems for composite and 

bonded structures. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Rotorcraft Structural Integrity and Safety 1,579 

Establish guidance for certification of HUMS 

applications for usage credits ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Continued Airworthiness of Aircraft Engines 526 

Evaluate thermal acoustic technology as a potential 

replacement of FPI for critical engine components ♦ 

Evaluate advanced techniques to detect 

manufacturing-induced surface anomalies on critical 

engine components 

♦ 

Continued Airworthiness of Aircraft Systems 105 

Provide technical guidance on pilot rudder usage, 

design, and training issues for certification 

standards ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Assess single element, dual-load path flight control 

linkages for corrosion ♦ 

Assess EWIS separation and segregation standards and 

develop advisory guidance ♦ ◊ 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 4,097 

Total Budget Authority 10,944 14,589 10,944 11,022 11,057 11,092 11,129

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-33 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.f. Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research $1,545,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Increased Safety. 

Intended Outcomes: 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. Its researchers assess the use of advanced materials to protect aircraft critical 

systems and passengers in the event of catastrophic engine failures. The program also uses historical 

accident data and National Transportation Safety Board 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. 

• Propulsion malfunction indications in response to Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) 

recommendations and proposed solutions. 

Agency Outputs: 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 ACs to outline acceptable means for meeting these rules. The program’s objective is to 

ensure safe aircraft operation in the public domain. 

Research Goals: 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 LSDYNA Aerospace Users Group, FAA is working with industry to establish standards 

for finite element analysis and guidance for use in support of certification. 

• By 2010, develop a modular Uncontained Engine Debris Damage Assessment Model (UEDDAM) 

(version 4) to be compatible with Department of Defense code upgrades for supportability and 

incorporate industry recommended improvements. 

• Continue through 2014, the FAA/NASA/Industry sponsored quality control program for modeling 

aircraft impact problems. 

• By 2013 develop and verify a generalized damage and failure model with regularization (MAT 224) 

for aluminum and titanium materials impacted during engine failure events. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The program collaborates with a broad cross section of the 

aviation community, including: 

• Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 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 that 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 rule making. Members of the subcommittee and full committee identify research 

requirements, priorities, and provide guidance for the update of documents such as AC20-128, and 

encourage industry’s full participation in implementing new rules. 

R&D Partnerships: The Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program partners with industry and other 

government agencies including: 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-34 

• NASA and industry in support of the development and validation of explicit finite element analysis. 

The industry participates in the LSDYNA 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 LSDYNA in the certification process. 

• The 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. 

Accomplishments: Results of Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program research provide the 

technical basis for FAA rule changes and new or modified ACs. Researcher results are also provided to 

airframe and engine manufacturers and designers. 

Engine Uncontainment Research 

FY 2008: 

• Continue FAA/NASA/Industry sponsored quality control program for modeling aircraft problems in 

the manufacturer's supported finite element code (LSDYNA) 

• Continue to improve material models for incorporation into the LSDYNA code that are verified and 

accepted by the aerospace users group as standardized models. 

FY 2007: 

• Complete testing and modeling of fabrics used in gas turbine engine containment systems. Test 

results will be compared with analytical results from fabric model version 3.1 

• Complete testing and material model development for aluminum using the Johnson-Cook formula. 

• Develop an oversight process for generic aerospace problems run in LSDYNA that ensures 

consistent results as computers and programs continue to evolve. 

FY 2006: 

• Delivered the UEDDAM, version 3.0 for evaluation of uncontained engine debris hazards to aircraft. 

UEDDAM uses a Monte Carlo approach to perform the vulnerability analysis in design cases where 

the released multiple fragments are analyzed. 

• Conducted a workshop for the Department of Defense and ARAC on UEDDAM in November 2005. 

FY 2005: 

• Developed fabric attachment data and designs for fuselage shielding. Fabric material models were 

used to design full scale shields to be tested in an aircraft fuselage. 

• Completed full-scale fabric shielding demonstration test of various fabric attachment designs in a 

retired commercial airplane at Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC), China Lake. 

Previous Years: 

• Conducted a workshop for engine certification engineers on non-linear finite element modeling of 

turbine engine containment systems at the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). 

• Completed a collaborative effort with NASA, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force to perform the 

first full-scale engine disk crack detection demonstration. 

• Developed test data and improved analytical modeling of fabric shielding with revision to the fabric 

material model. 

• Conducted a workshop for engine certification engineers on non-linear finite element modeling of 

turbine engine containment systems at the Boston ACO. 

• Developed a significant database of small and full-scale test data to understand the interaction of 

multiple ballistic fabric layers in engine fan blade out containment systems. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-35 

Propulsion Malfunction 

FY 2008:

• Continue to develop an information-based oil display system. 

FY 2007: 

• Completed detailed study of propulsion malfunctions classified as mechanical damage. Research 

developed a set of indications that can be added to the flight deck as indications and annunciations 

to inform the crew that a malfunction exists on a specific engine. This effort recommended a 

focused follow-on effort to study an information based oil system display. 

FY 2005: 

• Completed detailed study of propulsion malfunctions classified as Sustained Thrust Anomalies. 

Research developed a set of indications that can be added to the flight deck as indications and 

annunciations to inform the crew that a malfunction exists on a specific engine. 

Previous Years: 

• Completed an in-depth analysis of 80 in-service propulsion system malfunctions and developed 

recommendations for potential propulsion indication improvement. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Continued FAA/NASA/industry sponsored quality control program for modeling aircraft problems in 

the manufacturer’s supported finite element code (LSDYNA). 

• Completed testing of 2024 aluminum necessary to populate the new Material Model 224 failure 

map in LS-DYNA. 

• Propulsion malfunction research completed a demonstration of the information-based display for 

the engine lubrication system. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

Research will continue on the NASA/FAA/industry program for modeling aircraft engine failures in LSDYNA. 

The FAA/NASA/academia will continue to evaluate improved material models and incorporate them into 

LSDYNA upon acceptance by the Aerospace Users Group. Users’ guidelines and training will continue to be 

developed and made available through George Washington University. 

New Initiatives 

No new initiatives are planned in FY 2010. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Engine Uncontainment Research 

• Continue FAA/NASA/industry sponsored quality control program for modeling aircraft problems in 

the manufacturer’s supported finite element code (LSDYNA). 

• Complete development of Material Model 224 for fragments impacting 2024 aluminum structure. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-36 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 36,074 

FY 2009 Appropriated 436 

FY 2010 Request 1,545 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 6,268 

Total 44,323 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention 

Research 2,703 947 1,684 0 947

Personnel Costs 566 533 482 415 555

Other In-house Costs 37 32 36 21 43

 Total 3,306 1,512 2,202 436 1,545

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 3,306 1,512 2,202 436 1,545

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3,306 1,512 2,202 436 1,545
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-37 

A11.f. - Aircraft Catastrophic Failure 

Prevention Research Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 

066-110 Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention 

Research 

Engine Uncontainment Research 947 Continue FAA/NASA/industry sponsored quality control 

program for modeling aircraft problems in the 

manufacturer’s supported finite element code (LSDYNA) 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Complete testing of 2024 aluminum necessary to populate 

the new Material Model 224 failure map in LS-DYNA. ♦ 

Complete development of Material Model 224 for 

fragments impacting 2024 aluminum structure ◊ 

Develop modular UEDDAM Code (version 4) ◊ 

Complete verification of MAT 224 for Aluminum and 

Titanium ◊ 

Propulsion Malfunction 0 

Demonstrate an information based cockpit display for the 

engine lubrication system ♦ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 598 

Total Budget Authority 1,545 436 1,545 1,557 1,564 1,570 1,577

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-38 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.g. Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration 

Human Factors 

$7,128,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety and Greater Capacity. 

Intended Outcomes: The Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program helps 

achieve FAA’s Flight Plan goals for increased safety and greater capacity by: 

• Developing more effective methods for pilot, inspector, and maintenance technician training. 

• Enhancing the understanding and application of risk and error management strategies in flight and 

maintenance operations. 

• Increasing human factors considerations in certifying new aircraft and in equipment design and 

modification. 

• 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 task/performance and human-system task/performance requirements 

associated with transitioning NextGen capabilities. 

Agency Outputs: The Human Factors Research and Engineering Program provides the research 

foundation for FAA guidelines, handbooks, advisory circulars, rules, 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. 

Research Goals: 

By FY 2012: 

• Develop flight path and energy state management guidance for air carrier flight deck training 

systems and procedure design. 

• Provide human factors guidance for ADS-B equipment design and operation 

• Provide human factors guidelines for advanced instrument procedure design and use. 

• Provide guidance for fatigue mitigation in the maintenance environment 

• Define the work, task, education, and training requirements for the NextGen era aircraft 

maintenance technician. 

• Address human automation integration issues regarding the certification of pilots, procedures, 

training, maintenance, and equipment associated with enhanced CNS/ATM operations necessary to 

achieve NextGen capabilities 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: 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 Program. 

• The FAA’s Voluntary Safety Program Office initiatives including Advanced Qualification Program 

(AQP), Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA), and Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP). 

• 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 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. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-39 

R&D Partnerships: 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. 

• DoD 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 like 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 G-10 subcommittees – FAA participates on all of the Society’s 

subcommittees involving human factors to adapt their findings to aviation standards, guidelines, 

etc. 

• Twenty-one FAA grants to universities supporting research on air carrier training, flight deck 

automation, aviation accident analysis, general aviation, and aviation maintenance technician and 

inspector training. 

Accomplishments: The program’s accomplishments include: 

FY 2008: 

• Conducted research and provided results to SAE International Aerospace Behavioral Engineering 

Technology Committee to update an aerospace industry recommended practice on electronic 

symbols. Aerospace recommended practices are used by industry to demonstrate means of 

compliance with FAA regulations. 

• Completed Human Factors Analysis and Classification System on-line database. This provides 

capability for FAA personnel to access key human factors information associated with NTSB 

accidents from 1990-2006. 

• Completed research on electronic flight bag (EFB) related safety events. Results will be used to 

update an Advisory Circular and a new Flight Standards handbook on EFBs. 

FY 2007: 

• Completed development of human factors Certification Job Aid for FAR Parts 25 and 23 flight 

decks. 

• Completed development of the Human Factors Certification Job Aid and made it available to the 

aviation community through a web site application. 

• Disseminated to the scientific community findings regarding simulator platform motion and its 

impact on pilot performance during specific maneuvers. 

• Completed an international survey of human factors programs in maintenance organizations, 

providing information on training, error management, fatigue management, and other issues for 

FAA and industry. 

FY 2006: 

• Updated the Human Factors Certification Job Aid with Part 25 Advisory Circulars and information on 

design of flight deck equipment, tasks and procedures, and testing assumptions. The job aid helps 

government and industry to minimize the likelihood of design induced human performance errors. 

• Developed practical customized assessment tools to help FAA certifiers and inspectors, system 

designers and operators standardize and streamline evaluations of electronic flight bags. 

• Improved a Line Operations Safety Audit methodology that has been adopted by the International 

Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) to help air carriers identify human-centered safety vulnerabilities. 

FY 2005: 

• Worked with the aviation community to produce a list of knowledge and skills that are important 

for pilots, instructors and evaluators who operate, teach and test in technically advanced aircraft. 

• Developed a manual adopted for use by ICAO that addresses appropriate human factors 

considerations in designing air carrier flight deck operating documents. 

• Developed and validated a proceduralized air carrier pilot Crew Resource Management training and 

assessment system as part of normal flight operations. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-40 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Information Management and Display 

• Updated human factors guidance for electronic flight bag certification, operational approval and 

training based on performance data. 

• Developed guidance for moving map displays in surface operations. 

• Identified human factors issues in instrument procedures design. 

• Developed guidance to address human factors issues associated with using synthetic vision for 

primary and multifunction displays. 

• Developed proactive methods for general aviation data collection to facilitate risk assessment and 

accident prevention. 

Human-Centered Automation 

• Developed human factors guidance for ADS-B certification and operational approval. 

• Investigated automation and new technology impacts on aviation maintenance process, safety, 

tasks, technician skills, and need for regulation. 

• Developed advanced automation training tools for pilots reflecting results of an industry study and 

Performance-Based Operations Aviation Rule-Making Committee (PARC) team data. 

Human Performance Assessment 

• Designed a safety audit tool for maintenance and ramp operations to evaluate a maintenance 

organization’s effectiveness. 

• Identified effective methods for mitigating maintainer fatigue. 

• Provided human factors guidance for the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles within the NAS. 

• Continued to develop improved methods to report, record and analyze flight safety data to reduce 

the likelihood of air carrier incidents and accidents. 

Selection and Training 

• Continued development of international standards for simulator fidelity. 

• Developed effective upset recovery training both for the experienced pilot and for the low-time 

pilot. 

• Determined the appropriate training intervals to reduce pilot skill decay. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The program will continue to focus on providing technical information and advice to improve pilot, inspector, 

maintenance technician, and aviation system performance. The emphasis will remain on developing 

guidelines, tools, and training to enhance error capturing and mitigation capabilities in the flight deck and 

maintenance environments, and on developing human factors tools to ensure that human performance 

considerations are adequately addressed in the design, certification, and operational approval of flight 

decks, equipment, and procedures. Additional emphasis will be placed on encouraging maintenance shops 

and repair stations to have human factors maintenance programs and to offer maintenance human factors 

training. 

On-Going Activities 

Information Management and Display 

• Update human factors guidance for electronic flight bag certification, operational approval and 

training based on performance data. 

• Develop guidance for moving map displays in surface operations. 

• Identify human factors issues in instrument procedures design. 

Human-Centered Automation 

• Develop human factors guidance for ADS-B equipment certification and operational approval. 

• Investigate automation and new technology impacts on aviation maintenance process, safety, 

tasks, technician skills, and need for regulation. 

• Develop advanced automation training tools for pilots reflecting results of an industry study and 

Performance-Based Operations Aviation Rule-Making Committee (PARC) team data. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-41 

Human Performance Assessment 

• Design a safety audit tool for maintenance and ramp operations to evaluate a maintenance 

organization’s effectiveness. 

• Identify effective methods for mitigating maintainer fatigue. 

• Provide human factors guidance for the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles within the NAS. 

Selection and Training 

• Develop guidance and training material to improve consistency of safety team decisions. 

• Identify training and checking approaches for jet upset recovery using advanced and existing 

simulators. 

• Continue development of international standards for simulator fidelity. 

New Initiatives 

Information Management and Display 

• Develop guidance to address human factors issues associated with using synthetic and enhanced 

vision to support equivalent visual operations. 

Human-Centered Automation 

• Develop human factors guidance for advanced autopilots and automation technologies in small 

airplanes. 

Human Performance Assessment 

• Develop mitigation strategies for human factors issues that are contributing to very light jet 

incidents. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Information Management and Display 

• Identify human factors issues in instrument procedures design. 

• Develop guidance for moving map displays in surface operations. 

• Update human factors guidance for electronic flight bag certification, operational approval and 

training based on performance data. 

• Develop guidance to address human factors issues associated with using synthetic and enhanced 

vision to support equivalent visual operations. 

Human-Centered Automation 

• Develop human factors guidance for ADS-B equipment certification and operational approval. 

• Investigate automation and new technology impacts on aviation maintenance process, safety, 

tasks, technician skills, and need for regulation. 

• Develop human factors guidance for advanced autopilots and automation technologies in small 

airplanes. 

• Develop advanced automation training tools for pilots reflecting results of an industry study and 

Performance-Based Operations Aviation Rule-Making Committee (PARC) team data. 

Human Performance Assessment 

• Design a safety audit tool for maintenance and ramp operations to evaluate a maintenance 

organization’s effectiveness. 

• Identify effective methods for mitigating maintainer fatigue. 

• Provide human factors guidance for the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles within the NAS. 

• Develop mitigation strategies for human factors issues that are contributing to very light jet 

incidents. 

Selection and Training 

• Develop guidance and training material to improve consistency of safety team decisions. 

• Identify training and checking approaches for jet upset recovery using advanced and existing 

simulators. 

• Continue development of international standards for simulator fidelity. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-42 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 213,063 

FY 2009 Appropriated 7,465 

FY 2010 Request 7,128 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 29,179 

Total 256,835 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration 

Human Factors 5,338 4,954 5,957 4,714 3,995

Personnel Costs 2,626 2,902 3,066 2,587 2,919

Other In-house Costs 135 143 177 164 214

 Total 8,099 7,999 9,200 7,465 7,128

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 8,099 7,999 9,200 7,465 7,128

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8,099 7,999 9,200 7,465 7,128
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-43 

A11.g. – 

Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors 

Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) 

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Information Management and Display 1,100 

Identify human factors issues in instrument procedures 

design ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop guidance for moving map displays in surface 

operations ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Update human factors guidance for electronic flight bag 

certification, operational approval and training based on 

performance data 

♦ ◊ ◊ 

Develop guidance to address human factors issues 

associated with using synthetic and enhanced vision to 

support equivalent visual operations 

 ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Human-Centered Automation 1,025 Develop human factors guidance for ADS-B equipment 

certification and operational approval ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Investigate automation and new technology impacts on 

aviation maintenance process, safety, tasks, technician 

skills, and need for regulation 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop advanced automation training tools for pilots 

reflecting results of an industry study and PerformanceBased Operations Aviation Rule-Making Committee 

(PARC) team data 

♦ ◊ ◊ 

Develop human factors guidance for advanced autopilots 

and automation technologies in small airplanes ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Human Performance Assessment 970 Design a safety audit tool for maintenance and ramp 

operations to evaluate a maintenance organization’s 

effectiveness. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Identify effective methods for mitigating maintainer 

fatigue ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Provide human factors guidance for the operation of 

unmanned aerial vehicles within the NAS l ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop mitigation strategies for human factors issues 

that are contributing to very light jet incidents ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Selection and Training 900 Develop guidance and training material to improve 

consistency of safety team decisions ♦ ◊ 

Identify training and checking approaches for jet upset 

recovery using advanced and existing simulators ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Continue development of international standards for 

simulator fidelity ♦ ◊ ◊ 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 3,133 

Total Budget Authority 7,128 7,465 7,128 7,208 7,264 7,323 7,384

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-44 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.h. System Safety Management/Aviation Safety Risk 

Analysis

$12,698,000 

Goals: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Increased Safety. 

Intended Outcomes: The System Safety Management/Aviation Safety Risk Analysis Program (formerly 

known as the Aviation Safety Risk Analysis Program) helps achieve FAA’s strategic goal of increasing 

aviation safety by promoting and expanding safety information sharing and safety risk management 

initiatives efforts. The program develops risk management methodologies, prototype tools, technical 

information, and safety management system procedures and practices that will improve aviation safety. In 

addition, the program aims to develop an infrastructure that enables the free sharing of de-identified, 

aggregate safety information that is derived from various government and industry sources in a protected, 

aggregated manner. It also conducts research to evaluate proposed new technologies and procedures, 

which will improve safety by making relevant information available to the pilot during terminal operations. 

Agency Outputs: The program will develop an infrastructure that enables the free sharing of deidentified, safety information that is derived from various government and industry sources in a protected, 

aggregated manner. In addition, the program is providing 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 is also conducting research and analysis to maintain the 

desired level of safety while accommodating the need for more efficient use of the terminal area. 

Research Goals: 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. 

• By 2011, develop 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. 

• 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 vulnerability discovery on a wide variety of diverse sets of data. 

• By 2015, demonstrate a two-thirds reduction in the rate of fatalities and injuries. 

To reduce the risk for passengers and crews and enhance the traffic control process in the terminal area 

operations, pilot-in-the-loop simulation evaluations and operational flight data analysis will be conducted. 

• By 2011, characterize risks associated with undesired laser cockpit illumination, providing FAA with 

data to determine mitigation strategies. 

• By 2011, complete an evaluation of air traffic and flight procedures for terminal area operations by 

using pilot-in-the-loop flight simulator. 

• 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 capacity and safety of the terminal area. 

• By 2013, 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. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-45 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The program encourages broad industry and government 

participation across all projects. 

• Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 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 that the program’s research projects support new rule making and the development of 

alternate means of compliance with existing rules. 

• The Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 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 – a FAA/industry collaborative effort to develop and implement 

data-driven safety initiatives. 

• Airline industry groups to ensure that research capabilities are properly focused and benefit 

stakeholders beyond commercial aviation industry including, but not limited to, manufacturers of 

very light jets and other advanced aircraft systems. 

R&D Partnerships: The Program partners with industry, academia, and other governmental agencies, 

including: 

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration via collaborative agreements to integrate advanced 

research text and digital analysis products into the Aviation Safety Information and Analysis 

Sharing (ASIAS) research efforts. 

• 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 governance models that allow for the free sharing of aviation data in 

accordance with approved voluntary safety information sharing agreements. 

• Air Transportation Association and National Air Transport Association – to assist in the development 

of functional and operational models. 

Accomplishments: Significant accomplishments from prior years include: 

Risk Management Decision Support 

FY 2008: 

• Defined a modified air carrier operations systems model (ACOSM ) model that incorporates the 

regulations and relationships between Title XIV of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Parts 

121, 145, 135, 91, 191, 61, 141 and is compatible with the top level architecture of International 

Air Transport Association Operational Safety Audit (IOSA). 

• Completed a gap analysis of FAA Safety Management System standards, FAA and international 

regulatory standards. 

• Released a prototype decision support system that provides the FAA with improved certificate 

management and oversight capabilities. The major products will be identification of databases 

within FAA purview, redesigned databases, and possible location of and access to existing 

databases needed to populate the described methodology. 

• Developed a technology transfer plan for the updated prototype software tool that contains the 

integrated framework and methodology for the identification, classification, and assessment of 

aviation maintenance and flight operations hazards; Added a repair station node which links to the 

prototype. 

• Continue risk management concept, model and analytical tool development in support of 

commercial and general aviation. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-46 

FY 2007: 

• Produced technical descriptions of the various business relationships between 14 CFR 121 

operators and 14 CFR 145 repair stations; the models will be used to identify the hazards and 

assess the risks involved these types of relationships. 

• Completed a prototype software tool that contains an integrated framework and methodology for 

the identification, classification, and assessment of aviation maintenance and flight operations 

hazards. 

FY 2006: 

• Released a working prototype of an integrated framework that describes the methodology for 

identification, classification, and assessment of aviation system hazards and risks. 

• Developed a preliminary methodology which provides a baseline assessment of the current safety 

oversight for effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability and identifies data inputs and could 

provide metrics such as the responsiveness of the air carriers to corrective and preventive actions, 

effects of oversight on safety precursors, inspection output and inspector workload and readiness. 

Aviation Safety Information and Analysis Sharing 

FY 2007: 

• Released first draft of the ASIAS Concept of Operations (CONOPS) that is focused on the new data 

sharing concepts among commercial aviation stakeholders. 

FY 2008: 

• Created Governance structure and mechanisms for utilizing airline data to look at safety issues 

across multiple commercial aviation carriers. 

• Identified studies to be completed in FY-08 related to Runway Safety and Terrain Area Warning 

Systems 

• Identified initial set of core metrics for monitoring known risks identified through Commercial 

Aviation Safety Team (CAST) safety enhancements 

• Identified initial set of commercial airline industry benchmarks that allow airlines to understand 

how their operations are performing in comparison to other airlines participating in the ASIAS 

program 

• Completed initial acquisition of new types of data for analyzing safety issues around the airport and 

runway. 

Aircraft Maintenance - Maintainability and Reliability 

FY 2007: 

• Proposed a new quality management system to perform and monitor tool calibration at 

maintenance facilities; the new system will improve safety by reducing aircraft maintenance errors 

due to the use of out-of-tolerance tools. 

FY 2005: 

• Completed enhancements to the Maintenance Malfunction Information Reporting (MMIR) System 

with capability to collect usage and flight profile data – the helicopter industry and FAA are using 

the MMIR data to improve maintenance reliability and product design. 

FY 2004: 

• Provided technical data and recommendations for designing an effective repair station training 

program, including the recommended number of hours and topics for training mechanics, 

managers, supervisors, and inspectors. The FAA issued AC 145-10 “Repair Station Training 

Program” in July 2005. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-47 

Safety Analysis Methodology 

FY 2007: 

• Completed a methodology to provide a different level of certification credit for design features 

intended to reduce flight crew errors. 

FY 2005: 

• Provided technical data on standard probabilities of certain environmental and operational 

conditions to support transport airplane certification for safety assessment purposes. 

Terminal Area Safety 

FY2008: 

• Completed the evaluation of stopping distances for two typical subsonic narrow body jet aircraft in 

commercial operations. The data will aid in understanding causes of aircraft overruns. 

• Conducted a survey of area navigation (RNAV) and flight management systems to determine the 

current and projected capabilities with regard to radius-to-fix (RF) path terminators. 

• Conducted bench test of currently RF-capable RNAV and flight management systems against a 

representative group of terminal and instrument approach procedures to evaluate capabilities and 

constraints for RF path terminators. 

FY 2007: 

• Completed flight evaluation of the critical terminal area situations under which red Land and Hold 

Short Operations lights must be illuminated and extinguished during high capacity operations at an 

airport by using pilot-in-the-loop flight simulation. 

• Developed assessment tools and procedures to evaluate pilot workload during various flight 

conditions by using the LifeShirt® technology in simulated flight operations. 

FY 2006: 

• Developed methods to identify commercial aircraft touchdown points during commercial operations 

by using instrument landing systems (ILS) or non-ILS information, these methods will aid in 

understanding causes of aircraft overruns and runway excursions. 

FY 2005: 

• Provided measures of pilot reaction to laser illumination collected using FAA’s B-737 flight simulator 

to support AC 70-1 “Outdoor Laser Operations” and AC 70-2 “Reporting of Laser Illumination of 

Aircraft”. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Aviation Safety Information and Analysis Sharing 

• Completed the ASIAS CONOPS that is focused on the new data sharing concepts among 

commercial aviation stakeholders. 

• Developed an ASIAS architecture for the implementation of emerging technologies and system to 

support the sharing of information between commercial aviation stakeholders. 

• Developed automated tools to monitor databases for potential safety issues. 

• Developed prototype ASIAS system and associated reports that show the benefit of using diverse 

textual and digital data sets for analyzing commercial aviation safety metrics and enhancements. 

• 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. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-48 

Risk Management Decision Support 

• Completed a model which identifies and incorporates the gap analysis between 14 CFR Parts 121, 

135, 145; maps to the two top levels of ACOSM, and can be interfaced with IOSA. 

• Determined injury ratios for well-defined unsafe conditions (e.g., structure failure, electrical system 

failure, landing gear vibration, power plant failure, and so forth) on aircraft systems or 

components. 

Aircraft Maintenance - Maintainability and Reliability 

• Completed technical data for the purpose of preparing standards for carbon monoxide detection 

devices and inspection methods to determine the integrity of exhaust systems. 

Terminal Area Safety 

• Developed testing procedures and requirements to identify required navigational performance 

(RNP) constraints related to terminal area operations. 

• Evaluated air traffic and flight procedures for terminal area operations by using the human-in-theloop flight and air traffic simulators. 

• Evaluated devices and risks associated with undesired laser cockpit illumination. 

• Analyzed operational landing distance performance of selected aircraft make/model/series. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

Government, industry, and academia aviation safety subject matter experts will be invited to demonstrate a 

working prototype of a network-based integration of information extracted from diverse, distributed sources. 

The research will continue to develop innovative, advanced tools and methodologies that will for the first 

time be able to convert and integrate aviation safety data that is currently distributed across multiple 

organizations and archives into information on the operational performance and safety of the aviation 

system. Using ASIAS and other aviation safety data, analytical studies to identify safety issues and verify 

mitigation and safety enhancements will continue. Research and analysis will continue to ensure that the 

FAA maintains a desired level of safety while accommodating the need for more efficient use of the terminal 

area. 

New Initiatives 

Safety Impact Assessment of Very Light jets (VLJs). There is a need to assess the risk and impact of VLJs on 

the NAS. Introduction of VLJs will require the development of separation standards as required between fast 

moving 14 CFR Part 121 and slower moving VLJs, the design of separate highway-in-the-sky of tubes for 

VLJs, VLJ flight track distribution and the development or modification of obstruction clearance surface 

(OCS) for VLJ. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Aviation Safety information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) 

• Expand ASIAS architecture to include the sharing of air traffic information and air carrier 

information among industry stakeholders. 

• Continue development of automated tools to monitor databases for potential safety issues. 

• 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. The prototype system 

will contain a technical process to query de-identified safety data from any participating airline 

Flight Operations Quality Assurance or Aviation Safety Action Program, aggregate it through a 

distributed database and make it accessible to appropriate industry stakeholders. The ASIAS 

prototype will be demonstrated in 2012. 

• Conduct 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. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-49 

• Develop methods and risk models to evaluate advanced aircraft systems and component 

integration. 

Risk Management Decision Support 

• Initiate development of a method and associated metrics to measure progress in reducing the rate 

of fatalities and significant injuries. 

• Develop at least one methodology for the mid-air collision risk analysis between VLJ and 14 CFR 

Part 121 aircraft and develop one prototype tool to assess the risk. 

• Complete injury ratios for well-defined unsafe conditions (e.g., structure failure, electrical system 

failure, landing gear vibration, power plant failure, and so forth) on aircraft systems or 

components. 

• Continue risk management concept, model and analytical tool development in support of 

commercial and general aviation. 

Terminal Area Safety 

• Complete testing procedures and requirements to identify RNP constraints related to terminal area 

operations. 

• Continue evaluating devices and risks associated with undesired laser cockpit illumination. 

• Evaluate air traffic and flight procedures for terminal area operations by using the pilot-in-the-loop 

flight simulator. 

• Analyze the operational landing distance performance of selected aircraft make/model/series. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-50 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 78,915 

FY 2009 Appropriated 12,488 

FY 2010 Request 12,698 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 50,044 

Total 154,145 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

System Safety Management 3,303 3,232 6,402 9,608 9,879

Personnel Costs 1,494 1,947 2,892 2,669 2,531

Other In-house Costs 86 113 223 211 288

 Total 4,883 5,292 9,517 12,488 12,698

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 4,883 5,292 9,517 12,488 12,698

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 4,883 5,292 9,517 12,488 12,698
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-51 

A11.h. - System Safety Management/ 

Aviation Safety Risk Analysis Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

060-110 Aviation Safety Risk Analysis 

Risk Management Decision Support 526 Develop method and associated metrics to measure 

progress in reducing the rate of fatalities and significant 

injuries 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Continue risk management concept, model and analytical 

tool development in support of commercial and general 

aviation. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Completed a model which identifies and incorporates the 

gap analysis between 14 CFR Parts 121, 135, 145; maps to 

the two top levels of ACOSM, and can be interfaced with 

IOSA. 

♦ 

Conduct System Safety Assessment of VLJs ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis and 

Sharing 7,658 

Complete ASIAS Concept of Operations (CONOPS) focused 

on the new data sharing concepts among commercial 

aviation stakeholders. ♦ 

Develop an architecture for ASIAS ♦ ◊ 

Develop automated tools to monitor databases for potential 

safety issues ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop prototype ASIAS system and associated reports ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ Conduct analytical studies using ASIAS and other aviation 

safety data ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop methods and risk models to evaluate advanced 

aircraft systems and component integration. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Aircraft Maintenance – Maintainability & 

Reliability 0 

Develop standards for carbon monoxide detection devices 

and inspection methods to determine the integrity of 

exhaust systems 

♦ 

Terminal Area Safety 1,695 

Develop testing procedures and requirements to identify 

RNP constraints ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Evaluate air traffic and flight procedures for terminal area 

operations by using human-in-the-loop flight and air traffic 

simulator ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Evaluate devices and risks associated with undesired laser 

cockpit illumination ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Identify contributing factors and develop models for 

landing performance of selected make/model/series aircraft 

using standard operating practices to improve the safety 

and capacity in terminal areas 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 2,819 

Total Budget Authority 12,698 12,488 12,698 12,668 12,566 12,460 12,350

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-52 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.i. Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors

$10,302,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, and 

Organizational Excellence. 

Intended Outcomes: The Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations (ATC/TO) Human Factors Program 

supports FAA strategic goals for increased safety, greater capacity, and organizational excellence by 

developing research products and promoting the use of those products to meet the future demands of the 

aviation system. This human factors research program for FY 2010 will emphasize the safety aspects of the 

functions performed by air traffic controllers and technical operations personnel. The program will examine 

the roles of controllers and maintainers at increased capacity levels and how those roles are best supported 

by allocation of functions between human operators and automation to enhance safety and minimize the 

potential for human error. The ATC/TO program generates requirements for human interface characteristics 

of future air traffic and technical operations (maintainer) workstations. It is enhancing 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. In addition, researchers are developing effective methods 

to present weather information to air traffic specialists for severe weather avoidance and accident 

prevention, developing methods to select new air traffic service providers and maintainers so that the 

applicant screening process is valid, reliable, and fair, and improving human-system integration in the 

maintenance arena to increase reliability and availability of the NAS. 

The research program works to improve system safety by: 

• Developing: 

− A technical operations Human-System Integration roadmap that complements the introduction 

of advanced technology and automated capabilities as the NAS increases dependence on 

automation and leased services for critical data sources in the NAS that were formerly 

controlled by the FAA. 

− Methods to identify new potential human error problems as the air traffic service providers’ 

roles and responsibilities change as a result of increasing automation levels. 

− Organizational changes to transform the technical operations Air Traffic Organization (ATO) 

safety culture. 

− Effective methods to present air traffic specialists weather information for accident prevention 

through severe weather avoidance. 

• 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 air traffic service providers and maintainers. 

The program works to improve the ATC and technical operations contribution to system capacity by: 

• Developing: 

− Integrated workstations that allow air traffic service providers to meet increased service 

demand. 

− Methods to assess the value of proposed changes to workstations to determine if human-inthe-loop performance is enhanced. 

− Advanced workstation 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. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-53 

• Improving: 

− Human-system integration in a manner that allows air traffic service providers and pilots to 

cooperatively manage traffic loads as cockpit technology and air traffic workstations are more 

closely connected to efficiently move NAS air traffic. 

− Roles and responsibilities between air traffic service providers and pilots as technology evolves 

to meet future demands. 

Agency Outputs: The Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors Research Program provides 

leadership and products to motivate NAS evolution to assure that the system’s human component will 

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. 

• Candidate technology evaluations that purport to provide a specified human-in-the-loop 

performance level or safety benefit when used by the ATO workforce. 

• ATO safety culture transformation through research in the Technical Operations community to 

identify effective interventions to move the ATO toward a “Just Culture.” 

• Future air traffic service provider and maintainer personnel selection criteria to enhance screening 

process efficiency and effectiveness. 

Research Goals: 

• By FY 2010, complete a study to determine the role of time on position as it impacts the potential 

for an operational error. 

• By FY 2010, identify the changes to the ATO technical operations safety culture that resulted from 

previous research initiatives as they transition to the operational domain. 

• 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. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The ATC/ATO Human Factors research program receives 

requirements from its internal FAA sponsoring organizations, primarily the following FAA ATO Air 

Traffic/Technical Operations research groups: 

• 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. FAA Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification organizations 

participate in the research requirements definition associated with pilot/controller interface with airground integration weather aspects as the FAA moves toward a vision of the future NAS. 

• 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 employee attitudes. 

• 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 displays, controls, and maintainability features specification. 

• Personnel Selection and Training Requirements Group – ATO Technical Training and Development, 

Human Resources, FAA Academy, Workforce Services, and the Financial Services groups address 

personnel selection and training including the ability to successfully screen applicants for controller 

positions and for reduced training cost and time. 

R&D Partnerships: 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-54 

• Collaborative research with NASA includes identifying future NAS human factors air-ground 

integration research issues as technology brings changes to flight deck capabilities. 

• Collaboration with EUROCONTROL includes participation in semi-annual Air Traffic Management 

(ATM) Seminars, leadership of an Action Plan 15 Safety workgroup for human reliability, and ATM 

Safety Research symposia participation. 

• Program personnel represent the agency in the Normal Operations Safety Survey (NOSS) Study 

Group of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 

• The University of Texas has performed NOSS research at ATM facilities in New Zealand, Australia, 

Canada, and Finland with ICAO endorsement. 

• Cooperative research agreements are in place with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, St. 

Louis University, Ohio State University, and American Institutes for Research. 

Accomplishments: Program highlights include: 

FY 2008: 

• Completed tower simulation infrastructure to support NextGen human factors research for the 

airport domain. 

• Application of en route workstation research concepts that are being transferred to the operational 

arena as the data communications program matures through the initial integration of this 

technology. 

• Completion and dissemination of a tower supervisor best practices study to suppress the potential 

for runway incursions and operational errors. 

• Validated the Human Error Safety Risk Assessment (HESRA) research tool on a wake turbulence 

system in the early stages of development to manage safety risk prior to system development and 

fielding. This research tool will be transferred to the operational domain via the Safety 

Management System (SMS) toolbox. 

• Completed first stage of safety culture enhancement by transfer of the technical operations 

aviation safety action program (ASAP) to the operational domain. 

• Completed data collection for the technical operations work force anthropometric measurement 

database. 

• Developed a maintenance domain alerts and alarms human factors design standard. 

• Conducted a NOSS trial in a FAA facility to demonstrate the utility of the concept and provide 

unique safety data for the participating facility. 

• Initiated a maintainable and extensible job/task analysis information database providing the ability 

to access, update, and report requirements in parallel with NextGen development. 

• Developed and validated a technically sound computer-based practical color vision test that relates 

to ATC tasks. 

FY 2007: 

• Completed simulations that evaluate capacity enhancements when en route workstations are 

provided with data communications and aircraft self-spacing and self-separation provisions. 

• ATC safety alerts study completion in response to National Transportation Safety Board concerns 

that controllers are not responding properly to prevent mid-air collisions and controlled flight into 

terrain accidents. 

• Tower situation display demonstration with integrated flight data to reduce display clutter and 

integrate tower controller tasks. 

• Initiation of a tower controller external vision requirements study to support staffed virtual tower 

development with no direct airport surface view. 

• Safety Culture improvement project expansion to more facilities enabling the technical operations 

community to improve safety 

• Transfer of the National Air Traffic Professionalism Program (NATPRO) to the En Route service unit 

as a research product that is making the transition to the operational domain. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-55 

• Updated en route and terminal job task analyses and developed air traffic controller performance 

standards. 

FY 2006: 

• Explored human performance limitations to find controller workload limits using current technology 

and procedures as traffic levels increase. 

• Completed an initial effort to transform the ATO work force safety culture. 

• Initiated data collection to update the anthropometric database to guide maintenance workstation 

ergonomic design. 

• Initiated development of a pre-screening alternative form for air traffic controller job applicants 

that are selected to take the Air Traffic Selection and Training (AT-SAT) test battery. 

• Initiated a tower controller duties and functions task analysis to enhance the terminal training 

option method of selecting candidates. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Initiated second stage of transforming the safety culture of the Technical Operations organization 

and assess intervention effectiveness of first stage efforts. 

• Delivered initial results of a study of time-on-position as a predictor of the potential for operational 

errors due to lack of initial situation awareness when beginning a shift or relieving another 

controller. 

• Estimated the safety risk of an operational error (OE) occurring based on the exposure to daily 

activities while working on a given shift at a particular time of day and time on position to use in 

establishing safety priorities. 

• Continued methodology validation to assign controller applicants to tower versus radar training. 

• Continue assessment of new NextGen systems and procedures impact on selection and training for 

future air traffic service providers and maintainers. 

• Transferred interim color vision test for air traffic controller evaluation to the operational domain. 

• Completed the validity assessment of the Credentialing Skills Evaluation process for air traffic 

controller compliance with ICAO credential requirements. 

• Completed data collection for TRACON supervisor best practices to identify an exportable package 

of materials that can be used to suppress operational errors in the terminal domain. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST 

The program will continue to provide research that will operate in concert with other human factors system 

development activities that are focused on the NextGen solutions being proposed for the future NAS. This 

research program addresses human performance issues in ATC systems acquisition, design, operation, and 

maintenance over the next several years with an emphasis on safety and personnel. The human factors 

research program will continue to emphasize the safety aspects of NAS enhancements as NextGen changes 

emerge and change the interactions between the actors and systems in the NAS. The proactive analysis of 

human error causal factors continues to be the focus of a portion of this research program. 

Advanced Air Traffic Systems 

• Developing human factors display requirements for weather information to mitigate the hazards to 

flight presented by icing, low ceiling and visibility, and convective activity with the objective of 

accident prevention. 

• Developing a human factors display standard for air traffic control displays. 

Individual and Team Performance 

• Develop a model of controller time-on-position to predict the probability of operational errors for 

various rotation cycle lengths for position relief to determine the range of optimum times that 

reduce the probability of error. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-56 

• Continue work in human error reduction and reporting by expanding the application of research in 

transformation of the ATO safety culture. 

Advanced Technical Operations Systems 

• Assess the impact of preventive maintenance on unscheduled outages. Determine the causes of 

human error during scheduled maintenance that results in premature NAS system failure. 

• Design and develop the maintenance workstation for the future NAS to reduce staffing and skill 

level requirements and enhance availability of the NAS. 

Personnel Selection and Training 

• Develop a technical operations road map to utilize human-system integration concepts as a method 

to assure that as new technology is developed and fielded in the NAS the human component of the 

system is planned on a plane equal to that of technology to assure that personnel staffing, skills, 

and training are adequate to meet future needs. 

• Initiate strategic training analysis to support the conceptual development of NextGen procedures 

and systems. 

• Transform the critical performance requirements of the NAS maintainer job and required skills into 

selection and training criteria for the future work force. 

New Initiatives 

New initiatives will focus on the maintenance aspects of the ATC system. The NAS architecture plan, the 

NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP) and the JPDO concept of operations introduce many automation 

concepts that will require an updated maintenance concept including increased availability of NAS systems, 

a maintainer personnel roadmap and a concerted effort to reduce the effects of human error during the 

maintenance process: 

• Develop a human-system integration road map for the technical operations work force in a 

strategic view. 

• Develop new methods to proactively identify the potential for human error to interrupt NAS 

operations as increased levels of automation amplify the consequences of system outages 

• Develop new workstations that allow faster recovery from NAS system failures 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Advanced Air Traffic Systems 

• Develop a human factors display standard that will be used as a system design requirements 

document to leverage past lessons learned and aid the move toward a common display platform 

for all air traffic domains where similar display requirements exist. 

• Deliver guidelines and requirements for weather information displays for controllers that will aid in 

further reduction of the aviation accident and fatality rate. 

Individual and Team Performance 

• Conduct simulations and analyses of controller time-on-position as it relates to operational errors. 

The analyses will seek to find the minimum time on position that provides an adequate level of 

situation awareness and the maximum time beyond which mental fatigue induces human error. 

• Refine a tool for human reliability analysis in collaboration with EUROCONTROL human factors 

experts to assess the impact of changes to air traffic management planned by both the US and 

European air traffic service providers. 

• Conduct a survey to determine the effectiveness of controller fatigue management changes 

introduced in FAA Orders during 2009 

Advanced Technical Operations (TO) Systems 

• Deliver an analysis of the impact of human error on availability of the NAS. 

• Continue a Human System Integration Study of the impact future air traffic maintenance concepts 

on the Technical Operations workforce. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-57 

Personnel Selection and Training 

• Deliver an initial Technical Operations Human-System Integration Roadmap to complement the 

NAS Enterprise Architecture. 

• Perform a strategic training analysis to support the conceptual development of NextGen procedures 

and systems for controllers and maintainers 

• Prepare a set of required skills and NAS maintainer performance requirements suitable for 

transformation into selection and training requirements for the future NAS. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-58 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 172,105 

FY 2009 Appropriated 10,469 

FY 2010 Request 10,302 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 43,142 

Total 236,018 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations 4,234 4,130 4,130 4,042 4,389

Personnel Costs 5,079 5,285 5,285 6,128 5,617

Other In-house Costs 245 239 239 299 296

 Total 9,558 9,654 9,654 10,469 10,302

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 9,558 9,654 10,000 10,469 10,302

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 9,558 9,654 10,000 10,469 10,302
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-59 

A11.i. – Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

082-110 Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors 

Advanced Air Traffic Systems 450 

Develop human factors display standard for common 

display platform 

♦ ◊ ◊ 

Deliver guidelines and requirement for improved 

weather products for controllers ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Individual and Team Performance 1,469 Conduct simulations and analyses of controller time-onposition ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Refine Human Reliability Analysis tool ♦ ◊ 

Conduct a controller fatigue management survey ◊ ◊ 

Transform the technical operations work force safety 

culture ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Technical Operations (TO) 1,381 

Deliver analysis of human error impact on NAS 

availability ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct HSI study of maintenance CONOPS ◊ ◊ 

Personnel Selection and Training 1,089 

Deliver an initial TO Personnel Road Map ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Perform strategic training analysis for systems and 

procedures ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Prepare required skills and performance requirements ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 5,913 

Total Budget Authority 10,302 10,469 10,302 10,505 10,686 10,876 11,075

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-60 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.j. Aeromedical Research $10,378,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Increased Safety. 

Intended Outcomes: 

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) Aeromedical Research Program 

The Aeromedical Research Program supports FAA’s Flight Plan Goal for Increased Safety by: 

• Investigating and analyzing injury and death patterns in civilian flight accidents and incidents to 

determine their cause and develop preventive strategies. 

• Supporting FAA 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: 

o Evacuation and egress of humans from aerospace craft; 

o Dynamic protection and safety of humans on aerospace craft; and 

o 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. The Aeromedical Research Program supports FAA’s Flight Plan 

goals to reduce air carrier fatalities, reduce the number of fatal accidents in general aviation and support 

FAA organizational excellence by: 

• Exploiting new and evaluating existing bioaeronautical guidelines, standards, and models for 

aerospace craft cabin equipment, procedures, and environments. 

• 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 

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 air contamination incidents during flight and 

ground operations. 

• Developing of advanced air chemistry models for interaction of atmospheric ozone and volatile 

organic compounds. 

• Developing advanced methods to automatically analyze textual safety reports and extract system 

performance information for prognostic identification of safety risks for system operators and 

designers. 

• 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: 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-61 

• Evidence-based development of appropriate policy, regulations and guidelines to maximize safety 

and health from the cabin air quality environment; 

• Identifying hazards and characterizing risks of the major infectious diseases likely to be carried onboard 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. 

Agency Outputs: Agency outputs proceed from the FAA Office of Aviation Medicine (AAM), specifically, 1) 

the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) and 2) the FAA National Air Transportation Center of Excellence 

(CoE) 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. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

RITE was formulated in response to issues raised in a 2002 National Research Council Report regarding 

Airliner Cabin Environment and the Health of Passengers and Crew during normal and events outside the 

normal operational envelope. It addresses public, aircrew, and congressional concerns regarding these 

issues including disease transmission, contaminant transport, and ozone that include chemical reactivity 

research of aircraft cabin interiors and contaminants that may be carcinogenic. Pesticides, both residual and 

spraying, are chemicals similar to phosphate esters used as additives in hydraulic and lubricating fluids in 

aircraft engines and Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) and identified as possible neurological toxins in crew 

members. RITE is primarily conducted by universities and the industry. Established in 2004 by the FAA 

Administrator RITE is led by Auburn University, with Harvard and Purdue Universities as Technical Co-Leads. 

Other member universities include Boise State University, Kansas State University, the University of 

California at Berkeley, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. RITE conducts R&D on 

cabin air quality and on chemical and biological agents, decontamination, and materials compatibility for 

aircraft. 

The FAA and RITE are uniquely positioned to provide evidence based research data to assess new 

technologies, provide hazard identification and risk assessment for aircraft cabin environmental events and 

provide appropriate guidelines, propose standards, and models for aircraft cabin equipment, procedures, 

and environments. The airliner cabin environment research program serves as the basis for new regulatory 

action and evaluation of existing regulations to continuously optimize the safety and health of passengers 

and crewmembers at a minimum cost to the aviation industry. 

Research Goals: 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

• By 2012, validate mathematical models to evaluate whether aircraft designs meet requirements for 

evacuation and emergency response capability. 

• By 2012, establish design criteria for restraint systems that protect occupants at the highest impact 

levels that the aircraft structure can sustain. 

• By 2015, apply and develop advances in gene expression, toxicology, and bioinformatics 

technology and methods to define human response to aerospace stressors. 

• By 2015, incorporate aerospace medical issues in the development of safety strategies concerning 

upset recovery, controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), and other forms of loss of aircraft control: As 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-62 

adaptive-control techniques are developed, assess pilot performance relative to aeromedical 

considerations. 

• 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: Aerospace Accident Injury 

and Autopsy Data System (AAIADS) 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

• By 2010, develop and analyze methods to detect and analyze aircraft cabin contamination including 

chemical-biological hazards and other airborne irritants. 

• By 2010, validate computational models of chemical air contaminants, such as volatile organic 

compounds, to evaluate health and safety impacts on passengers and crew. 

• By 2011, apply and validate advanced air sensing technology for volatile organic compounds in the 

aircraft cabin environment. 

• By 2011, develop bleed air contamination models of engine compressors and high temperature air 

system for effects on health and safety of passengers and crew. 

• By 2012, complete experimental projects in support of regulatory, certification, and operations for 

existing Aviation Rulemaking Committees by providing data and guidance for new or revised 

regulation of airliner cabin environment standards. 

• By 2012, develop and validate chemical kinetic models for bleed air systems for health and safety 

effects on passengers and crew. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

• Directly supports the bioaeronautics agenda set forth in the Executive Office of the President, 

National Science and Technology Council, National Plan for Aeronautics Research and Development 

and Related Infrastructure (NPARDRI), released 1/10/2008. 

• Directly supports the bioaeronautics agenda set forth in the Executive Office of the President, 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Science & Technology Policy (OST) FY 2009 

Administration R&D Budget Priorities, 8/14/2007 (EOP). 

• Provides research for FAA, European Aviation Safety Authority and Transport Canada under the 

Aircraft Cabin Safety Research Plan. This is a coordinated, living plan to maximize the cost/benefit 

of aerospace craft cabin safety research nationally and internationally. 

• Supports multi-year collaborative studies by FAA and other government and industrial entities to 

evaluate flight crew and passenger symptomatology, disease, and impairment. 

• Supports the NextGen Implementation Plan, Smart Sheets, Solution Set Increased Safety, Security 

and Environmental Performance, Safety Management Systems. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

• The Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program directly supports the FAA’s Statutory Authority, 

49 USC 40101D, 44701A, 40 FR 29114 DOT, 49 CFR 830.5, Public Law 106-81, 14 CFR 1.1, 21, 25, 

121, 125, and 135 to protect the health and safety of passengers and crewmembers. 

• The Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, National Plan for 

Aeronautics Research and Development and Related Infrastructure. 

• The Executive Office of the President, OMB and OST FY 2009 Administration R&D Budget Priorities. 

• White House Implementation Plan for National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza. 

• World Heath Organization International Health Regulations agreed to by the Secretary, Department 

of Transportation 

• Supports multi-year collaborative studies by FAA, other government agencies, and industrial 

entities to evaluate airliner cabin environment to protect the safety and health of passengers and 

crewmembers. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-63 

• Supports the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act of the 21 Century section 725; 

Public Law 106-181. 

• Supports the FAA National Air Transportation Center of Excellence for Research in the Intermodal 

Transport Environment 

• Supports the White House Implementation Plan for National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza. 

• Provides collaborative research with the Civil Aviation Authority-United Kingdom on cabin air 

quality. 

• Supports the Health and Human Services Implementation Plan to characterize viral subtypes and 

enable detection and investigation of suspected cases and detect increase in disease activity in the 

aircraft cabin environment. 

R&D Partnerships: 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

• Direct collaboration with the DoD, NASA, and NTSB on accident investigation, crashworthiness, inflight turbulence, aerospace medicine, ocular injury from lasers, and exposure to cosmic radiation. 

• Develops Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRDA) and Memorandums of 

Understanding/Agreement (MOA/U) with industry to ensure collaborative projects benefiting both 

FAA and the aviation industry. 

• Participates in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aerospace medical advisory groups, the 

European Union, and many academic institutions and government laboratories. 

• Established National Research Council (NRC) postdoctoral programs to conduct research in 

molecular biology, bioinformatics, environmental physiology, and other aviation medicine fields at 

CAMI. 

• Established a professional relationship with over 90 organizations and 55 committees including 

holding fellowships and other leadership positions. These scientific, medical, and bioengineering 

relationships include working in partnership on a multitude of efforts with these organizations 

including the following: 

− Cabin Safety Harmonization Working 

Group 

− Seat Certification Streamlining Effort 

− The National Safety Council 

− Society of Automotive Engineers 

− Aerospace Medical Association 

− Civil Aviation Medical Association 

− American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

− American Ophthalmological Society 

− Society of Forensic Toxicologists 

− American Academy of Forensic Science 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-64 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

RITE has over 30 industry partners participating in the research and development effort. Office of 

Aerospace Medicine staff members collaborate with leadership positions in the following associated with 

aerospace medicine, aviation health, airliner cabin environment and safety: 

• Direct coordination and collaboration with the DoD 

• Direct coordination and collaboration with Department of Homeland Security, Transportation 

Security Administration 

• Environment Protection Agency 

• Health and Human Services 

• Centers for Disease Control and Protection 

• National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety 

• International Civil Aviation Organization. 

• International Aviation Transportation Association 

• Air Transport Association 

• Boeing 

• Delta 

• Honeywell 

• American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

• American Society for Testing and Materials International 

• Memorandum of Cooperation with the Civil Aviation Authority-United Kingdom to collaborate and 

coordinate airliner cabin environment research in sampling and analyzing air quality in aircraft 

cabins. 

• Develops cooperative research and development agreements with industry to ensure collaborative 

projects benefiting both FAA and the aviation industry. 

• Participates and coordinates airliner cabin environment research with Air Transportation Association 

Medical Committee and Cabin Technical Operations Committee. 

Accomplishments: 

FY 2008 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

Aeromedical Safety Management System 

• The aerospace Medical Research Scientific Information System (SIS) software was documented for 

use by aeromedical research scientists. 

• Completed phase I of a cross functional study of diabetes in civil aviation. 

• Continued the development of an Aerospace Accident Injury and Autopsy Data System (AAIADS) – 

realized significant coordination & collaborative activities. 

• Accepted FAA Accident Autopsy Program responsibilities. 

• Completed the program on quality control and assurance concerning the use of the CAMI Data 

Imaging and Workflow System (DIWS). 

• Completed the Quality Control and Assurance Software Tool (computer code) to facilitate risk 

management processes in medical certification of aircrew. 

• Examined the frequency and rate of aviation-related laser incidents by year and location. 

• Evaluated All-Strobe Approach Lighting Systems. 

• Evaluated new design Optometric Test Devices. 

• Provided recommendations regarding Infrared Radiation Transmittance and Pilot Vision Through 

Civilian Aircraft Windscreens 

• Provided Safety Considerations for High-Intensity Lights Projected into the Navigable Space: SAE 

G10-T Working Group: Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) document. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-65 

• Assessed the Medical Certification Of Civilian Pilots Fitted With Multifocal Contact Lenses and those 

Considering Laser Eye Surgery. 

• Assessed Aircraft accidents and incidents associated with visual effects from bright light exposures 

during low-light flight operation 

• Assessed Laser Exposure Incidents: Pilots Ocular Health And Aviation Safety Issues. 

Accident Prevention and Investigation 

• Compared usage of both illegal drugs and abused prescription medications in pilots involved in civil 

aviation accidents with that of the general population in the United States. 

• Examined the Vitreous Fluid and/or Urine Glucose Concentrations in 1,335 Civil Aviation Accident 

Pilot Fatalities. 

• Completed the formulation of the ISO 27368 Blood Gas Analysis International Standard. 

• A new equation was developed to prevent false negative drug results. 

• Biomarker Response to Altitude: The test phases of two studies to assess gene expression changes 

that occur as a result of exposure to decreased oxygen levels have been completed. 

• Biomarker Response to Alcohol: Gene expression studies have been developed to identify 

biomarkers associated with alcohol consumption of levels up to 0.08%. 

• Biomarker Response to Fatigue: A preliminary study of the effects of fatigue was undertaken in 

collaboration with the United States Air Force. 

Protection and Survival 

• Evacuation Models: A computer simulation of airliner emergency evacuation was developed and 

demonstrated for both narrow and wide body aircraft. 

• Comprehension of Safety Material and Signs - Commercial Airliner “EXIT” signs and symbols were 

evaluated. 

• Comprehension of Safety Briefing Card Pictorials and Pictograms was evaluated. 

• Mathematical Prediction of the Effectiveness of Emergency Evacuation Aids (slides) – model 

continued development 

• Assessed the inflation Performance of Emergency Escape Slides at High Altitude. 

• Occupant Seat/Restraint Models: Measures of accuracy for dynamic mathematical models have 

been developed and tested. 

• Side Facing Seat Safety Criteria: A study of the injury potential of side facing seats using a 

specialized anthropomorphic test dummy has been completed. 

• Assessed head and neck injury potential for occupants of typical aircraft seats and interior 

configurations during forward impacts. 

Aviation Physiology 

• Software: Refined equations used for the calculation of radiation doses received by pilots and crew 

were completed and implemented into the early warning radiation alert system. 

• Determined the cosmic radiation exposure of aircraft occupants on simulated high-latitude flights 

during solar proton events from 1986 through 2008. 

• In conjunction with Harvard University, a study was completed on the effect of normal cabin 

altitude in an older (50-80 years old) and less than healthy (smokers/cardiac conditions) passenger 

population. 

• Supported the field evaluation of whole airliner decontamination technologies; wide-body aircraft 

with dual-use application for railcars in support of the RITE effort. 

• Contributed to the development of Guidelines for Life Support Equipment and Cabin environment 

issues - crew and passenger safety requirements for very high altitude air or spacecraft. 

• Contributed to training recommendations for occupants of orbital or suborbital vehicles. 

• Conducted a review of Technical Order and AC addressing the exposure of pilots & crew to 

excessive levels of carbon monoxide. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-66 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

• Aircraft Decontamination System: Complete field evaluations of an aircraft thermal 

decontamination system. The system uses the complementary dual decontamination technologies 

of thermal desorption (high temperature and relative humidity) and vaporized hydrogen peroxide 

to kill a full spectrum of biological agents. The evaluations were performed on a McDonnell 

Douglas DC-9 and a Boeing-747 aircraft. 

• Collaborative research with CAMI (RITE – Harvard University): to assess the physiological effects of 

7,000 ft cabin altitudes on passengers with chronic and stable cardiac and/or pulmonary disease. 

• Extensive study of the chemicals deposited on high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters during 

airliner service; identification of key markers of contamination. 

• Conducted chamber studies with older and health compromised subjects. 

• Development of miniature sensor array for chemical and physical assessment of the aircraft cabin. 

• Laboratory demonstration of an electrochemical sensing technique for the detection of tricresyl 

phosphate - one of the principal chemicals of concern during contamination of bleed air from jet 

engine lubricants. 

• Identified previously unanticipated ozone reaction chemistry to form volatile organic compound 

contaminants. 

• Collected 4,000 health surveys of flight attendants for underlying and occupational related health 

conditions and begun statistical analysis air quality incidents. 

• Developed protocol for measuring critical cabin pressures for at-risk passengers and crewmembers. 

• Developed protocol for onboard pesticide sampling. 

• Initiated research collecting baseline data for volatile organic compound contaminants on loaded 

filters. 

• Completed materials compatibility studies of aluminum aerospace alloys and airliner cabin textiles 

with prototype decontamination technology. 

FY 2007 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

• Evaluated the medical aspects of extending first-class FAA medical certificate to 12 months for 

pilots under age 40. 

• Development of software and procedures to support quality assurance evaluation of airman 

medical records. 

• Development of an Aircraft Accident/Injury and Autopsy Data System (AA-IADS). 

• Evaluated aircraft windscreen transmittance characteristics as they relate to emerging laser 

technologies employed in the NAS. 

• Performed analysis of civilian air show accidents. 

• Evaluated the effectiveness of simulators in upset recovery training. 

• Determined the distribution of fluoxetine, vardenafil, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, and sedating 

antihistaminics levels in postmortem cases from aviation accidents. 

• Determined molecular changes as a result of decreased cabin oxygen levels at altitudes with 

significance to both the aviation industry and military pilots. 

• Provided engineering/biodynamic requirements to support revision to TSO-C100 and SAE AS5276. 

• Supported development of a cabin evacuation design computer model for very large transport 

aircraft by developing passenger management strategies using research data from flight attendant 

location trials. 

• Evaluated presentation media for maximum effectiveness in passenger safety briefings. 

• Initiated collaborative research with industry partners to develop modeling strategies and validation 

techniques applicable to aircraft seat certification by analysis. 

• Reviewed accidents involving Commemorative Air Force Aircraft 1968 to 2005. 

• Evaluated design requirements for pulse oxygen systems to support development of engineering 

certification criteria. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-67 

• Determined the clinical aspects of radiation exposure resulting from a terrorist attack. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

• Collected extensive ozone measurements in aircraft cabin. 

• Developed advanced computer simulations for evaluation of airflow and contaminant transport. 

• Developed an 11-row airliner mock-up for experimental validation of computational models. 

• Completed development and full scale demonstration of prototype biological decontamination 

system for narrow-body and wide-body aircraft using thermal heat and vaporized hydrogen 

peroxide. 

• Tested of a range of commercial off-the-shelf biosensors for aircraft cabin environment completed. 

FY 2006 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

• Completed gene expression research review to identify fatigue in collaboration with the US Air 

Force. 

• Development of computer-modeling methods will provide faster, safer, more cost-effective aircraft 

certification decisions. 

• Conducted initial evaluations of lap belt and shoulder strap mounted airbags. 

• Provided near real-time warning of solar events, with recommendations for reduced aircraft flight 

altitudes and potential diversions for polar routes. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

• An experimental study using a ground-based ozone exposure facility that simulates the interior of 

the airliner cabin was completed and analysis of the resulting data started to be analyzed and inflight ozone measurements were commenced. 

• Pesticides sampling procedures were developed in the laboratory for pesticides. 

• Protocols for the Air Quality Incidents and establishment of an Incident Reporting System for air 

quality incident study were developed. 

• Survey of potential physical and chemical decontamination technologies was completed. 

• The first generation of a full-scale demonstration of combining the vapor hydrogen peroxide (VHP), 

specified by Congress as a benchmark, with enhanced environmental preconditioning was 

constructed and initial testing undertaken. Protocols for a formal evaluation of the full-scale 

demonstration were developed. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

Aeromedical Safety Management System 

• Aerospace Medical Research Scientific Information System (SIS): Applied and validated it by 

addressing disqualifying pathologies: 1) complete atrial fibrillation, 2) complete female pilot, and 3) 

continue diabetes. 

• Aerospace Accident Injury and Autopsy Data System (AAIADS): Continued collaboration with AQS 

(ASIAS) in support of safety management system concepts as applied to aerospace medicine. 

Accident Prevention and Investigation 

• Gene Expression Changes in Response to Fatigue: Continued to develop methods and tools to 

manage risks to human safety in stressful aviation environments. 

• Analyzed post-mortem aviation accidents for fatigue gene expression; collected new specimens, 

identify biomarkers, and perform pathway analysis. 

• Prevalence of Abused Drugs: Examined the prevalence of abused drugs by region, drug type, pilot 

certificate type, pre-employment vs. random, and other factors critical for rule-making on drug 

abatement. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-68 

Protection and Survival 

• Side Facing Seat Certification: Used recent research findings to develop comprehensive technical 

requirements for certification of side facing seats towards developing new policy. 

• Oblique Seat Injury Potential: Evaluated the unique occupant kinematics and loading that could 

occur in impacts involving oblique seat installations. 

• Aviation Child Restraint Certification: Developed the specifications and test requirements needed 

to support certification of advanced aviation child restraint systems; potential revision to TSOC100. 

• Passenger Aircraft Safety and Emergency Information Resources: Assessed the degree of 

understanding by passengers. 

• Mathematical Prediction of Emergency Evacuation Performance. 

o Continued support of potential technical revision of TSO C69 

o Evaluated Inflation Performance of Emergency Escape Slides at High Altitude. 

Aviation Physiology 

• Pulse Oxygen Systems: Developed a methodology to assess physiological models of high altitude 

breathing systems to support certification of systems proposed for use in the B-747 and other 

aircraft. 

• Hypoxia Training Devices: Compared learning experience and symptoms when using portable 

devices (tent, mask) and an altitude chamber to make an individual hypoxic. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

• Developed and collected data to identify technologies and/or operational procedures to reliably 

bring cabin ozone and cabin pressure levels within current FARs or to address potential rulemaking 

activities for revising cabin pressure and ozone regulations. 

• Quantified the effects of cabin pressure on individuals at risk due to age and/or health status. 

• Conducted preliminary assessment of the compatibility of aircraft materials, such as high strength 

steels and aerospace composites materials, with decontamination technology to determine which 

products are safe to use on aircraft and which could damage the aircraft materials and potentially 

compromise the continued airworthiness of the aircraft. 

• Demonstrated the feasibility of detecting tricresyl phosphate (TCP) from hot air streams to 

determine whether TCP levels that could affect health of the crew can be detected in aircraft 

cabins. 

• Developed state-of-the-art computer simulation for influenza transmission within aircraft cabins to 

determine where bioaerosol droplets may be spread in addition to close to infected passengers. 

• Conducted preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of new influenza control methodologies to 

mitigate spread of influenza to passengers and crew members. 

• Evaluated exposure risk for pesticides and volatile organic compound contaminants to determine 

levels of contaminants and the potential health effects to humans. 

• Collected and analyzed data on airliner cabin environment relative humidity, temperature, ozone, 

carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and sound levels to determine levels and potentially 

revise or create new regulations. 

• Collected baseline data for volatile organic compound contaminants on loaded aircraft filters to 

determine what can be detected on aircraft filters and what, if any, effects there may be from the 

contamination to passengers and crew members. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

Ongoing Activities 

• Validate mathematical models to evaluate whether aircraft designs meet requirements for 

evacuation and emergency response capability. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-69 

• Establish design criteria for restraint systems that protect occupants at the highest impact levels 

that the aircraft structure can sustain. 

• Apply advances in gene expression technology, toxicology, and bioinformatics to define human 

response to aerospace stressors including alcohol, drugs, hypoxia, and fatigue. Develop methods 

to collect and assess environmentally responsive genes and their protein products in the context of 

normal and abnormal physiologic states. Utilize machine learning techniques to develop a robust 

gene-set predictive for these stressors, towards a "genomics black-box" to support accident 

investigation and minimize risk to human safety and health. 

• Incorporate aerospace medical issues in the development of safety strategies concerning upset 

recovery, controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), and other forms of loss of aircraft control: As 

adaptive-control techniques are developed, assess pilot performance relative to aeromedical 

considerations - e.g., transfer of training from various classroom methodologies in the ground, to 

operations in static and dynamic simulators emulating physiologically stressful flight conditions 

(e.g., altitude and acceleration/acrobatic maneuvers), and ultimately in-flight. 

• Develop advanced methods to extract aeromedical information for prognostic identification of 

human safety risks. Evaluate factors pertinent to aeromedical safety including disqualifying 

pathologies; pilot age; fatigue; the physiologic basis of issues commonly labeled "pilot error" such 

as spatial disorientation, loss of situational awareness, and confusion; assessment of toxicological 

findings in terms of historical medical certification data; detection and aeromedical assessment of 

new medications and their interactions; effectiveness of emergency response procedures and 

equipment; and special issues (stow-always, type aircraft, laser/radiation threats, and commercial 

space transportation). Enable evidence-based medical certification and effective knowledge 

management. Develop new metrics to better understand aeromedical certification trends and 

future requirements to facilitate this process, including related education/training programs. 

• 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 (AAIADS). 

New Initiatives 

• Seat Cushion Component Test Methods: Develop methods for replacement of worn seat cushions. 

• Develop analytical procedures to assess the smoke toxicity of advanced materials for post-crash 

survivability. 

• Develop analytical procedures to assess alternative aviation fuels vapor toxicity. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

Ongoing Activities

• Evaluate synergistic health effects of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and ozone under mild 

hypoxic conditions. 

• Collect and analyze data on airliner cabin environment relative humidity, temperature, ozone, 

carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and sound levels to determine potential health effects. 

• Evaluation of exposure risk for pesticides and volatile organic compounds contaminants. 

• Collect baseline data for measuring volatile organic compound contaminants on loaded aircraft 

filters. 

• Develop advanced air chemistry models for interaction of atmospheric ozone and volatile organic 

compounds and their effects on cabin air quality. 

• Develop real-time intelligent sensing of cabin air quality on airliners. 

• Develop advanced microstructured catalytic materials for ozone conversion. 

• Apply advances in weather modeling to predict atmospheric ozone disturbances that could affect 

cabin air quality. 

• Asses risk and manage the infectious disease transmission on airliners. 

• Continue preliminary assessment of aircraft material compatibility of high strength steels and 

aerospace composites materials with disinfection technologies. 

• Quantify the effects of cabin pressure on individuals at risk due to age and/or health status. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-70 

• Evaluate and identify technologies and/or operational procedures to reliably bring cabin ozone and 

cabin pressure levels within current FARs. 

New Initiatives 

• Develop and test adaptive environmental control techniques to enable a safe and healthy cabin air 

environment including in-flight incidents. 

• Validate software tools and methods to mitigate air contamination incidents during flight and 

ground operations. 

• Identify potential impacts of more fuel efficient advanced airliner environmental control system and 

related engine designs on cabin air quality. 

• Assess role of advanced weather modeling technology to predict atmospheric ozone disturbances 

in the aircraft cabin. 

• Preliminary assessment of the efficacy of new influenza control methodologies. 

• Evaluate viral outbreak mitigation strategies and methodologies for cost effect reduction of impact 

to the air transportation system. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

Aeromedical Safety Management System 

• Complete application of Aerospace Medical Research Scientific Information System (SIS): 

DIABETES. 

• Aerospace Accident Injury and Autopsy Data System (AAIADS) continued development. 

Accident Prevention and Investigation 

• Gene Expression Changes in Response to Fatigue: Continue to develop methods and tools. 

• Analyze post-mortem aviation accidents specimens for fatigue gene expression. 

• Assess prevalence of abused drugs. 

• Develop analytical procedures to assess the smoke toxicity of advanced materials for post-crash 

survivability. 

• Develop analytical procedures to assess alternative aviation fuels vapor toxicity. 

Protection and Survival 

• Complete: 

− Assessment of Oblique Seat Injury Potential. 

− Aviation Child Restraint Certification: Develop the specifications and test requirements - 

TSO-C100. 

− Evaluation of Passenger Aircraft Safety and Emergency Information Resources. 

− Mathematical Prediction of Emergency Evacuation Performance. 

− Inflation Performance of Emergency Escape Slides at High Altitude. 

− Seat Cushion Component Test Methods: Develop methods for replacement of worn seat 

cushions. 

Aviation Physiology 

• Complete methodology to evaluate Pulse Oxygen Systems. 

• Complete evaluation of Hypoxia Training Devices. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

• Provide 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. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-71 

• Evaluate toxicological aspects of cabin environmental (air) quality: development of reference 

laboratory to support aircraft cabin air contaminants analysis. 

• Validate computational models of air contaminants, volatile organic compounds; biological and viral 

contaminants to evaluate health impacts on passengers and crew. 

• Characterize the potential impact on aircraft fuel efficiency gains due to new environmental control 

system materials, sensing systems and methodologies. 

• Develop updated scientific databases of atmospheric ozone concentrations and route planning 

tools. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-72 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 132,418 

FY 2009 Appropriated 8,395 

FY 2010 Request 10,378 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 43,889 

Total 195,080 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

CAMI Aeromedical Research 3,569 1,504 1,712 2,038 1,811

Airliner Cabin Environment Research 0 0 0 0 2,000

Personnel Costs 5,091 5,893 5,893 6,177 6,342

Other In-house Costs 140 145 155 180 225

 Total 8,800 7,032 7,760 8,395 10,378

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 8,800 7,032 7,760 8,395 10,378

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8,800 7,032 7,760 8,395 10,378
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-73 

A11.j. – Aeromedical Research Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 

086-110 CAMI AEROMEDICAL RESEARCH 

(CAMI) 1,811 

Validate mathematical models - evacuation and 

emergency response capability. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Establish design criteria for restraint systems. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop gene expression, toxicology, and 

bioinformatics technology and methods to define 

human response to aerospace stressors. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Incorporate aerospace medical issues in the 

development of safety strategies- aeromedical aspects 

of human performance.

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Perform Aeromedical Safety Risk Management: identify 

human safety risks. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop Aerospace Accident Injury and Autopsy Data 

System (AAIADS) ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

. 086-111 AIRLINER CABIN ENVIRONMENT 

RESEARCH 2,000 

Develop and analyze methods to detect and analyze 

aircraft cabin contamination. ♦ ◊ 

Computational models of air contaminants, volatile 

organic compounds, biologicals and virals ♦ ◊ 

Advanced air sensing technology for volatile organic 

compounds. ♦ ◊ ◊ Bleed air contamination models of engine compressors 

and high temperature air system. ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Support of regulatory, certification, and operations for 

existing Aviation Rulemaking Committees. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Chemical kinetic models for bleed air systems for 

health and safety effects on passengers and crew. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 6,567 

Total Budget Authority 10,378 8,395 10,378 10,621 10,848 11,086 11,334

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-74 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.k. Weather Program $16,789,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety and Greater Capacity. 

Intended Outcomes: The Weather Program helps achieve FAA’s strategic goal of increasing aviation 

safety by reducing the number of accidents associated with hazardous weather conditions. The Weather 

Program strives to increase capacity by reducing the impacts of adverse weather events on the operational 

capacity of the National Airspace System (NAS). This research program also supports FAA Flight Plan goals 

of greater capacity. Additionally the Weather Program is performing the research necessary to meet the 

requirements of the NextGen Integrated Work Plan (IWP). FAA efforts, undertaken in collaboration with the 

National Weather Service (NWS) and NASA, increase FAA’s ability to provide improved short-term and midterm 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. 

Agency Outputs: The weather research program develops new and improved weather algorithms for NAS 

platforms such as the Weather and Radar Processor, the Integrated Terminal Weather System, the 

Operational and Supportability Implementation System, the Advanced Technologies and Oceanic 

Procedures, the Dynamic Ocean Track System, and the Enhanced Traffic Management System. The NWS 

platforms also use these improved algorithms. The weather research program also provides knowledge that 

can be used by the FAA to support design approvals for weather data link systems and to issue appropriate 

operational approvals for weather products for use in the cockpit. 

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. 

Research Goals: 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 research are: 

• By FY 2012, development of timely and accurate deterministic (and an initial set of probabilistic) 

aviation weather forecast data for operational use by ATM, dispatchers, and pilots. 

• By FY 2016, development of improved accuracy of deterministic and an expanded set of 

probabilistic aviation weather forecast data for operational use by ATM, dispatchers, and pilots. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The Weather Program works within FAA, industry and 

government groups to assure its priorities and plans are consistent with user needs. This is accomplished 

through: 

• Close collaboration with FAA organizations such as the Air Traffic Organization Oceanic and OffShore Programs Office, various Aviation Safety Offices. 

• Guidance from the FAA Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-75 

• Inputs from the National Aviation Weather Initiatives, which are strongly influenced by other NAS 

drivers including “Safer Skies” and Flight Plan Safety Objectives. 

• Guidance from the Joint Planning and Development Office Next Generation Air Transportation 

System initiative. 

• Inputs from the aviation community, such as the annual National Business Aircraft Association 

/Friends/Partners in Aviation Weather Forum, and scheduled public user group meetings. 

• Feedback received from documents and publications. 

R&D Partnerships: The Weather Program collaborates with the Department of Commerce 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). 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration laboratories (convective weather, turbulence, 

modeling, weather radar techniques, quality assessment/verification). 

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory (convective weather). 

• National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center and Environment Modeling Center (modeling). 

• Naval Research Laboratory (volcanic ash, flight level winds). 

• NASA Research Centers (in-flight icing, turbulence, satellite data). 

• Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (in-flight icing). 

• Universities (modeling). 

• Airlines, port authorities, cities (user assessments). 

Accomplishments: 

FY2008: 

• Implemented an experimental rapid refresh Weather Research and Forecast (WRF) model. 

• Implemented turbulence detection algorithm into NEXRAD operations. 

FY2007: 

• Implemented in-flight icing severity nowcast capability operationally 

• Obtained approval of turbulence detection algorithm by NWS NEXRAD System Recommendation 

and Evaluation Committee for operational implementation. 

• Provided Helicopter Emergency Medical Services Aviation Digital Data Service (ADDS) enhancement 

to enable emergency medical services pilots to make NO-GO weather decisions. 

FY2006: 

• Obtained approval of in-flight icing severity nowcast capability for operational use. 

• Implemented four-hour winter precipitation capability into Weather Support to Decision Making 

System. 

• Implemented terminal convective weather forecast capability into Integrated Terminal Weather 

System. 

FY2005: 

• Implemented improved accuracy and resolution of data on upper winds, temperature, and 

moisture through 13 kilometer rapid-update-cycle analyses and forecasts at the NWS. 

• Implemented in-flight icing nowcast capability with higher resolution into ADDS. 

Previous Years: 

• Achieved the Department of Commerce 2003 Silver Medal. 

• Implemented operationally new capabilities of: 

• Current and up to two-hour forecast of convective weather. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-76 

• Current and up to 12-hour forecast of in-flight icing conditions 

• Current and up to 12-hour forecasts of clear-air turbulence above 30,000 feet. 

• Up to 12-hour forecast of marine stratus burn-off at San Francisco International Airport. 

• Implemented operationally at the NWS the enhanced ADDS with a flight path tool depicting vertical 

cross sections of weather along user-specified flight routes. 

• Completed convective storm growth and decay field tests in Dallas, Orlando, Memphis, and New 

York. This research resulted in the accurate short-term prediction of the initiation, growth, and 

decay of storm cells, and enhanced the strategic and tactical flow management planning that 

allows more effective routing of traffic to and from airports and runways. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Obtained FAA approval to test in-flight icing forecast capability for Alaska. 

• Transitioned turbulence forecast greater than 10,000 feet for implementation on operational ADDS. 

• Developed a consolidated convective weather forecast capability with probabilistic forecasts and 

weather avoidance fields. 

• Transitioned CONUS display of ceiling, visibility, and flight category analysis capability for 

implementation on operational ADDS. 

• Conducted testing of the Rapid Refresh Weather Research and Forecast (WRF) model. 

• Obtained FAA approval to test volcanic ash dispersion and oceanic flight level winds forecast 

capability. 

• Improved in-flight icing forecasts via enhanced polarimetric measurement in low-reflectivity clouds. 

• Developed prototype Network-Enabled Verification Service for meeting System Wide Information 

Management architecture requirements. 

• Conducted quality assessment evaluations, automated verification tools, of weather research 

capabilities to support the FAA/NWS NextGen Weather Evaluation Capability process. 

• Completed guidance for certification of airborne weather radar with turbulence detection capability 

for additional aircraft types. 

• Determined liquid water equivalent (LWE) rate & resultant intensity for snow, freezing rain & 

freezing drizzle 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

The weather program will continue to develop/enhance forecast/nowcast capabilities, to support FAA safety 

and capacity Flight Plan goals and meet NextGen IWP requirements, through the conduct of applied 

research in naturally occurring atmospheric hazards including turbulence, severe convective activity, icing, 

and restricted visibility. In FY2010, additional turbulence forecast capabilities are being developed to 

enhance en route safety and capacity, a consolidated convective weather forecast is be developed to 

enhance terminal and en route capacity, an in-flight icing forecast capability for Alaska is being developed to 

enhance safety especially for general aviation, and a ceiling and visibility forecast capability is being 

developed to enhance en route safety especially for general aviation. Capabilities developed transition to 

NWS, FAA, and industry weather systems. 

New Initiatives 

No new initiatives are planned in FY 2010 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Upgrade in-flight icing forecast and nowcast severity capability for WRF rapid refresh. 

• Develop in-flight icing forecast capability for Alaska. 

• Demonstrate Northeast corridor 0-6 hour consolidated convective weather forecast capability via 

NNEW. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-77 

• Transition probabilistic and mountain-wave turbulence forecast for implementation on operational 

ADDS 

• Develop CONUS display of ceiling, visibility, and flight category forecast capability. 

• Integrate Canadian radar data into the real-time national three dimensional radar mosaics. 

• Demonstrate global capability for volcanic ash plume dispersion forecast. 

• Utilize rapid refresh WRF model forecasts to produce probabilistic forecasts for convection and 

ceiling/visibility. 

• Demonstrate initial operating capability for NEVS utilizing output from consolidated convective 

weather forecast capability 

• Conduct quality assessment evaluations, utilizing automated verification tools, of weather research 

capabilities to support the FAA/NWS NextGen Weather Evaluation Capability (NWEC) process. 

• Develop specification for operational approval of liquid water equivalent technology for ground deicing guidance. 

• Transition WRF rapid refresh model for implementation into NWS operations 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-78 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 371,613 

FY 2008 Appropriated 16,968 

FY 2009 Enacted 16,789 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 64,283 

Total 469,653 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Weather Program 19,212 18,432 15,936 15,855 15,750

Personnel Costs 1,074 1,035 863 979 862

Other In-house Costs 90 78 89 134 177

 Total 20,376 19,545 16,888 16,968 16,789

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 20,376 19,545 16,888 16,968 16.789

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 20,376 19,545 16,888 16,968 16.789
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-79 

A11.k. – Weather Program – Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 

041-110 Aviation Weather Analysis and Forecasting 

Convective Analysis and Forecast Improvement 5,220 

Developed consolidated conv wx forecast capability ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Demo NE 0-6 hour consolidated conv wx forecast via NNEW ◊ 

Improved in-flight icing forecasts via enhanced NEXRAD polarimetric 

measurements in low-reflectivity clouds ♦ 

Integrate Canadian radar data into real/time national 3D mosaic ◊ 

Analysis and Forecast Improvement 6,017 

Obtained FAA approval to test in-flight icing forecast capability for Alaska ♦ 

Upgrade in-flight icing fc & nc severity for WRF RR ◊ 

Develop in-flight icing forecast capability for Alaska ◊ 

Transition AK in-flight icing forecast capability for implementation on 

operation ADDS. ◊ 

Obtained FAA approval to test global in-flight icing forecast capability ◊ 

Conducted test of WRF RR model ♦ 

Transition rapid refresh WRF model for implement. into NWS operations ◊ Implement RR WRF model fcs for probabilistic conv & C&V ◊ 

Transitioned turb forecast >10,000 ft for implementation on operational 

ADDS ♦ 

Transition probabilistic and mountain wave turbulence forecast capability 

for implement on operational ADDS ◊ 

Transition convectively-induced turbulence forecast capability for 

implement on oper. ADDS ◊ 

Transition probabilistic turbulence nowcast for implement. on oper ADDS ◊ 

Transitioned CONUS display of ceiling, vis. & flt. category analysis 

capability for impl. on oper. ADDS ♦ 

Develop CONUS ceiling, visibility, and flight category forecast capability ◊ 

Obtain FAA approval to test AK C&V 3D cloud probabilistic forecast/ncst ◊ 

Obtained FAA approval to test volcanic ash dispersion fc ♦ 

Demo global capability for VA plume dispersion forecast ◊ 

Obtain FAA approval of volcanic ash disp fc for oper read. ◊ 

Verification and Technology Implementation 4,513 Developed prototype Network-Enabled Verification Service (NEVS) for 

meeting SWIM architecture requirements ♦ 

Demonstrate IOC for NEVS utilizing conv wx fc capability ◊ 

Implement FAA approved products at the AWC ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct QA evaluations for NWEC process ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Completed guidance for cert. of airborne weather radar with turb 

detection capability for additional aircraft ♦ 

Determined LWE rate & resultant intensity for snow, frz rain & frz drizzle ♦ 

Develop specification for operational approval of liquid water equivalent 

for ground de-icing guidance ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 1,039 

Total Budget Authority 16,789 16,888 16,789 16,580 16,251 15,906 15,546

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-80 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A11.l. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research $3,467,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Increased Safety. 

Intended Outcomes: The Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Research Program supports FAA’s strategic 

goal of increasing safety by conducting research needed to ensure the safe integration of the UAS in the 

NAS. This research program also supports the development of aircraft technologies to meet requirements 

of NextGen enablers that facilitate the implementation of NextGen operational improvements (OIs). The 

program’s research activities focus on new technology assessments, methodology development, data 

collection and generation, laboratory and field validation, and technology transfer. 

Agency Outputs: Researchers are developing methodologies and tools to define UAS design and 

performance characteristics. 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, operation requirements, inspection and maintenance processes, and safety oversight 

responsibilities. Policies and guidance materials are also being published to equip FAA certification 

engineers and safety inspectors with the knowledge and tools they need to ensure the safe integration of 

UAS into the NAS. 

Research Goals: 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 seven research areas: technology survey; detect, sense and avoid (DSA); 

control, command, and communication (C3); flight termination, system safety, certification and 

airworthiness standards, and maintenance and repairs. 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. 

Communications issues that may arise due to the introduction of UAS into the NAS, as well as necessary 

safety procedures for the flight termination of UAS, will be researched. A system safety approach based on 

regulatory framework will be developed to identify the potential hazards, perform risk assessments, and 

evaluate mitigation strategies for UAS safe operations in the NAS. Data systems will be established to 

collect data on UAS design, operation, and maintenance that will provide technical information to support 

the development of design and operation standards and provide technical basis for safety oversight. 

• By FY 2010, complete UAS technology survey and gap analysis and document results in technical 

reports. 

• By FY 2012, determine performance characteristics and operational requirements for DSA 

technologies. 

• By FY 2012, analyze data on the safety implications of system performance impediments to C3 in 

different classes of airspaces and operational environment. 

• By FY 2012, develop risk management concepts, models, and tools for unmanned aircraft systems. 

• By FY 2015, conduct field evaluations of UAS technologies in an operational environment, including 

DSA, C3, and flight termination technologies. The documented results will be used to develop 

certification and airworthiness standards. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: 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: 

• FAA Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee Aircraft Safety Subcommittee – 

subcommittee representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually 

review the activities of the program. 

• Technical Community Representatives Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to 

ensure that results derived from these research activities will be implemented to meet the stated 

Agency Outputs as outlined above. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-81 

• Department of Defense (DoD) – the DoD is the largest UAS user requesting unrestricted access to 

the NAS. The FAA will collaborate with DoD through Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and 

Interagency Agreements (IA) to leverage resources and implement new technologies for civil 

applications. 

• Other Government agencies including Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of 

Commerce (DOC), state government agencies, and independent organizations that utilize UAS for 

national security, earth science and oceanic studies, and commercial applications. 

• 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. 

R&D Partnerships: 

• IA’s with other government agencies (DoD, DHS, DOC, state governments) and Memorandum of 

Cooperation (MOC) with foreign civil aviation authorities. 

• FAA Air Transportation Center 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 to conduct joint research on UAS initiatives via an 

MOC. 

Accomplishments: 

FY2008: 

• Completed technology surveys of UAS propulsion systems and regulatory gap analyses. 

• Completed survey of existing DSA capabilities and regulatory requirement analysis. 

• Developed UAS hazard categorization and analysis system (HCAS) within the regulatory framework 

including standard taxonomy. 

• Completed the second sets of FAA-United States Air Force (USAF) joint flight tests to study onboard DSA technology with multiple sensors and data fusion system. 

• Conducted technology survey on UAS designs and operations. 

• Begin determining potential safety implications of system performance impediments to C3. 

• Conducted technology survey on UAS flight termination and recovery. 

FY2007: 

• Completed the first set of FAA-USAF joint flight tests to evaluate a DSA technology. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Continued technology surveys on UAS designs and operations. 

• Continued technology surveys on UAS flight termination and recovery. 

• Determined performance characteristics and operational requirements for DSA technologies. 

• Continued FAA-USAF joint flight tests to study on-board DSA technology. 

• Continued to identify potential safety implications of system performance impediments to C3. 

• Established safety management system (SMS) approach and develop methodology to identify 

system-level risks and associated causal factors for safety integration of UAS in the NAS. 

• Developed risk management concepts, models, and tools for unmanned aircraft systems. 

• Performed risk analysis to determine impacts of specific hazards, mitigation strategies, 

recommended approaches, safety measurements, and oversight requirements. 

• Established UAS data collection and information system. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-82 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

New Initiatives: 

None. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Complete technology surveys on UAS designs and operations. 

• Complete technology surveys on UAS flight termination and recovery. 

• Determine performance characteristics and operational requirements for DSA technologies. 

Included will be the development and evaluation of specific DSA technologies including both onboard and ground based systems in compliance of regulatory requirements (airworthiness and 

flight operations). 

• Continue FAA-USAF joint flight tests to study on-board DSA technology. 

• Determine potential safety implications of system performance impediments to C3. 

• Develop and evaluate UAS C3 technologies to ensure operational safety including data link 

requirements, frequency spectrum technology, availability and reliability, communicating with ATC, 

and interactions with other NAS users. 

• Continue to develop a methodology to identify system-level risks and associated causal factors for 

safety integration of UAS in the NAS. 

• Develop risk management concepts, models, and tools for unmanned aircraft systems. 

• Perform risk analysis to determine impacts of specific hazards, mitigation strategies, recommended 

approaches, safety measurements, and oversight requirements. 

• Develop UAS data collection and information system and conduct system safety analysis on specific 

UAS operations. 

• Initiate the collection of UAS operation data and perform analyses to develop technical information 

required to support establishment of regulatory standards. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-83 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 4,120 

FY 2009 Appropriated 1,876 

FY 2010 Request 3,467 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 13,895 

Total 23,358 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Unmanned Aircraft System Research 0 1,200 2,768 735 2,368

Personnel Costs 0 0 136 1,080 1,024

Other In-house Costs 0 0 16 61 75

 Total 0 1,200 2,920 1,876 3,467

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 1,200 2,920 1,876 3,467

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 1,200 2,920 1,876 3,467
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-84 

A11.l. – Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Research Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

069-110 Unmanned Aircraft System Research 

Technology Surveys Conduct technology survey on UAS designs and 

operations ♦ ◊ 

Conduct technology survey on UAS flight termination 

and recovery ♦ ◊ 

Detect, Sense, and Avoid (DSA) Research 789 Determine performance characteristics and operational 

requirements for DSA technologies ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Joint USAF-FAA flight tests on DSA technology ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct field evaluation of DSA technology ◊ ◊ 

Command, Control, and Communications 

(C3) 789 

Determine potential safety implications of system 

performance impediments to C3 ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Develop and evaluate UAS C3 technologies to ensure 

operational safety including data link requirements, 

frequency spectrum technology, availability and 

reliability, communicating with ATC, and interactions 

with other NAS users 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Study requirements of Ground Control System for 

certification and operations ◊ 

Conduct C3 field tests and evaluate technologies ◊ ◊ 

Flight Termination 

Determine requirements, risks, and mitigation 

strategies for flight termination ◊ ◊ 

Conduct flight termination procedure field test and 

evaluate technologies ◊ ◊ 

UAS System Safety Management 790 Develop a methodology to identify system-level risks 

and associated causal factors for safety integration of 

UAS in the NAS ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop risk management concepts, models and tools 

for unmanned aircraft systems ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Perform risks analyses to determine impacts of specific 

hazards, mitigation strategies, recommended 

approaches, safety measurements, and oversight 

requirements. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop UAS data collection and information system 

and conduct system safety analysis on specific UAS 

operations. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Collect UAS operation data and perform analyses to 

develop technical information required to support 

establishment of regulatory standards. ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 1,099 

Total Budget Authority 3,467 1,876 3,467 3,479 3,476 3472 3,468

 Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-85 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A12.a. Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) $14,407,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, International 

Leadership, and Organizational Excellence. 

Intended Outcomes: As the steward of NextGen, the JPDO seeks to address long-term imbalances in 

aviation capacity and demand. At the same time, it seeks to ensure that 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 all of FAA’s current strategic goals. 

Agency Outputs: 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 Goals: 

FY 2010 

• Continue to refine NextGen foundational documents: Concept of Operations, Enterprise 

Architecture, and Integrated Work Plan within the Joint Planning Environment (JPE). 

• Enhance the JPE planning information to reflect Integrated Surveillance Study Team results, 

operational scenarios that describe information sharing and procedures between flight/ airline 

operations and NextGen trajectory based flight processing including air navigation service provider, 

flight operations center, and flight crew roles and responsibilities. 

• Develop an inter-agency integrated surveillance architecture, concept of operations and funding 

profile, and governance process recommendation. 

• Establish Network Enabled information sharing standards for participating agencies & organizations 

including multi-agency governance processes. 

• Develop FY 2012 formulation package to support NextGen resource planning and performance 

measurement; track and ensure that partner agencies are implementing programs that support a 

transition to the end-state architecture as defined in the Integrated Work Plan. 

• Develop FY 2012 formulation package to support NextGen resource planning and development of 

the NextGen business case. 

• Develop FY 2012 NextGen business case including results of environmental mitigation methods and 

benefits. 

• Develop Dynamic Airspace Configuration research transition plan that results in a far-term concept 

for efficient partitioning of airspace and allocation of resources to meet NextGen Capacity needs. 

• Continue to coordinate and conduct demonstrations that will test operational concepts, address 

operational challenges, and provide alternatives for architectural trade-offs. Update the JPE to 

include demonstration results for NEO Spiral 2, Virtual Tower demonstration, UAS Flight Trials in 

Florida, Surface Trajectory Based Operations in Memphis, and Oceanic In-trail Climb and Descent 

Initiative. 

•

FY 2011 

• Continue research in key areas such as Trajectory Based Operations and Collaborative Air Traffic 

Management as well as other priority areas identified in the Integrated Work Plan. 

• Based on research results, assist agencies in deploying critical infrastructure for NextGen 

operations. 

• Initiate research in key areas such as Trajectory Based Operations and Collaborative Air Traffic 

Management. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-86 

FY 2012-2014 

• Continue research and development to support all NextGen solution sets. 

FY 2015 and Beyond 

• Continue development to support all NextGen solution sets. 

• Identify alternatives as a result of needed research that may be immature. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The JPDO is truly a collaborative enterprise. Employees from 

NASA and the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security 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. And 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. The Institute operates under 

guidelines set forth in the funding agreement between FAA/JPDO and the host organization, the National 

Center for Advanced Technologies. The agreement states that the Institute will be governed by a 16-

member council that is broadly representative of the aviation community. The Institute supports JPDO by 

recruiting and assigning industry experts to participate in forums and perform funded technical work. The 

Institute has already hosted a series of workshops to gather input on research, demonstrations, operational 

concepts, and financial implications. The Institute performs a variety of tasks in support of the planning 

process including studies, demonstration support, and strategic assessments and recommendations for 

NextGen design issues. 

Accomplishments: Major accomplishments and associated benefits of the JPDO efforts include the 

following: 

FY 2009 

• Deployed the web-based Joint Planning Environment (JPE) a portal that presents and relates 

NextGen Enterprise Architecture, Concept of Operations, Integrated Work Plan, and Business Case 

information. 

• Enhanced the JPE to reflect a federated architecture for participating agencies’ Enterprise 

Architectures.. 

• Developed FY2011 Formulation Package to support NextGen resource planning and development of 

the NextGen business case. 

• Developed FY2011 NextGen business case and released NextGen foundational documents 

consistent with FY2011 plans and priorities: Concept of Operations, Enterprise Architecture, and 

Integrated Work Plan. 

• Continued to coordinate with aviation and aeronautics research programs to ensure that research 

results in decisions that influence the most effective investment and implementation decisionmaking. 

• Multi-sector Planner Research Transition Team defined roles & responsibilities that 

support efficient traffic flow for mid-term operations (2010-2018). 

• Consistent with the refined foundational documents, continued to identify and facilitate all preimplementation activities to support identification and resolution of policy issues, optimized 

technology transfer, risk management and a broad range of analysis to support decision making. 

• Tracked and coordinated changes with partner agencies to ensure that implementing programs 

supported a transition to the end-state architecture as defined in the Integrated Work Plan. 

• Continue to coordinate and conduct demonstrations that validated operational concepts, addressed 

operational challenges, and provided alternatives for architectural trade-offs. Demonstrations 

explored human factors and safety characteristics of trajectory-based operations, high density 

airport operations, airspace security, and globally interoperable system integration 

FY 2008 

• Developed FY2010 Formulation Package to support NextGen resource planning and development of 

the NextGen business case. 

• Developed FY2010 NextGen business case 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-87 

• Released the Enterprise Architecture and Concept of Operations supporting FY2010 planning. 

• Released the Integrated Work Plan Version 1, which outlines the steps necessary to achieve the 

Concept of Operations. 

• . 

• Expanded NextGen Business Case including initial life-cycle cost/benefit analysis. 

• Refined program processes including risk management. 

• Defined Net Enabled Information Sharing (NEIS) framework and multi-agency governance 

• Established NextGen Network Enabled Weather Program Office and multi-agency governance 

• Defined Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing Concept and multi-agency governance 

• Established four Research Transition Teams: Trajectory Management, Integrated 

Arrival/Departure/Surface, Multi-sector Planner, and Dynamic Airspace Configuration, that defined 

initial plans for research transition from NASA to the FAA in these areas. 

FY 2007 

• Released Version 2 of the Enterprise Architecture and Concept of Operations. 

• Released the initial baseline version of the Integrated Work Plan, which outlines the steps 

necessary to achieve the Concept of Operations. 

• Completed the first NextGen Research and Development Plan, a 5-year view of the research and 

investment activities required to revise, coordinate, and cost the research and implementation 

agendas. 

• Completed the first NextGen business case (Exhibit 300). 

FY 2006 

• Developed the NextGen Block-to-Block Concept of Operations and coordinated it through the 

NextGen stakeholder community for comment and feedback. 

• Developed the NextGen Block-to-Block Enterprise Architecture, aligned the Architecture with the 

Concept of Operations, and began coordination and review through the NextGen stakeholder 

community. 

• Baselined the Operational Improvement Roadmap to set research targets for the Integrated 

Product Teams. 

• Published the NextGen FY 2008 Agency Budget Guidance for Research and Implementation, which 

begins to align programs to NextGen and identify key research areas. 

• Delivered the FY 2005 Progress Report to Congress describing the JPDO’s progress in carrying out 

the NextGen Integrated Plan. 

• Developed initial JPDO Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) to facilitate interaction with 

other agencies and stakeholders. 

• Established the Architecture Integration Council, which includes the chief architects for all partner 

agencies. This body will ensure the cooperation and engagement of the relevant agencies’ chief 

architects during development of the NextGen architecture. 

FY 2005 

• Made significant progress in resource alignment within the federal government and U.S. industry to 

develop and implement the NextGen in the most expedient and cost-effective manner. 

• Produced and updated the NextGen Integrated Plan as the long-term strategic business plan, 

detailing goals, objectives, and requirements for eight transformational areas. 

• Established and staffed—with federal and industry participants—eight integrated product teams to 

work collaboratively with government and industry to develop research agendas and strategies for 

achieving NextGen. 

• Performed the first major evaluation of the Operational Vision in Portfolio Segments, to validate the 

ability to deliver two to three times today’s capacity. 

• Established the NextGen Operational Improvement Roadmap to guide the transition from today’s 

system to the next generation. 

• Developed initial NextGen Segment Portfolios of policy, research and modernization requirements 

based on the OI Roadmap. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-88 

FY 2004 

• Initiated resource alignment within the federal government and U.S. industry to develop and 

implement the NextGen in the most expedient and cost-effective manner. 

• Produced the outline for the Integrated National Plan as the long-term strategic business plan for 

NextGen that detailed NextGen goals and objectives, and requirements for transformation in eight 

specific areas, each individually significant yet interdependent on the others. 

• Produced the framework for establishing with federal and industry participants eight integrated 

product teams that would work collaboratively with government and industry to plan for and 

develop research agendas and strategies for achieving NextGen. 

• Established the framework for the NextGen Operational Improvement (OI) Roadmap to guide the 

transition from today’s system to the NextGen. 

• Developed initial plan for the NextGen Segment Portfolio’s of needed policy, research and 

modernization requirements based on the NextGen OI Roadmap. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Continued development of the Enterprise Architecture and Concept of Operations aligned with the 

Integrated Work Plan. The Enterprise Architecture is a structured documentation of NextGen, 

capturing the activities, capabilities, data interchanges, and salient relationships associated with 

NextGen. The Concept of Operations provides a textual operational description of NextGen in the 

2025 timeframe. This is a key source to inform and initiate a dialog with the stakeholder 

community. 

o The Integrated Work Plan provides a long-term transition plan from the current system to that 

reflected in the Enterprise Architecture and Concept of Operations. It provides a framework to 

support ongoing planning and will be refined over the planning process to detail analysis of 

implementation alternatives, risks, costs and benefits as well as prioritization and allocation of 

resources. 

o These documents will provide the necessary foundational information to define implementation 

and research guidance to NextGen partner agencies. 

• Engaged the Senior Policy Committee on near-term, high priority policy decisions in support of 

FY012 planning. Continue to use the NextGen Institute to access world-class private sector 

expertise, tools, and facilities for application to NextGen activities and tasks. The studies to be 

conducted by the Institute in FY 2010 will further address strategic trade studies that consider the 

technical, economic, operational, policy, organizational, and temporal dimensions of the NextGen 

design space. 

• Conducted detailed planning and coordinate demonstrations to be undertaken in FY 2010, including 

Oceanic Trajectory-Based Operations, High Density Airport Operations, Domestic Trajectory-Based 

Operations, Network Enabled Weather, and Global Interoperability. These demonstrations will test 

operational concepts, demonstrate technologies that could address operational challenges, and 

provide alternatives for architectural tradeoffs. 

• Continued system-of-system modeling, simulation, and evaluation to ensure benefits, costs, and 

trade-offs across the full range of NextGen goals. 

• Continued outreach efforts aviation trade associations and non-traditional organizations (e.g., 

groups representing both leisure and business travelers) to solicit views as to how NextGen can 

best meet the needs of the traveling public. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

• Continue modeling, simulation, and evaluation to ensure benefits, costs, and trade-offs are 

understood across the full range of goals. 

• Revise, coordinate, and cost the research and implementation agendas for subsequent years. 

• Refine NextGen business case and work with agencies and industry on research areas and 

implementation of NextGen-related programs. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-89 

• Continue refining foundational documents—Concept of Operations, Enterprise Architecture, and 

Integrated Work Plan —in response to the outcome of demonstrations, research, changes in 

agency budgets, etc. 

• Refine NextGen metrics. 

• Plan FY 2011 operational demonstrations. 

• Continue alignment of agency goals and objectives with NextGen goals and objectives. 

New Initiatives 

• Coordinate demonstrations that will test operational concepts, demonstrate technologies that could 

address operational challenges, and provide alternatives for architectural tradeoffs. 

• Facilitate the transfer of technologies from research programs that are ready for implementation 

(e.g., NASA, FAA, DHS and DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency program) to the federal 

agencies with operational responsibilities and to the private sector, as appropriate.. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Planning and Agency/Industry Alignment 

• Update, coordinate, and validate NextGen concepts. 

• Coordinate aviation and aeronautics research programs to achieve the goal of more effective and 

directed research that will result in only performing the most promising and applicable research. 

• Set goals, priorities and metrics and reporting structure, and coordinate research activities within 

JPDO member agencies and with U.S. aviation and aeronautical firms. 

• Facilitate the transfer of technologies from research programs that are ready for implementation 

(e.g., NASA and DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency program) to the federal agencies with 

operational responsibilities and to the private sector, as appropriate. 

Systems Integration and Transformation Analysis 

• Continue to refine research plans, which will describe research and supporting activities required to 

drive implementation decisions to effect the NextGen transformation. 

• Continue refining foundational documents—Concept of Operations, Enterprise Architecture, and 

Integrated Work Plan—in response to the outcome of demonstrations, research, changes in agency 

budgets, etc. 

• Continue modeling planned improvements to test their efficacy in accomplishing NextGen goals. 

• Conduct analyses, trade studies, and demonstrations to select the best approaches/alternatives for 

transforming the current air transportation system to NextGen. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-90 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 58,399 

FY 2009 Appropriated 14,494 

FY 2010 Request 14,407 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 56,555 

Total 143,855 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

Joint Planning & Development Office 16,539 16,112 12,910 11,221 11,528

Personnel Costs 1,313 1,867 1,256 2,663 2,622

Other In-house Costs 67 121 155 610 257

 Total 17,919 18,100 14,321 14,494 14,407

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 17,919 18,100 14,321 14,494 14,407

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 17,919 18,100 14,321 14,494 14,407
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-91 

A12.a. - Joint Planning & 

Development Office Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 

Planning and Agency/Industry Alignment: 

Update and carry out an integrated plan for a Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). 693 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Coordinate and facilitate the transfer of technologies 

from aeronautics research programs and direct 

research that will result in achieving NextGen. 

272 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Systems Integration and Transformation 

Analysis: 

Accomplish the coordination to create and carry out 

the plan to achieve more directed programs through 

applicable research and systems integration. 

2,249 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop Enterprise Architecture for systems-of 

systems engineering and expand lower levels of the 

enterprise. 

2,064 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Evaluate and validate cross IPT, integrated systemwide concepts, procedures, policies, business cases, 

etc. to assure potential alternatives exist that could 

meet all the National Plan Objectives. 

2,013 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct policy analyses that focus on early decisions 

to establish guiding principles for the transformation 1,385 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Model the planned system improvements to validate 

their efficacy in accomplishing the NextGen goals. 

Update roadmaps and research agenda’s as 

required. 

350 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Assist agencies in selecting the best 

approaches/alternatives for transforming the current 

air transportation system to NextGen; 

2,002 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct and report interagency budget analysis and 

progress 500 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 2,879 

Total Budget Authority 14,407 14,494 14,407 14,352 14,214 14,070 13,919

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-92 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A12.b. Wake Turbulence $10,631,0001

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Greater Capacity. 

Intended Outcomes: The Wake Turbulence 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.” The program was originally focused on the near-term objectives of 

increasing airport capacity and the capacity of terminal airspace during by developing modifications to air 

traffic control wake turbulence mitigation procedures used during weather conditions requiring instrument 

flight procedures. During FY 2009, the program began to address the broader research agenda required to 

progress to the envisioned NextGen era flight operations. In FY10, the Wake Turbulence Research will 

continue its broader research agenda, addressing wake turbulence restrictions in today’s terminal and en 

route airspace in the future NextGen airspace designs. Program outcomes include: 

• increased NextGen capacity for more flights, and 

• aircraft that are provided with more space and flight efficient separations with the same or reduced 

safety risk. 

Agency Outputs: The 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 air traffic control 

to operate these airports 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 2010 will continue work begun in FY 2008 to address the feasibility 

and benefit of a wake/collision avoidance decision support capability for the flight deck. 

Research Goals: 

• By FY 2010, determine pilot and ANSP situational aircraft separation display concepts required for 

implementation of the NextGen “Trajectory Based Operation” and “High Density” concepts. NG

• By FY 2012, determine the 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. NG

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The program addresses the needs of the FAA Air Traffic 

Organization (ATO) 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 that training and implementation issues are addressed in the program’s 

research from the start. 

Customers: 

• Pilots; 

• Air navigation service provider personnel; 

• Air carrier operations; and 

• Airport operations. 

 

1

 The Wake Turbulence Program contains funding for both legacy research and NextGen research. The legacy component 

of this request is $3,026,000 and the NextGen component is $7,605,000 NG Those activities noted with the superscript NG indicate those funded with NextGen resources, while those without 

notation indicate those funded with the legacy program resources.
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-93 

Stakeholders: 

• Joint Planning and Development Office; 

• Commercial pilot unions; 

• FAA air navigation service provider unions; 

• Other ICAO air navigation service providers; and 

• Aircraft manufacturers. 

R&D Partnerships: 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: 

• Volpe National Transportation Center PartNG; 

• Mitre/Center for Advanced Aviation and Systems Development (CAASD) NG; 

• NASA Ames and Langley Research Centers; 

• EUROCONTROL and associated research organizations; 

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory NG; 

• National Center for Aviation Operations Research NG; 

• National Institute of Aeronautics NG. 

Accomplishments: The following represent major accomplishments of the wake turbulence program: 

• FY 2008 – Developed a national air traffic control order for conducting dependent integrated 

landing system staggered approach operations on an airport’s closely spaced parallel runways. 

• FY2006-2008 - Evaluated reports of wake turbulence encounter as part of the FAA Safety 

Management System assurance process for changes to air traffic control procedures. 

• FY 2005-2008 – Provided wake turbulence evaluation support in the integration of a new aircraft 

into the National Airspace System. 

• FY 2004-2008 – Cooperative data exchange with European wake turbulence data collection efforts. 

• FY 2002-2008 – Developed the most extensive wake turbulence transit and characterization data 

base in the world, used to determine feasibility of proposed changes to air traffic control’s wake 

turbulence mitigation procedures. 

• FY 2007 - Implement dependent staggered ILS approaches to St. Louis closely spaced parallel 

runways 12R/L and 30R/L. 

• FY 2007 - Complete FAA assessment of NASA’s concept for wind dependent wake turbulence 

mitigation procedure for aircraft arriving on closely spaced parallel runways. 

• FY 2005-2007 – By analysis, simulation and evaluation prototype; demonstrated feasibility of a 

cross-wind based air traffic wake turbulence mitigation decision support tool concept for enabling 

more closely spaced departures from an airport’s closely spaced parallel runways. 

• FY 2006 – Provided wake turbulence information necessary for the ICAO determination of wake 

turbulence mitigation separations required for the A-380 aircraft. 

• FY 2006 – Completed a detailed proposal for modifying the current air traffic wake turbulence 

mitigation procedures used for dependent staggered instrument landing system (ILS) approaches 

to an airport’s CSPR. 

• FY 2005-2006 – Enhanced the pulsed Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR), which can measure 

distance, speed and rotation, for wake data collection capability, enabling it to capture wakes from 

both arriving and departing aircraft. 

• FY 2005 – Utilizing analyses of the wake turbulence data collected at San Francisco International 

Airport (SFO) and Lambert – St. Louis International Airport (STL) upgraded FAA’s wake turbulence 

encounter model used for evaluating proposed changes to air traffic control procedures for routing 

aircraft into and out of airports. 

 

NG Those activities noted with the superscript NG indicate those funded with NextGen resources, while those without 

notation indicate those funded with the legacy program resources. 

Part NG Partnership with Volpe is partially funded NextGen resources and partially with legacy program resources. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-94 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Continued wake data collection and analyses at additional airports to support airport specific 

changes to air traffic control procedures for dependent integrated landing system approaches to an 

airport’s closely spaced parallel runways. 

• Evaluated reports of wake turbulence encounter as part of the FAA Safety Management System 

assurance process for changes to air traffic control procedures. 

• Completed development of the enhanced suite of wake turbulence encounter analysis tools and 

begin their application in the evaluation of air route changes, modifications to en route air traffic 

control aircraft separation procedures changes and introduction of new aircraft designs. NG

• Analyzed of wake turbulence data base to upgrade computational models of wake vortex transport 

and decay. 

• Accomplished air traffic procedure/air route proposal reviews utilizing the enhanced suite of wake 

turbulence encounter analysis tools. NG

• Developed airport specific procedure modifications to enable dependent ILS approaches to closely 

spaced parallel runways. 

• Completed development of wind prediction algorithm suitable for use in the development of a cross 

wind dependent wake mitigation for ground based decision support tool for approaches of 757 and 

“heavy” category aircraft to closely spaced parallel runways. NG

• Continued development of ground and aircraft based situational display concepts (joint work with 

EUROCONTROL) relative to separation constraints (wake, weather, and visibility) required for 

implementation of the NextGen concept for air routes and approach/departure paths. NG

• Completed program to evaluate the impact to fuel efficiency from the addition of a spiroid winglet 

to an aircraft’s wing. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

In FY 2010, FAA must continue developing the capabilities needed to enable aircraft separation processes 

supportive of NextGen shared separation and dynamic spacing super density operations. These capabilities 

are highly dependent on technologies that accurately predict aircraft tracks, the track/decay of their 

generated wake vortices and provide 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 wake turbulence, reduce collision risk and keep 

traffic flowing in all weather and visibility conditions. The Wake Turbulence Program’s research will result in 

enhanced technology assisted processes for safely mitigating aircraft wake encounter and collision risks 

while optimizing capacity, for all flight regimes, including the effects of weather. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Incorporate wake transport/decay and aircraft navigation performance analysis results into FAA 

wake encounter and collision risk models. 

• Accomplish air traffic procedure/air route proposal reviews utilizing the enhanced suite of wake 

turbulence encounter and collision risk analysis tools. 

• Complete two airport specific procedure modifications to enable dependent ILS approaches to 

closely spaced parallel runways. 

• Continued data collection to determine the characteristics of wake vortices generated by departing 

and arriving aircraft. Data will be 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. Part NG

• Initiate development of wake turbulence transport and decay modeling tools for use in evaluating 

proposed trajectory based operational concepts. NG

 

NG Those activities noted with the superscript NG indicate those funded with NextGen resources, while those without 

notation indicate those funded with the legacy program resources. 

Part NG This activity is partially funded NextGen resources and partially with legacy program resources.
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-95 

• Continue development of ground and flight deck based situational display concepts (joint work with 

EUROCONTROL) for showing separation constraints (driven by collision risk, wake encounter risk, 

weather, and visibility) for aircraft operating in NextGen air corridors and high density airspace. NG

• Complete development (joint work with EUROCONTROL) of analytical capability-benefit tradeoff 

models of potential procedures/processes/systems that would provide the desired Flight Deck 

capability for self separating from adjacent aircraft and their wakes. NG

• Initiate development of modeling tools to evaluate system-wide safety risk associated with the 

NextGen pair-wise separation concepts. NG

• Continue to conduct experiments/analyses and aviation community forums to define in terms of 

collision and wake encounter hazard – what is a low, major and catastrophic impact safety event 

and acceptable safety risk for each. NG

• Development of an air navigation service provider concept feasibility prototype decision support 

system for use in reducing required wake mitigation separations in dependent instrument landing 

system arrivals of B-757 and heavier aircraft on an airport’s closely spaced parallel runways. NG

 

NG Those activities noted with the superscript NG indicate those funded with NextGen resources, while those without 

notation indicate those funded with the legacy program resources. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-96 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 35,036 

FY 2009 Appropriated 10,132 

FY 2010 Request 10,631 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 43,415 

Total 99,214 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts 

Wake Turbulence 2,036 2,833 12,543 9,734 9,502

Personnel Costs 225 222 251 374 700

Other In-house Costs 12 11 19 24 110

Total 2,273 3,066 12,813 10,132 10,631

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 2,273 3,066 12,813 10,132 10,631

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2,273 3,066 12,813 10,132 10,631
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-97 

A12.b.- Wake Turbulence Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

041-150 - Wake Turbulence Legacy 2,491 

Incorporate Wake Transport/decay and aircraft 

navigation performance into FAA models 500 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Continued data collection and analysis to determine the 

characteristics of wake vortices generated by aircraft – 

for enhancing the fidelity of wake models 

1,191 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Accomplish air traffic procedure/air route proposal 

reviews for wake turbulence impacts 300 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop airport specific procedure modifications to 

enable dependent ILS approaches to closely spaced 

parallel runways 

500 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Evaluate the fuel efficiency impact from addition of a 

spiroid winglet to an aircraft’s wing 0 ♦ 

111-150 - Wake Turbulence NextGen 7,330 

Development of enhanced analysis tools for evaluating 

wake encounter and collision risk resulting from the 

design of airspace efficient routes, air traffic procedure 

changes, and the introduction of new aircraft designs NG 

600

♦ ◊ ◊ 

Continued data collection and analysis to determine the 

characteristics of wake vortices generated by aircraft – 

for use in determining potential achievable separation 

reduction in single runway operations NG

800

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Development of modeling and other analysis tools 

required for evaluation of wake encounter risks of 

trajectory based operations NG

300 ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Accomplish wake turbulence and collision risk 

assessments of potential air traffic routing and 

separation changes associated with evolution to NextGen 

NG

800

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Development of ground based and flight deck based 

situational display concepts for showing separation 

constraints for aircraft operating in NextGen air corridors 

and high density airspace NG

1,400

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Development of analytical capability-benefit tradeoff 

models of potential procedures/processes/systems that 

would provide the desired Flight Deck capability for self 

separating from adjacent aircraft and their wakes NG

600

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct experiments/analyses and aviation community 

forums to define in terms of allowable safety risk for 

potential results from wake encounter or blunder in 

aircraft navigation NG

830

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Complete development of ANSP prototype decision 

support system for use in reducing required wake 

mitigation separations in dependent instrument landing 

system arrivals of 757 and heavier aircraft on an airport’s 

closely spaced parallel runways NG

1,500

♦ ◊ 

Develop an approach and associated modeling tools to 

evaluate system-wide safety risk for NextGen era 

reduced separation standards NG

500 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 810 

Total Budget Authority 10,631 10,132 10,631 10,750 10,842 10,932 10891

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 

The Wake Turbulence BLI contains both Legacy and NextGen program data. 

 

NG Those activities noted with the superscript NG indicate those funded with NextGen resources, while those without 

notation indicate those funded with the legacy program resources. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-98 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A12.d. NextGen – Air Ground Integration $5,688,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, International 

Leadership, and Organizational Excellence. 

Intended Outcomes: 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 mitigate potential automation surprises. Additionally, NextGen systems, 

procedures and training must support safe and effective planned and unexpected transitions between 

NextGen and legacy airspace procedures. 

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. 

Many of the emerging NextGen concepts imply that a flight plan will become an air-ground performance 

contract that meets the user’s needs, will be executed by the flight deck, and protected by the air traffic 

service provider. There are multiple parameters in aviation such as weather, unanticipated traffic, sudden 

denial of airspace or airport assets, emergencies, and a myriad of other factors that will require close 

monitoring to meet the expected flight performance goals. 

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. 

Operational Improvements (OIs) to be addressed from an integrated air-ground perspective include 

provision for spacing, merging and passing in en route airspace via Cockpit Display of Traffic Information 

(CDTI) and Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B), with procedures for less than current 

levels of aircraft separation. Lateral and in-trail separation would be reduced to near Visual Flight Rules 

(VFR) levels for single runway and for converging and closely spaced parallel runway operations using CDTI, 

ADS-B and wake vortex ground detection. Aircraft-to-aircraft separation would be delegated to the flight 

deck in oceanic airspace, with reduced longitudinal and lateral spacing via Required Navigation Performance 

(RNP), ADS-B/CDTI and data communication. 

Agency Outputs: The NextGen Air-Ground Integration research program addresses flight deck - air traffic 

service provider integration for each operational improvement or NextGen application considered, with a 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-99 

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 air traffic management 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. 

Research Goals: 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 conduct integrated demonstrations of NextGen procedures and 

equipment in the context of ongoing air-ground integration human factors research. 

• By 2016 complete research to enable safe and effective changes to pilot and ATC roles and 

responsibilities for NextGen procedures. 

− By 2011 develop initial taxonomy describing the relationship between pilots/ATC and associated 

automated systems. 

− By 2012 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 2011 initiate development of guidance to support certification personnel in assessing 

suitability of design methods to support human error detection and correction. 

− By 2012 complete initial research investigating methods to mitigate mode errors in use 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 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. 

− By 2010 complete initial simulation and demonstration roadmap to support future research and 

integrated demonstrations. 

− By 2010 initiate research to identify human factors issues associated with instrument procedure 

design and use to support development of human factors guidelines for instrument procedures. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-100 

− 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 initial research to address human-automation integration issues regarding 

the certification of pilots, procedures, training and equipment necessary to achieve NextGen 

capabilities. 

− By 2013 complete research to identify human factors issues and potential mitigation strategies 

for the use of legacy avionics in NextGen procedures. 

− 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 2014 complete initial research to provide recommendations for displays, alerts, procedures 

and training associated with data communications. 

− 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. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: Program researchers work directly with colleagues in FAA, other 

government agencies, academia, and industry to support the following R&D programs and initiatives: 

• Guidance from the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen) initiative. 

• NASA’s Aviation Safety and Airspace Programs. 

• Close collaboration with FAA organizations, notably Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification in the 

AVS line of business. 

• Collaboration with specific FAA programs such as the Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS), 

DataComm and the NextGen-Wake programs. 

• 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. 

R&D Partnerships: The NextGen Air-Ground Integration research program collaborates with industry and 

other government programs through: 

• Collaborative research with NASA on its safety, airspace and air portal projects includes the 

identification of human factors research issues in the NextGen as technology brings changes to 

aircraft capabilities. 

• Complex full mission demonstrations using a distributed simulation architecture will leverage NASA 

cockpit and Air Traffic Management (ATM) simulation facilities and other resources. 

• Cooperative research agreements will be 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. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Roles and Responsibilities 

• Initiated development 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. 

• Initiated investigation of shared decision making methods considering potential decisions shared 

between flight deck, Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) and Aircraft Operations Center (AOC) 

personnel. 

Human System Integration 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-101 

• Developed initial concepts for cockpit and ATC displays of time domain information to support 2 1⁄2 

to 4D trajectory information. 

• Began research to identify impact of data communications on flight deck information needs and 

shared situation awareness. 

• Initiated research to investigate issues associated with single pilot aircraft in NextGen procedures. 

• Established preliminary equipment categories for legacy Flight Management Systems and 

associated cockpit displays to support future human factors evaluations of the acceptability of 

using legacy avionics equipment in NextGen procedures. 

• Began work to identify standard methods for conducting task analyses of flight deck-ATC activities 

for NextGen airspace procedures. 

• Initiated research to identify human factors issues associated with instrument procedure design 

and use. 

Error Management 

• Initiated development of structured method to assist certification personnel in identifying risk areas 

related to human error and assessing system resilience to error for new and modified systems and 

procedures. 

• Began assessment of nature and impact of potential errors in oceanic in trail procedures. 

Integrated Demonstrations 

• Developed an initial simulation and demonstration roadmap laying out incremental objectives, 

simulation requirements, assumptions, and risks. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The program will assess human system integration issues in use of airborne NextGen concepts, capabilities, 

and procedures, and ATM leading to a full mission demonstration. Each of these research areas, although 

general in nature, will be conducted in the context of specific near to mid-term NextGen applications such as 

closely spaced parallel operations, oceanic in-trail procedures, etc. 

Roles and Responsibilities 

• Assess the impact of function allocation, human-automated system coordination, negotiation 

procedures and interface design on flight deck and ANSP performance. 

Human System Integration – Information Needs 

• Identify flight deck and ATC information needs, display and alerting methods to support NextGen 

shared information requirements. 

• Identify human factors issues associated with instrument procedure design and use to support 

development of human factors guidelines for instrument procedures. 

Human System Integration – Human Capabilities and Limitations 

• Assess pilot performance in normal and non-normal situations for NextGen operational procedures. 

Human System Integration – System Integration 

• Assess human factors issues associated with the use of legacy avionics in NextGen procedures. 

• Evaluate display and alerting requirements as well as information needs associated with data 

communications. 

Risk and Error Management 

• Develop methods to identify and mitigate human error pathways in the use of NextGen equipment 

and procedures. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Roles and Responsibilities 

• Develop initial guidance addressing allocation of functions between the aircrew and automation. 

• Develop initial guidance on procedures for flight deck-ANSP negotiations. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-102 

Human System Integration – Information Needs 

• Develop initial guidance for the design of NextGen flight deck and ATC displays and alerts, 

including those required for oceanic in trail procedures. 

• Continue research to identify human factors issues associated with instrument procedure design 

and begin development of human factors guidelines for instrument procedures. 

Human System Integration – Human Capabilities and Limitations 

• Develop methodology to address the human capabilities and limitations of pilots (including singlepilot aircraft) to conduct a range of NextGen airspace procedures in normal and non-normal 

situations. 

• Evaluate flight technical error in all four dimensions for TBO. 

Human System Integration – System Integration 

• Identify the human factors issues associated with use of legacy avionics on near-term NextGen 

procedures and provide recommended mitigation strategies where appropriate. 

• Conduct research to support guidance for data communications procedures, training, displays and 

alerts. 

• Assess information needs, displays, alerts, procedures and training associated with oceanic in trail 

procedures. 

Risk and Error Management 

• Deliver initial results of proactive analyses of human error hazards to understand and predict 

human error vulnerabilities. 

• Assess human error impact and mitigation in oceanic in trail procedures and RNP operations. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-103 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 0 

FY 2009 Appropriated 2,554 

FY 2010 Request 5,688 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 46,308 

Total 54,550 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

NextGen - Air Ground Integration 0 0 0 2,485 5,449

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 69 239

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 2,554 5,688

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 2,554 5,688

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 2,554 5,688
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-104 

A12.d. – NextGen Air Ground Program Schedule 

Integration 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

111-110 NextGen Air-Ground Integration 

Roles and Responsibilities 604 

Assess methods of allocating functions and structuring 

the coordination between pilots/controllers and 

automated systems, 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop certification guidance for new methods of 

automating flight tasks based on observed strengths 

and weakness ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Identify design and procedural methods to support 

collaboration and negotiation between flight deck, 

ANSP and AOC personnel 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Assess skill loss and mitigation strategies associated 

with NextGen changes in pilot roles and responsibilities ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Human System Integration 3,333 

Information Needs Identify flight deck and ATC information needs, display 

and alerting methods to support NextGen shared 

information requirements. 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Identify human factors issues associated with 

instrument procedure design and use to support 

development of human factors guidelines for 

instrument procedure design. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Human Capabilities and Limitations Assess pilot performance in normal and non-normal 

situations for NextGen operational procedures, 

including single pilot operations 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Identify human capabilities and limitations for 

pilot/ANSP/AOC shared decision-making, and provide 

recommended mitigation strategies to address 

identified risks 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Interface Design Develop design guidance to support display of shared 

information considering user needs and relevant 

information properties, including requirements for 

location in the forward field of view 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop design and procedural guidance to support 

dissemination, entry and evaluation of 2 1⁄2 to 4D 

clearances via data communications ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

System Integration Develop training standards and procedures to support 

NextGen operations and associated transitions in 

normal and non-normal conditions ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Assess human factors issues associated with use of 

legacy avionics in NextGen procedures ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Risk and Error Management 1,112 

Provide interface design guidance to support error 

detection, identification and correction ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop training and procedural requirements to 

support error detection and correction in NextGen 

procedures to include oceanic in trail procedures 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

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 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Integrated Demonstrations 400 

Develop simulation roadmap ♦ ◊ 

Demonstrate pilot and controller functional capabilities 

via simulation (specific demonstrations executed under 

activities listed above) 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 239 

Total Budget Authority 5,688 2,554 5,688 11,355 11,536 11,716 11,701

Notes: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-105 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A12.e. NextGen – Self-Separation $8,247,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, and 

International Leadership. 

Intended Outcomes: By 2016, develop initial standards and procedures to enhance spacing of aircraft 

using Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) capabilities. In the near term, this includes 

reduced aircraft separation and delegated separation. 

New technologies such as Global Positioning System (GPS), Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

(ADS-B), and Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) afford the possibility of transitioning from classic 

air traffic control separation assurance procedures to aircraft based spacing and separation. In the near to 

mid-term, these procedures will focus on reduced and delegated separation as well as supporting 

runway/surface awareness. Many NextGen enhanced capabilities are based on various aircraft oriented 

activities such as spacing, merging, passing, and closely spaced parallel operations, etc. Research will 

assess the human factors risks and requirements associated with these various spacing policies, procedures 

and maneuvers. The research results will provide technical information to support the development of 

standards, procedures, and training by Flight Standards to implement NextGen. Human factors research 

required to provide the scientific and technical information to address human performance issues include: 

• Providing human factors assessments on new information requirements to allow pilots to safely 

maintain aircraft separation, especially during low visibility ground operations. 

• Providing robust assessments of reduced separation procedures to ensure non-normal and 

emergency operations are evaluated including system failures and reversion impacts. The NextGen 

benefits associated with reduced aircraft spacing in high density terminal airspace also leave fewer 

buffers to accommodate non-normal events. The impact on safety and efficiency will be 

addressed. 

• Understanding changing roles and responsibilities associated with shifting separation responsibility 

between pilot and controller during delegated separation operations. 

• Developing advanced methods including efficient and standardized procedures to certify pilots and 

automation for different separation operations. 

• Assessing risk of pilot error during reduced and delegated aircraft spacing operations as NextGen 

technologies and procedures are implemented and integrated with legacy avionics. 

• Providing requirements and guidance for training pilots to assure adequate understanding of 

automation functions and limitations as they apply to enhanced spacing and separation operations. 

Agency Outputs: 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: 

• Define the potential impact and human factors issues of new technologies such as enhanced vision, 

synthetic vision, and electronic flight bags on separation activities. 

• Define human factors technical information needed to support the development of standards, 

procedures, and training by Flight Standards to implement plans for reduced aircraft separation 

and recovery to classic air traffic operations as a result of abnormal events. 

• Develop procedures and training needed to implement new roles and responsibilities for pilots and 

controllers during delegated separation operations. 

• Define human and system performance requirements for separation activities, e.g., spacing, 

merging, and passing. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-106 

• Develop and apply error management strategies, mitigate risk factors, and reduce automationrelated errors associated with enhanced separation operations. 

• Develop 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 how conformance alerts are communicated and resolved between flight deck and 

ground monitors, for example in Area Navigation (RNAV)/Required Navigation Performance (RNP) 

approach and departure operations. 

Research Goals: 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. 

• 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 2010 identify the major human factors considerations requiring research to support 

evaluation and recommendation of 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. 

− 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. 

− 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 2016 complete research to identify human capabilities and limitations with respect to ground 

collision avoidance and identify potential design solutions, training and procedures to mitigate 

risks associated with human performance. 

• By 2015, complete research and provide human factors guidance to reduce arrival and departure 

spacing including variable separation in a mixed equipage environment. 

− By 2011 complete initial research to evaluate the impact and potential risks associated with use 

of Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) in NextGen procedures. 

− 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 complete initial research on human performance considerations for design, training 

and operational procedures in conformance monitoring and detection/correction of 

nonconformance with reduced separation routings and procedures. 

• By 2015, enable reduced and delegated separation in oceanic airspace and high density en route 

corridors. 

− By 2010 develop initial methodology for conducting robust systematic assessments of 

separation procedures to ensure non-normal and emergency operations are evaluated. 

− By 2011, complete research to evaluate and recommend procedures, equipage and training to 

safely conduct oceanic and en route pair-wise delegated separation. 

− By 2013 complete initial research to provide recommended guidance for design of cockpit 

displays and alerts to support delegated separation. 

− By 2015 complete research to support recommended procedures and training required to safely 

and efficiently transition to/from NextGen reduced and delegated separation procedures in 

normal and non-normal conditions. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-107 

• 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 that the future system adequately considers human systems 

integration issues. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: Program researchers work directly with colleagues in FAA, other 

government agencies, academia, and industry to support the following R&D programs and initiatives: 

• Guidance from the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) NextGen initiative. 

• NASA’s Aviation Safety and Airspace Programs. 

• Close collaboration with FAA organizations, notably Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification in the 

AVS line of business. 

• Collaboration with specific FAA Programs such as the Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS), 

DataComm and the NextGen-Wake programs. 

• Collaboration with specific FAA Programs such as the Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS), 

DataComm and the NextGen-Wake programs. 

• 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. 

R&D Partnerships: The research program collaborates with industry and other government programs 

through: 

• Collaborative research with NASA on its aviation safety and airspace projects includes the 

identification of human factors research issues in the NextGen as technology brings changes to 

aircraft capabilities. Complex full mission simulations using an aviation simnet distributed 

simulation architecture will leverage NASA cockpit and Air Traffic Management (ATM) simulation 

facilities and other resources. 

• Cooperative research agreements will be used with universities to address NextGen human factors 

issues. 

• Coordination on research issues and plans with aircraft and avionics manufacturers and operators. 

• Coordination will occur with appropriate RTCA Committees, e.g., Airborne Separation Assurance 

System. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Surface/Runway Operations Awareness 

• Began to define pilot information requirements for the display and use of enhanced cockpit 

technologies (Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS)/Synthetic Vision Systems (SVS), TCAS, and 

CDTI to support all-weather operations. 

• Initiated development of survey instruments and analysis techniques to evaluate airport signage 

and lighting effects on pilot navigation at night and in reduced visibility. 

Reduced Separation 

• Began to evaluate pilot conformance, conflict detection and avoidance capabilities, and recommend 

pilot training and performance standards to ensure safe separation. 

• Began to develop recommendations for use of autopilot coupled collision avoidance and pilot 

procedures for overriding the automation in each flight phase. 

• For closely spaced parallel operations, began research to determine CDTI and information 

requirements to support dual missed approaches, and to evaluate controller and flight crew 

workload and effects of blunder during the missed approach. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-108 

Delegated Separation 

• For near to mid-term delegated separation procedures and applications for single-pilot operations, 

began to assess the impact of systems failures to prepare for development of procedures to safely 

and efficiently revert to backup separation methods. 

• For oceanic pair-wise separation procedures, began to determine information needs, time 

requirements and pilot accuracy for detection and resolution of potential conflicts. 

• Began to evaluate 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). 

• Began assessment of human factors issues for the design and pilot use of display technologies 

including CDTI and TCAS in delegated separation operations. 

Cross-cutting 

• Began planning for robust assessments of separation procedures to ensure non-normal and 

emergency operations are evaluated including system failures and reversion impacts. 

• Initiated needs assessment for pilot training use of automation in NextGen separation operations. 

• Began to develop risk and error management strategies to identify and mitigate human-system 

errors with use of advanced cockpit automation for navigation, conformance monitoring and 

decision-making during various NextGen operations. 

• Began human factors assessments of new information requirements for NextGen alerts and 

displays in reduced and delegated separation operations. 

• Initiated examination to identify potential uses of TCAS equipment and symbology in reduced and 

delegated separation operations. 

• Began to determine the expected nature, frequency and potential impact of instrument procedure 

design on pilot errors. 

• Contributing to the development of a repository of NextGen human factors data, began a survey of 

human factors research relevant to near-to-mid-term NextGen applications, and a survey of the 

human factors issues that have arisen through operational experience with systems and 

procedures relevant to near to mid-term NextGen applications, as well as the projected needs 

based on NextGen planning documents. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The program will 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 2016. 

Surface/Runway Operations Awareness 

• Evaluate all-weather ground movement area and runway operations using enhanced cockpit 

technologies, including EFVS)/SVS, TCAS, and CDTI. 

• Assess contributions of airport signage and lighting on ground operations at night and in lowvisibility weather conditions. 

Reduced Separation 

• Assess changing roles and responsibilities associated with shifting separation responsibility between 

pilot and controller under different operational separation situations. 

• Evaluate pilot performance in reduced separation operations, such as closely spaced parallel 

operations, and develop pilot training and performance standards to ensure flight safety. 

Delegated Separation 

• Provide guidance for training pilots to assure adequate understanding of automation functions and 

display limitations as they apply to separation operations using CDTI and TCAS. 

• For near to mid-term delegated separation procedures and applications for single-pilot operations, 

continue assessing the impact of systems failures and begin development of procedures to safely 

and efficiently revert to backup separation methods. 

• For oceanic pair-wise separation procedures, determine information needs, time requirements and 

pilot accuracy for detection and resolution of potential conflicts. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-109 

• Conduct research efforts to evaluate ADS-B/CDTI displays and procedures in a human-in-the-loop 

(HITL) simulation of merging and spacing operations. 

Cross-cutting 

• Provide robust assessments of separation procedures to ensure non-normal and emergency 

operations are evaluated including system failures and reversion impacts. 

• Provide initial guidance for the integration of CDTI and TCAS symbology. 

• Develop advanced methods including efficient and standardized procedures to certify pilots and 

automation for different separation operations. 

• Determine the expected nature, frequency and potential impact of instrument procedure design on 

pilot errors. 

• Conduct a gap analysis that will identify major human factors research needs for NextGen, by 

comparing results of completed research and operations data with projected requirements for 

human performance in future NextGen applications. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Surface/Runway Operations Awareness 

• Continue study to define pilot information display requirements for use of enhanced cockpit 

technologies, including EFVS/SVS, TCAS, and CDTI to support all-weather operations. 

• Evaluate airport signage and lighting effects on pilot navigation at night and reduced visibility. 

Reduced Separation 

• Evaluate pilot conformance, conflict detection and avoidance capabilities, and recommend pilot 

training and performance standards to ensure safe separation. 

• Develop recommendations for use of autopilot coupled collision avoidance and pilot procedures for 

overriding the automation in each flight phase. 

• For closely spaced parallel operations, continue research to determine CDTI requirements to 

support dual missed approaches, and to evaluate controller and flight crew workload and effects of 

blunder during the missed approach. 

Delegated Separation 

• Continue analysis to evaluate pilot training requirements for use of limited delegation of separation 

authority in the oceanic environment. 

• Develop recommendations for the design and use of display technologies by pilots, including CDTI 

and TCAS in delegated separation operations. 

• For near to mid-term delegated separation procedures and applications for single-pilot operations, 

continue assessing the impact of systems failures and begin development of procedures to safely 

and efficiently revert to backup separation methods. 

• For oceanic pair-wise separation procedures, continue to determine information needs, time 

requirements and pilot accuracy for detection and resolution of potential conflicts. 

• Continue to evaluate ADS-B/CDTI displays and procedures in a full 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). 

Cross-cutting 

• Continue robust assessments of separation procedures to ensure non-normal and emergency 

operations are evaluated including system failures and reversion impacts. 

• Provide guidance for training pilots to use automation in NextGen separation operations. 

• Provide human factors assessments of new information requirements for NextGen alerts and 

displays in reduced and delegated separation operations. 

• Provide guidance for the integration and use of TCAS equipment and symbology in reduced and 

delegated separation operations. 

• Continue to determine the expected nature, frequency and potential impact of instrument 

procedure design on pilot errors. 

• Continue development of a repository of NextGen human factors data, incorporating results of 

efforts to survey human factors research relevant to near-to-mid-term NextGen applications, and 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-110 

surveys of the human factors issues that have arisen through operational experience with systems 

and procedures relevant to near to mid-term NextGen applications, as well as the projected needs 

based on NextGen planning documents. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-111 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 0 

FY 2009 Appropriated 8,025 

FY 2010 Request 8,247 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2015) 41,140 

Total 57,412 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

NextGen - Self Separation 0 0 0 7,956 7,796

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 69 451

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 8,025 8,247

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 8,025 8,247

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 8,025 8,247
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-112 

A12.e. – NextGen – Self-Separation Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

111-120 NextGen – Self Separation 

Surface/Runway Operations Awareness 1,403 For aircraft operations in all weather conditions 

(including low visibility conditions and at night), ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Define pilot information display requirements and 

develop recommendations for policy and safe 

operating procedures for use of enhanced and 

synthetic vision systems 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Develop requirements for alerts, CDTI and pilot 

performance for low visibility ground operations ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Evaluate airport signage and lighting effects on pilot 

navigation performance in aircraft movement areas ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Reduced Separation 2,339 

For closely spaced parallel operations, determine CDTI 

requirements to support dual missed approaches, and 

evaluate controller and flight crew workload and 

effects of blunder during the missed approach.

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

For aircraft operations in a reduced separation 

environment (3 miles or less everywhere), 

Evaluate pilot conformance, conflict detection and 

avoidance capabilities, and recommend pilot training 

and performance standards to ensure safe separation 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Develop recommendations for use of autopilot coupled 

collision avoidance and pilot procedures for overriding 

the automation in each flight phase 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Delegated Separation 3,196 

For near to mid-term delegated separation procedures 

and applications for single-pilot operations, assess the 

impact of systems failures and begin development of 

procedures to safely and efficiently revert to backup 

separation methods.

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

For oceanic pair-wise separation procedures, 

determine information needs, time requirements and 

pilot accuracy for detection and resolution of potential 

conflicts. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

For specific transient situations in which separation 

responsibility is delegated to the pilot, such as climbin-trail passing, 

Evaluate pilot training requirements for use of limited 

delegation of separation authority in the oceanic 

environment. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Develop recommendations for pilot use of display 

technologies including CDTI and TCAS to designate the 

reference aircraft and to maintain separation 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Cross-Cutting 858 Provide guidance for training pilots to use automation 

in NextGen separation operations ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Develop risk and error management strategies to 

identify and mitigate human-system errors ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Provide human factors assessments of new information 

requirements ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Provide guidance for the integration TCAS symbology 

into CDTI ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Determine the expected nature, frequency and 

potential impact of instrument procedure design on 

pilot errors. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 451 

Total Budget Authority 8,247 8,025 8,247 10,076 10,243 10,411 10,410

Notes: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-113 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A12.f. NextGen – Weather Technology in the Cockpit $9,570,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety and Greater Capacity. 

Intended Outcomes: By 2015, demonstrate that technology and automation, combined with policy, 

procedures, and regulatory oversight, meets the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) goal 

of reducing weather delays leading to more efficient air traffic management (ATM) and improving aviation 

safety. Demonstrations will show that the technology and automation used in the cockpit provides pilots 

and aircrews with common weather situation awareness for safety and traffic flow management and assists 

airborne decision-making (e.g., adverse weather avoidance, etc.) by providing realistic, practical solutions to 

issues involving a myriad of variables. 

The NextGen Concept of Operations (ConOps) requires technology and automation in the cockpit to produce 

a “common weather picture” that will enhance collaborative decision-making and improve the safety, 

capacity, and efficiency of air transportation system by identifying 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 ConOps are that it assists collaborative decision-making 

(pilot, controller, air traffic management, 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 long-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., 

analyzes 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. 

Agency Outputs: One of the weather-related goals of NextGen is to reduce weather delays allowing more 

efficient and flexible air traffic management. The objective of the Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

program is to enable flight deck weather information technologies 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 insitu observations to nearby aircraft for weather avoidance decisions and ground-based processors for direct 

and forecast use in ATM decision support processes. 

The program will be accomplished through the successful completion of research in the following areas: 

• Requirements Development – Develop a comprehensive user information needs statement and 

concept of operations for utilizing weather information in cockpit decision making based on the 

NextGen Concept of Operations. 

• Technology Assessment – Assess currently available onboard weather information processors, 

cockpit/ground interface capabilities, and communications infrastructure, identify gaps, and identify 

emerging technological capabilities to address the gaps. 

• Proof of Concept Demonstration – Simulate and evaluate currently available systems for providing 

weather information to the cockpit. 

• Weather Technology in the Cockpit Prototype – Develop prototypes of weather information 

integration modules for flight deck technologies (e.g., flight management systems (FMS), electronic 

flight bags (EFB), etc.), perform full, mission demonstrations, and assess the integration of 

navigation, flight, and weather information into cockpit decision-making processes. 

• Policy, Standards, and Requirements – Develop standards and guidance necessary to obtain design 

approvals for weather decision support systems for use in the cockpit, define minimum pilot 

training requirements, develop procedures for weather separation on the flight deck, and 

recommend changes to FAA and international policies pertaining to the provision and utilization of 

weather information in the cockpit. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-114 

Research Goals: 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 goals of the research are: 

• By FY 2013, develop prototype weather information integration modules for flight deck 

technologies (e.g., FMS, EFB, etc.). 

• By FY 2014, simulate, test, and evaluate cockpit use of weather decision support tools, including 

probabilistic forecasts. 

• By FY 2014, simulate test, and evaluate fully integrated cockpit use of NextGen operational 

concepts, including weather technology in the cockpit. 

• By FY 2014, support full mission demonstrations assessing weather information integrated in 

NextGen air and ground capabilities for controllers and pilots. 

• By FY 2014, complete research necessary to develop guidance for airmen training and evaluation 

criteria and enhance the use of forecast products for pilot decision making. 

• By FY 2015, Demonstrate the integration of navigation information and flight information, including 

weather information, into cockpit decision-making and shared situational awareness among pilots, 

dispatchers, air traffic controllers supported by NextGen air and ground capabilities. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The 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 JPDO Next Generation Air Transportation System 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.), 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. 

• RTCA SC-206 and Society of Automotive Engineers G-10 subcommittees 

R&D Partnerships: The 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 Memorandums of Agreement. 

Partnerships include: 

• National Center for Atmospheric Research. 

• NASA Langley and Glenn Research Centers. 

• Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 

• Public and private universities. 

• Initiatives with airlines, pilots, and manufacturers. 

Accomplishments: There are no previous accomplishments because the Weather Technology in the 

Cockpit program was a new start in FY 2009. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Developed initial Concept of Operations for weather technology in the cockpit based on 

foundational elements identified in the NextGen Concept of Operations, including integration of 

weather in flight deck decision support tools, weather dissemination management, and GA 

operations. 

• Based on capabilities described in the NextGen Concept of Operations, developed initial 

comprehensive weather information user needs statement for the cockpit environment in different 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-115 

types of operation (e.g., Part 121, Part 135, etc.) for each phase of flight (pre-flight, departure, en 

route, etc.) in the near-, mid-, and long-term NextGen operating environments. 

• Assessed currently available onboard weather information processing technology. 

• Identified the specific types of weather information being integrated into cockpit flight 

management systems (FMS) and the decisions supported by the information. 

• Assessed currently available and emerging ground and cockpit communications interface 

technologies. 

• Assessed currently available options for communications systems (air-ground, ground-air, and airair). 

• Identified test bed(s) to develop prototype weather information integration modules for flight deck 

technologies (e.g., FMS, EFB, etc.). 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

Work will continue in FY10 on the development of the comprehensive weather information user needs 

statement and the completion of the technology assessment, including on FMS ingestion of weather 

information and communications systems. A number of activities related to the proof of concept 

demonstrations and Weather Technology in the Cockpit prototyping will also continue in FY10. In addition, 

research activities related to the development of various types of guidance will be ongoing in FY10. 

New Initiatives 

The new research initiatives that will commence in FY10 are related to the proof of concept demonstrations. 

There will be an emphasis on determining the impact of communications systems on the provision of 

weather information in the cockpit and developing the standards and guidance necessary for obtaining 

design approvals for weather decision support systems. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Complete the initial comprehensive weather information user needs statement for the various part 

operators (i.e., Parts 91, 135, 121) for the different stages of flight in the near-, mid-, and longterm NextGen operating environments. 

• Simulate and evaluate candidate systems for providing weather information to the cockpit in both 

machine-to-human and machine-to-machine modes. 

• Identify, validate, and document data link system attributes that may affect the provision and use 

of weather-in-the-cockpit products and services. 

• Conduct research to develop standards and guidance for design approval of weather decision 

support for cockpit use including integration of weather information with existing CNS/ATM 

information on multi-function displays. 

• Continue development of prototype weather information integration modules for flight deck 

technologies (e.g., FMS, EFB, etc.). 

• Continue research activities necessary to develop design approval guidance for hardware and 

software standards and data archiving and guidance for operational approval of products from nongovernment vendors. 

• Conduct research to develop guidance for airmen training and evaluation criteria. 

• Conduct research necessary to develop guidance to enhance the use of forecast products for pilot 

decision making. 

• Conduct research necessary to evaluate procedures for including weather information in the flight 

deck decision making processes. 

• Conduct research to quantify the regulatory impact of integrating weather information into flight 

deck decision-making processes. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-116 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 0 

FY 2009 Appropriated 8,049 

FY 2010 Request 9,570 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 42,172 

Total 59,791 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Contracts 

Weather Technology in the Cockpit 0 0 0 7,894 8,945

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 155 539

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 86

 Total 0 0 0 8,049 9,570

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 8,049 9,570

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 8,049 9,570
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-117 

A12.f. – Weather Technology in the 

Cockpit Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

111-140 Weather in the Cockpit 

Concept and Requirements Development 500 

Develop comprehensive program plan for Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit. ♦ 

Develop Concept of Operations for weather 

technology in the cockpit. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop comprehensive weather information user 

needs statement. ♦ ◊ 

Determine how the “common weather picture” is to 

be maintained when the 4D Wx Cube is being 

constantly updated (e.g., appropriate update rate 

impacts, workload). 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Technology Assessment 1,100 

Identify weather information currently being 

integrated in cockpit FMS ♦ ◊ 

Assess currently available onboard weather 

information processing technology ♦ ◊ 

Assess currently available and emerging ground and 

cockpit communications interface technologies ♦ ◊ 

Assess currently available options for 

communications systems (air-ground, ground-air, 

and air-air) 

♦ ◊ 

Proof of Concept Demonstrations 2,811 

Simulate and evaluate candidate systems for 

weather in the cockpit ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Identify, validate, and document communications 

systems attributes affecting weather in the cockpit ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop standards and guidance necessary to obtain 

design approvals of weather decision support tools ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Simulate, test, and evaluate cockpit use of weather 

decision support tools and probabilistic forecasts ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Simulate, test, and evaluate fully integrated cockpit 

use of NextGen operational concepts, including 

WTIC 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Weather Technology in the Cockpit Prototype 2,900 

Develop prototype weather information integration 

modules for flight deck technologies (e.g., FMS, etc.) ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Perform and support full mission demonstrations 

assessing weather information integrated in the 

cockpit 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Policy, Standards, and Requirements 1,634 

Conduct research to develop guidance for airmen 

training and evaluation criteria ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct research to necessary to develop guidance 

to enhance use of forecasting products for pilot 

decision making 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct research necessary to evaluate procedures 

for including weather information in the flight deck 

decision making processes 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Quantify the regulatory impact of integrating 

weather into flight deck decision-making processes ◊ ◊ 

Recommend changes and revisions to US and 

international policies pertaining to WTIC ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 625 

Total Budget Authority 9,570 8,049 9,570 10,320 10,497 10,674 10,681

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-118 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A13.a. Environment and Energy $15,522,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Greater Capacity and International Leadership. 

Intended Outcomes: The Environment and Energy 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 technology and operational solutions and environmental management 

systems and models development under NextGen research. 

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 per year through FY 2012 as measured by a three-year moving average, from the 

three-year average for calendar year 2000 – 2002. Specific activities include: 

• Conduct 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. 

• Through the PARTNER Center of Excellence (COE) identify and better measure the issues and 

impacts associated with aircraft noise, and generate improved solutions to mitigate these 

problems. 

• Identify and assess the impact and enable implementation of operational procedures to reduce 

noise in the NAS. 

• Minimize the impact of aircraft noise – actions include: advancing the state of science/knowledge 

concerning effects of aircraft noise; improving aircraft certification standards and current 

operational procedures; and implementing improved noise control and mitigation measures. 

The Flight Plan Aviation Fuel Efficiency Performance Target improves aviation fuel efficiency per revenue 

plane-mile by one percent each year through FY 2012, as measured by a three-year moving average, from 

the three-year average for calendar years 2000-2002. Specific activities include: 

• Conduct research and develop analytical tools to better understand the relationship between noise, 

fuel burn and emissions and different types of emissions, and to provide the cost-benefit analysis 

capability necessary for data-driven decision making. 

• Through the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) Center 

of Excellence (COE) develop methodology and collect data to identify and more accurately 

characterize the sources and incremental impacts associated with aviation emissions, and generate 

improved solutions to mitigate these impacts. 

• Assess the impact and enable implementation of operational procedures to enhance fuel efficiency 

and reduce aviation emissions in the NAS. 

• Minimize the impact of aviation emissions – actions include: advancing the state of 

science/knowledge concerning atmospheric/health effects of aviation emissions; and improving 

aircraft certification standards and operational procedures; and implementing improved emissions 

control and mitigation measures. 

Flight Plan International targets include fostering international environmental standards, recommended 

practices, and guidance material that are technically feasible, economically reasonable, provide a 

measurable environmental benefit and take interdependencies between various emissions and between 

emissions and noise into account. Specific activities include: 

• Working with the international aviation community to reduce aircraft noise and emissions – actions 

include: 

• Improving aircraft noise and engine exhaust emissions certification standards and operational 

procedures. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-119 

• Promoting compatible land use. 

• Assessing the benefits of abatement measures to reduce population impacted by aircraft noise. 

• Assessing the benefits of 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 the following outcomes: 

• Providing the foundation for the NextGen research and development investments that help achieve 

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: 

• Develop 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 two 

to three-fold growth in capacity by 2025, while reducing significant community noise and air quality 

emissions in absolute terms. 

• Developing tools to assess the ability of technologies for airframes, more efficient engines, 

advanced propulsion concepts, new fuels, new materials, market based options and policies to 

reduce source noise and emissions. 

Agency Outputs: The program is developing and validating methodologies, models, metrics, and tools to 

assess and mitigate the effect 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 of the impacts of aircraft noise and 

aviation emissions. 

Research Goals: 

• By FY 2010, demonstrate capability to conduct comprehensive cost-benefit analyses of 

environmental policy options with quantified uncertainties. 

• By FY 2010, develop beta version of integrated framework for Aviation Environmental Design Tool 

(AEDT), Aviation Portfolio Management Tool (APMT), and Environmental Design (EDS) Tool. 

• By FY 2010, deliver Version 1.0 of AEDT local for airport applications to Design Review Group. 

• By FY 2010, incorporate methodology to account for population growth in the environmental 

impact assessments. 

• By FY 2010, continue to develop and implement as they become available methods and models to 

analyze aircraft, auxiliary power units, and ground support equipment emissions and their impact 

on air quality. 

• By FY 2010, exercise databases of particulate matter emissions to assess trends as a function of 

engine combustor technology and other emissions, and impacts on health and welfare, in order to 

advise options for mitigation, as required. 

• By FY 2010, advance our understanding of the evolution of volatile particulate matter emissions in 

order to specify measurement and sampling procedures. 

• By FY 2010, develop new technical guidance for noise and aircraft engine emissions certification. 

• By FY 2010, develop new standards and methodologies to quantify and assess the impact of 

aircraft noise. 

• By FY 2010, publish guidance material related to dispersion, chemical and transport modeling 

• By FY 2010 provide computer models and impact criteria for use by civil aviation authorities in 

environmental assessments. 

• By FY 2010 develop noise propagation models to better capture air turbulence, meteorology, 

terrain, and wave nature of low-frequency noise 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-120 

• By FY 2010, test and deploy first elements of the website to educate and inform the public about 

aviation and the environment and to enable the community to participate actively in public 

processes. 

• By FY 2011, develop and disseminate a preliminary planning version of Aviation Environmental 

Design Tool that will allow integrated assessment of noise and emissions inventories at the local, 

regional and global levels. 

• By FY 2013, develop and field a fully validated suite of tools, including the Environmental Design 

Space (EDS) and Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT), which will allow cost 

benefit analyses. 

• By FY 2013, use collected hazardous air pollutant and particulate matter 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 

In addition, the program is conducting government-industry sponsored research through the Partnership for 

AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) Center of Excellence (COE) to develop 

methodology and collect data to identify and more accurately characterize the sources and incremental 

impacts associated with aircraft noise and aviation emissions, and generate improved solutions to deal with 

these impacts. Specifics of these cooperative research efforts include: 

• By FY 2010 develop and disseminate new methodologies and procedures to quantify and assess 

the impact of aircraft noise and aviation emissions for use by industry, government, and the public 

– also suggest a new metric to assess the acceptability of sonic boom from supersonic aircraft. 

• By FY 2010, Advance best practices in aviation emissions particulate matter (PM) and Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (HAPs) measurements and characterize in-service aircraft 

• By FY 2010, assess current understanding of aviation impacts on sleep disturbance and/or 

annoyance. 

• By FY 2010, assess the impacts of aviation on regional air quality including the effects of 

particulate matter emissions that result when aircraft climb and cruise. 

• By FY 2010 test and deploy elements of an Internet capability to educate and inform the public 

about aviation and the environment. 

• By FY 2011, assess the level of certainty of aviation’s impact on climate change and advance the 

state of practical science research, with special emphasis on addressing the identified major 

uncertainties and gaps in our understanding of current and projected impacts of aviation on 

climate and to develop metrics that will enable us to characterize those impacts for purposes of 

advising options for mitigation. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: FAA works closely with other federal agencies, industry, 

academia, and international governments and organizations to design 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 FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee -- a formal standing committee composed of 

representatives from aviation associations and industry. The committee conveys its 

recommendations, advice, and information to FAA for consideration in rule making activities, and 

its harmonization working groups ensure that domestic and international aircraft noise certification 

regulations impose uniform standards upon the aircraft of all countries. 

• International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

(CAEP) -- this committee establishes and continually assesses the adequacy of international 

aviation environmental standards for aircraft noise and engine exhaust emissions. 

• The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) -- provides forums for debate over 

future research needs to better understand, predict and control the effects of aviation noise, and to 

encourage new technical development efforts in these areas. FICAN also evaluates such research 

and publishes its findings, which sometimes lead to recommendations on improving the state of 

the practice of aviation noise impact assessment and abatement. FICAN may conduct annual 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-121 

public forums in different geographic regions as a means to better align noise abatement research 

with local public concerns. 

• Aviation Emissions Characterization (AEC) Roadmap – developed by government and industry to 

coordinate research and regulatory activities. The objective of this long-range coordination 

mechanism is to advance the necessary understanding of particle formation, composition, and 

growth and transport mechanisms for assessing aviation’s particulate emissions, secondary 

particulate formation from gaseous emissions, and hazardous air pollutants, and understanding 

their impact on human health and the environment. Ultimately, if warranted, this activity will help 

guide the development of aviation related technology that results in reduced emissions. 

• NextGen -- FAA is leading an Environmental Working Group (EWG) responsible for leading 

environmental dimensions of the JPDO. The EWG comprises FAA, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DoD, Department of 

Commerce, Council on Environmental Quality, and Office of the Secretary of Transportation, as well 

as industry, academia, local government, and community groups. The efforts of the EWG are 

centered on advancing the national vision and recommendations for aviation in the NextGen and in 

the congressionally mandated study on “Aviation and the Environment.” 

• Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) – The FAA is working with the CCSP program office and 

its individual member agencies to focus research efforts that address the uncertainties and gaps in 

our understanding of current and projected impacts of aviation on climate, and to develop metrics 

to characterize these impacts. 

• Commercial Alternative Aviation Fuel Initiative (CAAFI) -- Concerns about rising fuel costs, energy 

supply security and the environmental effects of aviation are providing a significant stimulus to 

take a fresh look at the use of alternative fuels for aviation. To forge a way ahead, FAA founded 

the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) together with Airports Council 

International-North America (ACI-NA), the Air Transport Association (ATA) and the Aerospace 

Industries Association (AIA). CAAFI is teaming with the DoD to leverage their substantial efforts 

advancing alternative fuels for military aviation– driven by energy security considerations. CAAFI is 

also working with other Federal agencies such as NASA. 

• Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) – The FAA worked with NASA and NOAA to 

establish the ACCRI. The primary objective is to coordinate and sponsor collaborative research 

efforts to reduce key scientific uncertainties in quantifying aviation-related climate impacts while 

providing timely scientific input to inform optimum mitigation actions and policies for NextGen and 

ICAO. 

R&D Partnerships: Through a series of Memorandums of Agreement (MOA), FAA works closely with 

NASA to identify long-term source abatement technologies for noise and emissions. Together, the agencies 

also work with industry and academia to assess the possible global impact of aircraft engine exhaust 

emissions. In FY 2005, FAA signed an MOA with DoD to pursue joint activities to understand and mitigate 

aviation noise and emissions. The FAA is also pursuing collaborative agreements with DOE, and EPA to 

leverage resources to address aviation’s environmental impact. 

• Through the JPDO NextGen, the program supports the EWG comprising FAA, NASA, EPA, DoD, 

Department of Commerce, Council on Environmental Quality, and Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation, 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. 

• The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center continues, in collaboration with the Environment 

and Energy Program, to provide substantial technical assistance in the areas of aircraft noise and 

engine emissions measurement and assessment. 

• FICAN also offers a forum for partnership, as the Committee comprises all federal agencies 

concerned with aviation noise. The FAA works with this committee to foster greater, more costeffective partnering in aviation noise research among all agencies. 

Accomplishments: The number of people exposed to significant noise levels was reduced by about 90 

percent between 1975 and 2007. Today's aircraft are also 70 percent more fuel-efficient than jet aircraft of 

the 1960s. Reduced fuel consumption and technologies to reduce emissions have also led to a 90 percent 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-122 

reduction in carbon monoxide, smoke, and other aircraft emissions. Specific recent accomplishments 

include: 

FY 2007: 

• Developed and demonstrated the first versions of AEDT, EDS and APMT. These tools will 

revolutionize approaches to aviation environmental assessment and regulation by enabling a 

comprehensive approach that assesses interdependencies and optimizes solutions based on costbenefit analyses of impacts and mitigation. The tools will provide significant cost savings and other 

benefits to users. 

• Released new versions of computer models to assess noise and emissions exposure incorporating 

the latest science and methodologies 

• Completed the analyses supporting a Report to Congress, jointly with EPA, on the impact of aircraft 

emissions on air quality in nonattainment areas; ways to promote measures that allow aviation to 

enhance fuel efficiency and to reduce emissions; and opportunities to reduce air traffic 

inefficiencies that both waste fuel and increase emissions. 

• Completed an assessment of the feasibility of using alternative fuels in commercial aviation. The 

assessment included a comprehensive assessment of well to tail emissions from coal and gas 

derived and renewable alternative fuels. 

FY 2006: 

• Released advanced version of highly influential advanced computer models for airport and heliport 

noise analysis –over 1000 users in over 40 countries. The models are used in over 160 U.S. airport 

studies involving more than $1.8 billion in airport noise compatibility grants, and recently provided 

the basis for an aircraft noise exposure prediction model for air tours in the Grand Canyon National 

Park. 

• Released advanced version of a computer model that is used extensively by over 300 domestic and 

international users in airport air quality analyses and has won the EPA’s highest endorsement. 

• JPDO Environmental Integrated Product Team (E-IPT, now EWG) instituted a framework for 

establishing national goals for aviation and the environment and completed a ”gap analysis” of 

environmental R&D programs necessary to meet NextGen goals. 

• Reported to Congress regarding a comprehensive national study of ways to reduce aircraft noise 

and emissions. 

FY 2005: 

• Developed a handbook on aviation emissions that serves as the definitive source on this evolving 

issue. 

• Developed a first order approximation to help airports assess aircraft particulate emissions and 

demonstrate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act. 

• Developed a novel methodology for assessing noise, air quality emissions, and aviation climate 

impacts using a common currency. 

FY 2004: 

• Initiated a long-term, strategic effort to develop analytical tools to address the relationship 

between noise and emissions and different types of emissions. The long-term aim is a 

comprehensive approach to addressing all aspects of noise and emissions. The tools will facilitate 

better-informed decisions that can cost in excess of $10 billion to government and industry. 

• Developed a modeling capability to produce annual inventories of aircraft greenhouse gas 

emissions and to assess aviation’s forecasted global emissions. 

• FY 2003: 

• Established the PARTNER COE to allow partnerships with universities, research institutions, and 

industry to conduct exploratory research to identify and better measure the issues and impacts 

associated with aircraft noise and aviation emissions, and generate improved solutions to deal with 

these problems. 

• Demonstrated new Continuous Descent Arrival noise abatement procedures in collaboration with 

NASA, academia, manufacturers, and airline and airport operators. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-123 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Noise and Emissions Analyses and interrelationships 

• Completed an annual assessment of noise exposure and fuel burn. 

• Delivered Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Version 2.0, including Environmental Design 

Space (EDS), capability for ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP)/8-related 

analysis. 

• Delivered Aviation Portfolio Management Tool (APMT) Version 2.0 for CAEP/8 related analysis. 

• Developed alpha version of AEDT tool for local application. 

• Assessed noise and emissions for various technology, operational, and airspace enhancement 

scenarios. 

• Demonstrated a new comprehensive approach to aviation environmental impact mitigation through 

a significant example problem. 

• Continued upgrades to Integrated Noise Model (INM), Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System 

(EDMS), Modeling System For Assessing Global Noise Exposure (MAGENTA), and System For 

Assessing Aviation Global Emissions (SAGE) modules for incorporation into AEDT and to support 

existing customers as necessary. 

• Developed business case and cost allocation for implementation of clean and quiet operational 

procedures. 

• Worked with candidate airports to identify opportunities to implement clean and quiet operational 

procedures. 

• Explored provisions for clean and quiet procedure usage in airspace redesign projects. 

Aircraft noise 

• Updated, developed, and published: procedures and technical guidance for noise certification of 

aircraft (subsonic jet and large transport airplanes, small propeller airplanes, and rotorcraft) that 

are both harmonized and simplified. 

• Recommended and develop widely accepted impact metrics within noise community on sleep 

disturbance, annoyance, speech interference and perceptible vibration. 

• Investigated the role of aviation noise in combined transportation noise around airports and its 

impact to communities. 

• Investigated how average Day-Night-Level (DNL) performs compared to other noise impact 

metrics; 

• Completed Land Use metrics study and publish a report. 

• Conducted a study to analyze the four elements of the Balanced Approach (technology to reduce 

noise at the source, land use planning and management, quieter operational procedures, and 

operational restrictions) to noise abatement and their relationships. 

• Continued to assess potential benefits of using newly developed noise reduction technologies and 

operational procedures; identify technology and operational goals for long-term reduction of 

aircraft noise. 

• Continued developing interactive website/software to communicate complex noise technical 

information in a manner suitable for public distribution (NoiseQuest) and complete educational 

component of NoiseQuest. 

• Advanced the sonic boom metric definition and continue to assess the applicability of existing noise 

metrics to sonic boom and determined annoyance of low boom waveforms to inform future 

decision-making regarding supersonic flight over land. 

• With the “Aviation emissions activity,” conducted two COE focused sessions at a national and an 

international conference. 

Aviation emissions 

• Continued to develop and publish procedures and technical guidance materials for aircraft engine 

exhaust emissions testing and certification that are internationally harmonized and simplified, 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-124 

taking into account modernization in measurement methodologies and advancements in technical 

understanding. 

• Continued to develop and disseminate methodologies and procedures to quantify and assess the 

impact of Particulate Matter and Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions on the environment. 

• Conducted analysis of actual aircraft engine emissions measurements to better understand the 

generation of emissions during engine start-up, ground idle and taxi operation, during aircraft 

ground roll immediately prior to takeoff, and under varying ambient conditions. 

• Continued to: 

− Assess potential benefits of using newly developed engine emissions reduction technologies, 

monitor state of technology advancements against the established goals for long term 

reduction of aircraft engine NOX emissions, and initiate establishment of aircraft technology 

goals for long term reduction of fuel burn. 

− Assess potential benefits of optimized operational procedures to reduce emissions and fuel burn 

− Assess the atmospheric and health effects of aviation related emissions through the PARTNER 

COE. 

• Tested and analyze particulate matter emissions and hazardous air pollutants from aircraft engines 

as identified under the AEC Roadmap; establish databases of PM emissions from aircraft engines 

that can be used for trends assessment. 

• Initiated effort required to plan an additional broad airport and aircraft engine study to collect 

particulate matter and plume evolution/expansion data using light detection and ranging (LIDAR) 

technology that can be used advance our understanding of particulate emissions impact and to 

enhance dispersion analytical models embodied in our air quality tools. 

• Developed preliminary agreed upon methods to measure PM emissions from commercial aircraft 

engines, taking into account an assessment of the impact of PM emissions. 

• Assessed whether there are unique health effects associated with particulate matter emissions and 

hazardous air pollutants from aviation sources. 

• Initiated assessment of uncertainty of impact of aviation on climate change with special emphasis 

on practical application of research results to aid the development of models to assess mitigation 

options. 

• Initiated an assessment of the impacts of aviation on regional air quality, including the effects of 

emissions attributable to aircraft climb and cruise operations. 

• With the “Aircraft noise activity,” conducted two COE focused sessions at a national and an 

international conference. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

In accordance with the agency’s mission and legislative mandates, FAA must assess and mitigate the 

environmental impacts of aviation. The FAA will continue to work with NASA, other Departments and 

Agencies, the manufacturing industry, and international authorities to support the development and 

implementation of aircraft environmental certification regulations through proactive response to changes in 

airplane and engine technology, measurement/analysis technology, regulatory policy, and international 

regulatory initiatives. 

FAA will continue to work with NASA and other Departments and Agencies as appropriate in research efforts 

identifying noise and emissions reduction technologies that may enter the marketplace within the next 10-

15 years. The agency will use these research findings to consider new environmental certification standards 

and procedures for the next generation of transport aircraft. 

Ongoing Activities 

Aerospace systems have historically been designed – and regulations for their certification and use have 

been written – as though aviation noise and various emissions had nothing to do with one another. 

However, aviation noise and emissions are highly interdependent phenomena. Future environmentally 

responsible aviation policy and rule making must be based on a new, interdisciplinary approach. 

Furthermore, this approach must be made as affordable as it is effective. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-125 

Existing analytical tools are inadequate to assess interdependencies between noise and emissions or analyze 

the cost/benefit of proposed actions. Accordingly, FAA is developing a robust new comprehensive 

framework of aviation environmental analytical tools and methodologies to perform these functions. The 

long-term aim is to provide a seamless, comprehensive set of tools to address all aspects of noise and 

emissions. The elements of this framework include: 

• EDS’ capability to provide integrated analysis of noise and emissions at the aircraft level. 

• AEDT comprises EDS and other integrated aviation noise and emissions modules – will provide 

integrated capability of generating interrelationships between noise and emissions and among 

emissions at the local, regional and global levels. 

• APMT comprises AEDT and other modules – will provide the common, transparent cost/benefit 

methodology needed to optimize national aviation policy in harmony with environmental policy. 

• These AEDT and APMT tools will allow: 

• Government agencies to understand how proposed actions and policy decisions affect aviation 

noise and emissions. 

• Industry to understand how operational decisions affect proposed projects affecting aviation noise 

and emissions. 

• The public to understand how actions by government and industry affect aviation noise and 

emissions. 

Anticipated benefits of this initiative include the ability to: 

• Optimize environmental benefits of proposed actions and investments. 

• Improve data and analysis on airport/airspace capacity projects. 

• Increase capability to address noise and emissions interdependencies in the resolution of 

community concerns. 

• Aid in more effective R&D portfolio management. 

• Remove environmental roadblocks to capacity growth. 

• Continue global leadership for the United States in environmentally responsible aviation. 

Other activities include: 

• Continue activities through the PARTNER COE to develop methodology and collect data to identify 

and more accurately characterize the sources and incremental impacts associated with aircraft 

noise and aviation emissions, and generate improved solutions to deal with these problems. 

• Continue updating and enhancing existing analytical tool modules (e.g., INM, EDMS, SAGE, 

MAGENTA), as necessary, to support existing customers and transition to AEDT. 

• Support FAA role in the ICAO CAEP working groups for assessing the technological, scientific, 

operational, and economic aspects associated with setting international standards and 

recommended practices for aircraft noise and engine exhaust emissions. 

• Continue efforts to ensure the currency of the regulation and technical guidance materials 

concerning aircraft noise and engine exhaust emissions certification requirements. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Noise and Emissions Analyses and interrelationships 

• Complete an annual assessment of noise exposure and fuel burn. 

• Complete a significant example analysis to demonstrate the benefit of cost-benefit analyses. 

• Deliver Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Version 3.0 for CAEP/8 related analysis. 

• Deliver Aviation Portfolio Management Tool (APMT) Version 3.0 for CAEP/8 related analysis. 

• Deliver Environmental Design Tool Version 3.0, including validated vehicle library and 

demonstrated capability within AEDT framework for CAEP/8 related analysis. 

• Continue upgrades to INM, EDMS, MAGENTA, and SAGE modules for incorporation into AEDT and 

to support existing customers as necessary. 

• Deliver comprehensive assessment, including quantified uncertainties, of EDS, AEDT, and APMT. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-126 

• Deliver tools to aid in demonstrating Continuous Descent Arrival (CDA) procedures in high-density 

environment. 

• Develop tools to aid in demonstrating other environmentally beneficial procedures in the National 

Airspace System (NAS). 

Aircraft noise 

• Update and/or develop, as well as publish: procedures and technical guidance for noise 

certification of aircraft (subsonic jet and large transport airplanes, small propeller airplanes, and 

rotorcraft, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles, supersonic airplanes, and very light jets, if data are 

available) that are both harmonized and simplified. 

• Initiate studies to: 

• Advance understanding of long-term health impacts of noise exposure 

• Update current understanding of aviation noise impacts on annoyance and/or sleep disturbance. 

• Establish acceptability of low-boom supersonic flight as perceived indoors. 

• Validate methodologies in noise propagation models to better capture the effects of air turbulence, 

meteorology, terrain, and wave nature of low-frequency noise. 

• Assess state of knowledge on potential health impacts of aircraft noise and investigate 

methodologies to incorporate these impacts in the APMT framework. 

• Support efforts to update land use planning compatibility guidance. 

• Continue to assess potential global benefits of using newly-developed noise reduction technologies; 

identify technology goals for long term reduction of aircraft noise. 

• Assess efficacy of NoiseQuest website. 

• With the “Aviation emissions activity,” conduct two COE focused sessions at a national and an 

international conference. 

Aviation emissions 

• Continue to develop and publish: 

• Procedures and technical guidance materials for affordable engine exhaust emissions testing and 

certification that are both harmonized and simplified. 

• Develop and disseminate methodologies and procedures to quantify and assess the impact of 

Particulate Matter (PM) and Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) emissions in the aviation environment. 

• 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. 

• Advance best practices in aviation emissions PM and HAPs measurements. 

• Continue collecting PM and HAPs measurement data and develop speciation profiles to improve 

and/or replace approximation methods and advance those data sources in models used to isolate 

sources, and identify aviation’s contribution to impacts. 

• Continue assessment of the relative effect of various emissions on climate forcing functions. 

• Continue comparison of detailed chemistry computations to aviation environmental tools 

approximations. 

• Continue developing a model of near field plume evolution/expansion to feed air quality models. 

• Assess whether there are unique health impacts or other environmental effects, particularly for 

NextGen scenarios, including particulate matter emissions and hazardous air pollutants from 

aviation sources, with specific focus on the aircraft engine. 

• Continue assessment of uncertainty of impact of aviation on climate change. 

• Complete assessment of the impacts of aviation on air quality including the effects of particulate 

matter emissions attributable to aircraft climb and cruise operations. 

• Initiate development of guidance material related to dispersion, chemical and transport modeling 

(i.e., assessment of aviation-related air pollutant concentrations that effect air quality). 

• Continue evaluation of the necessity for establishing standards pertaining to particulate matter 

emissions from aircraft engines. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-127 

• With the “Aircraft noise activity,” conduct two COE focused sessions at a national and an 

international conference. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-128 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 168,470 

FY 2009 Appropriated 15,608 

FY 2010 Request 15,522 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 60,669 

Total 260,269 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

Aircraft Noise 1,358 1,667 1,359 1,572 1,245

Engine Emissions 1,598 1,846 1,600 1,700 1,451

Noise & Emissions Analyses 10,759 10,320 10,213 9,900 10,100

Personnel Costs 1,985 2,005 2,036 2,127 2,319

Other In-house Costs 145 170 261 309 407

 Total 15,845 16,008 15,469 15,608 15,522

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 15,840 16,008 15,469 15,608 1 15,840

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 15,840 16,008 15,469 15,608 1 15,840
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-129 

A13.a. - Environment and Energy Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 

091-016 Noise and Emissions Analysis 

Noise and Emissions Analysis 10,100 Develop architecture for noise/emissions modules 

communication ◊ ◊ 

Develop model for assessing global exposure to noise 

from transport aircraft ◊ ◊ 

Validate the methodologies used to assess aircraft noise 

exposure and impact ◊ ◊ 

Release INM updates ♦ 

Enhance aircraft noise and emissions modeling for 

airspace management activities ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Release EDMS updates ♦ 

Forecast future global emissions and noise ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Release screening model for airport air quality, version 

1, and updates ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Validate methodologies used to assess aviation 

emissions and their impact on air quality ◊ ◊ 

Advance approximation methods for aircraft engine PM 

emissions ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Publish handbook for airport air quality analysis and 

updates ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Guidance document for estimating and reducing 

emissions from ground support equipment ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Resource and guidance materials, and assessment 

protocol concerning hazardous air pollutants ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop AEDT ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Release AEDT for local applications ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop EDS ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop APMT ◊ ◊ ◊ Harmonize AEDT and APMT databases and code 

management protocols ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Integrate cost and socioeconomic data ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Aircraft Noise 1,245 

Assess aircraft noise reduction strategies research ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Assess land use practices and metrics ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Publish AC 36-4 (and updates) ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Develop a new international noise standard for subsonic 

jets and large airplanes ◊ ◊ 

Develop a new international noise standard for small 

props and helicopters ◊ 

Apply methodologies used to assess aircraft noise 

exposure and impact (APMT) ◊ ◊ 

Prepare COE reports, findings, and other activities ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Engine Emissions 1,451 Assess technological and scientific bases to support 

future ICAO engine emission standards ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Develop alternative, simplified engine exhaust emissions 

certification test procedures ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Update AC 34-1 ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop measurement/sampling protocol for PM 

emissions from aircraft engines ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop science/metrics and reduce uncertainties to 

assess impact of aviation on climate change ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Prepare COE reports, findings, and other activities ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 2,726 

Total Budget Authority 15,522 15,608 15,522 15,440 15,264 15,079 14,886

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-130 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A13.b NextGen Environmental Research – Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels and Metrics 

$19,470,000 

Goals: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Greater Capacity and International Leadership. 

Intended Outcomes: The NextGen Technologies, Fuels and Metrics program helps achieve the NextGen 

goals to increase capacity by reducing significant community noise and air quality emissions impacts in 

absolute terms, and limit or reduce aviation greenhouse gas emissions impacts on the global climate. The 

program is focused on reducing current levels of aircraft noise, lair quality and greenhouse gas emissions 

and energy use and advancing alternative fuels for aviation use. 

The Program specifically supports the following outcomes: 

Demonstrate aircraft and engine technologies that reduce noise and air quality and greenhouse gas 

emissions at the source to a developmental level that will allow quicker industry uptake of these new 

environmental technologies in order to produce a fleet that will operate more efficiently with less energy 

usage and permit expansion of airports and airspace capacity in a 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% compared to a B737/CFM56, 

reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions; 

• Certifiable engine technology that reduces landing and takeoff cycle (LTO) nitrogen oxide 

emissions by 70 percent, without increasing other gaseous or particle emissions, over the ICAO 

standard adopted at CAEP 2; 

• Certifiable aircraft technology that reduces noise levels by 32 dB 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 re-engine 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. 

Specific activities include developing and demonstrating: 

• The feasibility of use of alternative fuels in aircraft systems, including successful demonstration and 

quantification of benefits; and 

• Ensuring safety and devising transition strategies that enable “drop in” replacement for petroleum 

derived turbine engine fuels. 

Determining the appropriate enhancements of goals and metrics to manage NextGen aviation environmental 

impacts that are needed to support Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) and allow a three times 

capacity growth. 

Specific activities include: 

• 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 projected NextGen and support EMSs implementation. 

Agency Outputs: The program is protecting the environment by reducing significant aviation 

environmental impacts associated with noise, exhaust emissions and energy production. The program is 

also seeking to enhance energy efficiency and availability. The program will advance and mature, 

collaboratively with industry, engine and airframe technologies to reduce aviation noise, air quality and 

greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. It will also assess the feasibility of developing alternative 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-131 

aviation fuels that could serve as “drop in” replacements for today’s petroleum derived turbine engine fuels. 

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 dynamic environmental management systems (EMSs) 

to better manage and reduce aviation’s environmental impacts. 

Research Goals: 

By FY 2014, complete system analyses and demonstrations of near-and (CLEEN) mid-term airframe and 

engine technologies to reduce noise, emissions and fuel burn in integrated flight demonstrations for civil 

subsonic jet aircraft 

Airframe and engine technologies supporting milestones: 

• Advance system analyses and identify and pursue the development of first round engine and 

airframe technologies that will be the most effective at producing environmental benefits. (by FY 

2010) 

• Initiate demonstration of CLEEN technologies in ground rig tests (by FY 2010) 

• Establish preliminary metrics and goals to guide CLEEN technology and alternative fuels 

development and support EMSs (by FY 2010) 

• Complete demonstration of first phase CLEEN technologies in ground rig tests. (by FY 2011) 

• Complete demonstration of CLEEN technologies in ground rig tests. (by FY 2012) 

• Demonstrate airframe and engine technologies to reduce noise, emissions and fuel burn in 

integrated ground demonstrations for civil subsonic jet aircraft. (by FY 2013) 

• Complete system analyses to identify the most promising CLEEN technologies for flight tests. (by 

FY 2013) 

• Initiate demonstrations of first round of CLEEN airframe and engine technologies to reduce noise, 

emissions and fuel burn in integrated flight demonstrations for civil subsonic jet aircraft (by FY 

2013) 

• Complete system analyses and identify and pursue the development of second round engine and 

airframe technologies that will be the most effective at producing environmental benefits. (by FY 

2014) 

• Complete demonstrations of first round of CLEEN airframe and engine technologies to reduce 

noise, emissions and fuel burn in integrated flight demonstrations for civil subsonic jet aircraft(by 

FY 2014) 

By FY 2013, complete comprehensive assessment of “drop in” alterative turbine engine fuels and develop 

implementation plan to address certification. 

Alternative fuels supporting milestones: 

• Complete effort to experimentally measure environmental impacts of “drop in” alternative turbine 

engine fuels. (by FY 2010) 

• Complete detailed feasibility study, including economic feasibility, environmental impacts, and 

assessment of potential for gas turbine renewable alternative fuels. (by FY 2010) 

• Initiate effort to experimentally assess environmental impacts and benefits and costs of renewable 

alternative turbine engine fuels. (by FY 2011) 

• Conduct significant demonstration of “drop in” alternative turbine engine fuels. (by FY 2012) 

• Conduct renewable alternative turbine engine fuels safety, environmental and business case 

assessments. (by FY 2012) 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-132 

• Complete assessment of “drop in” alterative turbine engine fuels and develop implementation plan. 

(by FY 2013) 

By FY 2014, investigate metrics, uncertainties on aviation emissions health and welfare and climate impact 

to facilitate EMSs implementation. 

Metrics supporting milestones: 

• Complete preliminary assessment of aviation’s impact on climate. (by FY 2011) 

• Complete assessment of NextGen air quality and noise impacts. (by FY 2011) 

• Reduce key uncertainties of aviation impacts to levels that better inform appropriate action. (by FY 

2013) 

• Refine metrics that more accurately capture aviation emissions health and welfare and climate 

impact and goals to facilitate EMSs implementation. (by FY 2014) 

• Complete an updated assessment of aviation’s impact on climate. (by FY 2014) 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: FAA works closely with other federal agencies, industry, 

academia, and international governments and organizations to design R&D efforts that can mitigate the 

environmental impact of aviation and explore alternative gas turbine fuels. 

• NextGen -- FAA leads an Environmental Working Group (EWG) responsible for leading 

environmental dimensions of the JPDO. The EWG comprises FAA, NASA, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), DoD, Department of Commerce, Council on Environmental Quality, and 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation, as well as industry, academia, local government, and 

community groups. The efforts of the WG are centered on advancing the national vision and 

recommendations for aviation in the NextGen and in the congressionally mandated study on 

“Aviation and the Environment”, including advanced technology and alternative fuels development. 

• Commercial Alternative Aviation Fuel Initiative (CAAFI) -- Concerns about rising fuel costs, energy 

supply security and the environmental effects of aviation are providing a significant stimulus to 

take a fresh look at the use of alternative fuels for aviation. To forge a way ahead, FAA founded 

the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) together with Airports Council 

International-North America (ACI-NA), the Air Transport Association (ATA) and the Aerospace 

Industries Association (AIA). CAAFI is teaming with the DoD to leverage their substantial efforts 

advancing alternative fuels for military aviation– driven by energy security considerations. CAAFI is 

also working with other Federal agencies such as NASA. 

• Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) – The FAA is working with the CCSP program office and 

its individual member agencies to focus research efforts that address the uncertainties and gaps in 

our understanding of current and projected impacts of aviation on climate, and to develop metrics 

to characterize these impacts. 

• Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) – The FAA worked with NASA and NOAA to 

establish the ACCRI. The primary objective is to coordinate and sponsor collaborative research 

efforts to reduce key scientific uncertainties in quantifying aviation-related climate impacts while 

providing timely scientific input to inform optimum mitigation actions and policies for NextGen and 

ICAO. 

R&D Partnerships: As does the Environment and Energy Research Program and other NextGen activities, 

the NextGen Aircraft Technologies, Fuels and Metrics Program relies on a series of Memorandums of 

Agreement (MOA), to work closely with NASA and DoD. The FAA is also pursuing collaborative agreements 

with DOE, and EPA to leverage resources to address aviation’s environmental impact. 

• Through the JPDO NextGen, the program supports the EWG comprising FAA, NASA, EPA, DoD, 

Department of Commerce, Council on Environmental Quality, and Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation, 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. 

Accomplishments: This is a new effort to address the challenges of NextGen. However, relevant 

stakeholders have achieved significant accomplishments mitigating aviation’s environmental impact. The 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-133 

number of people exposed to significant noise levels was reduced by about 90 percent between 1975 and 

2006. Today's aircraft are also 70 percent more fuel-efficient than jet aircraft of the 1960s. Reduced fuel 

consumption has also led to a 90 percent reduction in carbon monoxide, smoke, and other aircraft 

emissions. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Noise, emissions and fuel burn reduction technologies maturation 

• Established consortium for Continuous Low Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) Technologies. 

• Awarded grants and contracts to conduct research. 

• Developed a detailed plan to achieve NextGen environmental goals. 

• Identified promising technologies for the reduction of noise, air quality and greenhouse gas 

emissions, and fuel burn that can be quickly matured for commercialization. 

• Conducted component level analyses for promising technologies to optimize environmental and fuel 

burn performance. 

• Conducted detailed integrated system level analyses for large and regional jets in order to identify 

the most promising technologies that can be quickly matured for commercialization. 

• Initiated design of experiments for demonstration of technologies that optimize environmental and 

fuel burn performance. 

Alternative turbine engine fuels 

• Completed detailed feasibility study, including economic feasibility of “drop in” alternative turbine 

engine fuels. 

• Initiated planning for experimentally quantifying environmental impacts of “drop in” gas turbine 

fuels in commercial aircraft engines. 

• Initiated efforts to explore the potential of renewable gas turbine fuels for commercial applications. 

NextGen Environmental Metrics, Goals and Targets 

• Initiated efforts to improve understanding of how projected NextGen operations-generated 

emissions and noise impact human health and welfare, and global climate and identify key 

uncertainties. 

• Determined research efforts necessary to reduce key uncertainties in our scientific understanding 

of environmental impacts and enhance models to assess those impacts for improved decisionmaking on mitigation and regulatory considerations. 

• Initiated comprehensive modeling efforts to establish the relationship between aviation engine 

exhaust and the gaseous and particulate matter emissions that are deposited in the atmosphere. 

• Identified and assess potential metrics to quantify the climate related impacts of commercial 

aircraft operations. 

• Initiated baseline analyses of potential climate response due to aviation emissions with quantified 

uncertainties, based on the best available science and modeling tools. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Anticipated increases in air transportation demand will place significant environmental pressures on various 

segments of the NextGen. The primary environmental constraints on the capacity and flexibility of the 

NextGen could be community noise, air quality, global climate impacts, and energy production and 

consumption. Environmental issues have constrained airport and airspace growth over the past decade. 

To ensure environmental impacts don’t become a constraint on growth in NexGen, we need to accelerate 

introduction of quieter and cleaner technology in our fleets. Ninety percent of the environmental 

improvements (noise and emissions reductions) in the aviation system in the last 30 years have come from 

improved technology. Without a pipeline of near term (5-10 years) technology improvements, we cannot 

achieve the absolute reduction of significant noise and air quality impacts that we believe are necessary to 

enable NextGen growth. We need robust research and development to enable technology solutions to 

manage and mitigate environmental constraints. The goal is to have a fleet of quieter, cleaner aircraft that 

operate more efficiently with less energy. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-134 

We are currently facing larger research and development challenges at a time when we need to make larger 

technological leaps. Solutions that involve technology improvements in engines and airframes in a 

foreseeable timeframe require successful maturation and certification of new technologies within the next 5-

10 years. This initiative establishes a world-class research consortium that can pursue technology goals to 

significantly reduce aviation noise, emissions, and fuel consumption. Establishing a world-class research 

consortium with industry- targeted on maturing technology- will help accelerate introduction of quieter and 

cleaner technology in our fleets so environmental issues do not become constraints. 

The NextGen environmental goal is to reduce significant health and welfare impacts of aviation community 

noise and air quality (namely NOX) emissions in absolute terms, notwithstanding growth. Although there is 

no quantitative goal for greenhouse gas emissions, the NextGen environmental goal does call for limiting or 

reducing the impact of aviation greenhouse gas emissions on global climate. There is a need to explore the 

appropriate metrics and system goals to establish significant impacts. There is also a need to develop a 

robust science-based understanding of impacts of NextGen aviation emissions on earth’s climate and 

translate these impacts into improved metrics that can be used to better assess and mitigate aviation’s 

contribution to climate change. These goals and metrics will enable Environmental Management Systems 

(EMSs) to mitigate impacts in a dynamic and cost-beneficial manner. 

Elements of this initiative include: 

• In collaboration with industry, mature noise, emissions and fuel burn reductions technologies 

(previously conceived by NASA and industry to Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) of 3-4) to levels 

(TRL 6) that enable industry to expedite introduction of these technologies into current and future 

products. 

• Assess and advance the development of alternative “drop in” and renewable turbine fuels for 

aviation. 

• Develop metrics to better assess and control noise, air quality and climate impacts from NextGen 

commercial aircraft operations and establish goals and targets to support EMSs implementation to 

mitigate impacts. 

Ongoing Activities 

Anticipated increases in air transportation demand will place significant environmental pressures on the 

national airspace system. Current operational trends show that environmental impacts resulting from aircraft 

noise and aviation emissions will be the principal constraint on the capacity and flexibility of the NextGen 

unless managed and mitigated. Aviation impacts affect community noise footprints, surface air quality, 

water quality, and the global climate. Environmental issues have already resulted in the delay and/or downscaling of certain airport capacity projects over the past decade. Therefore, the NextGen environmental 

challenge is to reduce, in absolute terms the number of people exposed to significant noise levels; and the 

significant health and welfare impacts on the population of aviation 

The challenge is also to reduce the impact of aviation greenhouse gas emissions on global climate – despite 

remaining scientific uncertainties regarding the nature of these impacts. And the overarching challenge is to 

better understand the impacts of aircraft noise and emissions on the population and climate, enabling 

appropriate mitigation actions. NextGen must achieve a balance between aviation’s environmental impacts 

and other societal objectives, both domestically and internationally. 

The FAA’s strategic plan to address these challenges has elements: (1) enhance scientific understanding; 

(2) accelerate air traffic management efficiencies and improvements; (3) hasten the development of 

promising environmental improvements in aircraft technology; (4) advance renewable alternative fuels; and 

(5) explore market-based measures to offer assistance in managing aviation emissions growth. 

This program is focusing on efforts to accelerate the aircraft technology development/penetration cycle and 

advancing alternative fuels. It is also focusing on enhancing scientific understanding of metrics and targets 

that more accurately capture aviation noise and emissions health and welfare and climate impacts to enable 

cost beneficial actions to mitigate these impacts. 

 

The effort is pursuing the national goals and objectives delineated in the Energy and Environment 

component of the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D and Related Infrastructure 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-135 

(http://www.ostp.gov/cs/nstc/documents_reports) which provides quantitative integrated energy, fuel 

efficiency, emissions and noise research goals. 

The ongoing elements of the effort include: 

1. Continue the Continuous, Low Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) effort focused on accelerating the 

maturation of lower energy, emissions and noise technology for aircraft and advancing environmentally 

beneficial alternative fuels. 

2. Continue efforts to develop the fundamental scientific understanding to enable Environmental 

Management Systems to dynamically manage aviation environmental impacts in a cost beneficial 

manner. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Noise, emissions and fuel burn reduction technologies maturation 

• Advance CLEEN systems analyses. 

• Initiate CLEEN component level tests. 

• Conduct detailed integrated system level analyses to identify the most promising technologies. 

• Identify CLEEN airframe and engine technologies to pursue. 

• Complete demonstration of CLEEN technologies in ground rig tests. 

• Complete preliminary design of CLEEN demonstration experiment. 

Alternative turbine engine fuels 

• Experimentally measure environmental impacts of “drop in” alternative turbine engine fuels. 

• Initiate planning for comprehensive “drop in” alternative fuel demonstration 

• Initiate effort to experimentally quantify renewable fuels environmental impacts 

NextGen Environmental Metrics, Goals and Targets 

• Continue efforts to determine how projected NextGen operations-generated emissions and noise 

impact human health and welfare, and global climate and identify key uncertainties. 

• Initiate implementation of research efforts necessary to reduce key uncertainties in our scientific 

understanding of environmental impacts and enhance models to assess those impacts for improved 

decision-making on mitigation and regulatory considerations. 

• Continue comprehensive modeling efforts to establish the relationship between aviation engine 

exhaust and the gaseous and particulate matter emissions that are deposited in the atmosphere. 

• Initiate a comprehensive particulate matter (PM), hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and noise 

measurement campaign. 

• Continue assessing potential metrics to quantify the climate related impacts of commercial aircraft 

operations. 

• Continue baseline analyses of potential climate response due to aviation emissions with quantified 

uncertainties, based on the best available science and modeling tools. 

• Initiate comprehensive assessment of NextGen air quality and noise impacts. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-136 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 0 

FY 2009 Appropriated 16,050 

FY 2010 Request 19,470 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 83,794 

Total 119,314 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Request 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

NextGen Environmental Research—Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels and Metrics 0 0 0 15,829 18,312

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 221 954

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 204

 Total 0 0 0 16,050 19,470

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Request 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 16,050 19,470

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 16,050 19,470
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-137 

A13.b.- NextGen Environmental 

Research—Aircraft Technologies, 

Fuels and Metrics 

Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) 

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 

111-150 NextGen Environmental Research 

Technology Maturation 13,812 

Establish CLEEN Consortium ♦ 

System Level Assessments ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Component Assessments ◊ ◊ 

Rig Tests – Round 1 ◊ 

Rig Tests – Round 2 ◊ 

Integrated Ground Demonstrators ◊ ◊ 

Flight Demonstrations ◊ ◊ 

Prepare Annual Report ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Alternative Turbine Fuels 2,000 

“Drop in” Fuels Feasibility Study ♦ ◊ 

Renewable Fuels Feasibility Study ◊ ◊ 

“Drop in” Fuels environmental Assessment ♦ ◊ 

Renewable Fuels Environmental Assessment ◊ ◊ 

Renewable Fuels Safety Assessment ◊ 

“Drop in” Safety Assessment ◊ ◊ ◊ 

“Drop in” Alternative Fuels Demonstration ◊ 

Renewable Fuels Safety Assessment ◊ 

Renewable Fuels Demonstration ◊ 

Transition Plans ◊ ◊ 

Prepare Annual Report ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Metrics, Goals and Targets 2,500 

Define potential metrics ♦ ◊ 

Evaluate metrics and models ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Advance measurement approaches ◊ ◊ 

Climate impact assessments ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Air Quality assessments ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Noise assessments ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Refine metrics ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Assess efficacy of metrics ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Upgrade Assessment Models ◊ 

Publish Research Reports ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 1,158 

Total Budget Authority 19,470 16,050 19,470 20,510 20,858 21,207 21,219

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-138 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A14.a. System Planning and Resource Management $1,766,000 

Goals: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, International 

Leadership, and Organizational Excellence. 

Intended Outcomes: Demonstrate the value of working with international partners to leverage research 

programs and studies in order to improve safety and promote seamless operations worldwide. The ongoing 

activity will manage the FAA’s R,E&D portfolio, meet the President’s criteria for R&D, increase program 

efficiency, and maintain management and operating costs. 

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. 

Agency Outputs: In FY 2010, the FAA will: 

• Publish the annual National Aviation Research Plan. 

• 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 program. 

• Support the NextGen initiative. 

• Prepare the annual R,E&D budget submission. 

• Manage the R,E&D portfolio. 

• Coordinate research activities with NASA through FAA’s R&D Field Offices. 

• Determine measures for the exchange of research information. 

Research Goals: 

• In FY 2010 through FY 2014, the 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 two percent or less of the total R,E&D budget. 

• By FY 2011, develop a strategic mapping for international collaboration. 

• By FY 2011, identify a process to measure quality, timeliness, and value of collaboration. 

• By FY 2016, calculate the value of R&D collaborations. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: 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, as well as 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: DOT, JPDO, NASA and other Federal Agencies, and EUROCONTROL. 

Accomplishments: Program accomplishments include: 

• Published the National Aviation Research Plan (February 2008) and submitted to Congress with The 

President’s FY 2009 Budget. 

• Managed two REDAC meetings and over twelve subcommittee meetings, which reviewed FAA’s 

proposed FY 2010 R,E&D program. 

• Developed the FY 2010 R,E&D budget submission. 

• Supported the JPDO’s NextGen activities. 

• Mapped FAA NextGen R&D programs to the R&D needs in the JPDO R&D Plan. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-139 

• Met the research goal for R,E&D management workforce and funding for System Planning and 

Resource Management in FY 2008. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Delivered the National Aviation Research Plan to Congress and submitted to Congress with The 

President’s FY 2010 Budget. 

• Provided strategic direction for the FAA R,E&D program. 

• Obtained REDAC guidance for the FY 2011 R,E&D Program. 

• Obtained REDAC review of and recommendations for FY 2011 R,E&D Program. 

• Developed the FY 2011 R,E&D budget submission. 

• Coordinated R&D activities with NASA and other partners. 

• Supported NextGen activities. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

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 2012 program, 

review the proposed FY 2012 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 National Aviation Research Plan and submit it to Congress concurrent with The FY 2011 

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 agency will maintain its field offices at the NASA Ames and Langley Research Centers as a vital part of 

efforts to coordinate and integrate the research and development programs of NASA and the FAA. 

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 generate value in the international market. In 

FY 2010, this initiative will determine measures for the exchange of research information. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Deliver the National Aviation Research Plan to the Congress (February 2010) with The President’s 

FY 2011 Budget. 

• Obtain REDAC recommendations on planned R,E&D investments for FY 2012. 

• Support the REDAC in its preparation of other reports, as requested by the Administrator. 

• Prepare the FY 2012 R,E&D budget submission. 

• Manage FAA’s R&D portfolio development process. 

• Support NextGen activities. 

• Coordinate R&D activities with NASA and other partners. 

• Determine measures for the exchange of research information. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-140 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 40,503 

FY 2009 Appropriated 1,817 

FY 2010 Request 1,766 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 6,727 

Total $50,813 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

R,E&D Plans and Programs 1,143 1,346 1,075 1,714 1,706

Personnel Costs 46 39 37 103 44

Other In-house Costs 0 3 72 0 16

 Total 1,189 1,388 1,184 1,817 1,766

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 1,189 1,388 1,184 1,817 1,766

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1,189 1,388 1,184 1,817 1,766
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-141 

A14.a. – System Planning and 

Resource Management Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

011-130 R,E&D Plans and Programs 

R,E&D Portfolio Development 225 

Prepare guidance for budget formulation ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct R,E&D financial management ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Prepare annual budget submissions ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Congressionally Mandated 445 

Publish National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct REDAC Meetings ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

NASA Field Offices 350 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Performance Measurement 686 Determine measures for exchange of research 

information ♦ ◊ 

Develop a strategic mapping for international 

collaboration ◊ ◊ 

Identify a process to measure quality, timeliness, and 

value of collaboration ◊ ◊ 

Calculate values of collaboration ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 60 

Total Budget Authority 1,766 1,817 1,766 1,741 1,702 1,664 1,620

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-142 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

R,E&D A14.b. William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory 

Facility

$3,614,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, International 

Leadership, and Organizational Excellence. 

Intended Outcomes: The 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 Future Development Laboratories including the Human Factors Laboratory and the 

NextGen Laboratory. 

Agency Outputs: 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 ATC 

configurations, and deltas in performance when new systems or procedures are introduced in order to 

evaluate human factors issues. These laboratories are comprised of integrated cockpit and air traffic control 

workstation simulators, and the performance issues they 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. 

Research Goals: The 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. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: 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; environment and energy. 

• Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance – The Flight Program Team has been supporting on 

site flight tests of the Precision Runway Monitoring System in Detroit to aid in the development of a 

system to aid in the reduction of runway incursions. 

• Next generation air transportation system (NextGen) – The WJHTC laboratories support concept 

validation. 

• Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast – 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 GPS Helicopter precision approaches to a heliport. 

• Wide Area Augmentation System – 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. 

R&D Partnerships: 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 

recreation of aircraft accidents for the purpose of collecting data in an attempt to determine the 

underlying cause. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-143 

• Boeing - The Simulation team is working a under cooperative research and development to build 

capability to perform R&D of 4-D trajectory negotiation and execution, and Unmanned Aerial 

Systems (UAS) 

• EUROCONTROL - 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 

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. 

− The Simulation team has partnered with UFA Inc. to quantify voice recognition and response 

(VRR) system performance in Technical Center Human in the Loop (HITL) simulations. 

Facilities supporting R&D Goals at the FAA’s WJHTC: The following laboratory facilities provide the 

reliable test bed infrastructure to support these R&D customers, program goals, and outputs for the FAA: 

• Simulation Facilities – Target Generator Facility (TGF) and Cockpit Simulators 

− Approach Procedures 

− Next Generation Air Transportation System 

− Airspace Design 

− Operational Evolution Plan Concept Validation 

− Dynamic Vertical Reduced Separation Minima 

− Unmanned Aerial Systems 

• Research & Development Flight Program – Airborne Laboratories 

− Satellite Communications and Navigation Programs 

− Separation Standards 

− Wide Area Augmentation System 

− Terminal Instrumentation Procedures 

− Aircraft Safety 

− Runway Incursion 

− Next Generation Air Transportation System 

− Local Area Augmentation System 

− ADS-B 

− Common Automated Radar Terminal System 

• Research & Development Human Factors Laboratory 

− Air Traffic Control Human Factors 

− Airway Facilities Human Factors 

− Operational Evolution Plan Concept Validation 

Accomplishments: The FAA’s WJHTC’s laboratory facilities provide the reliable test bed infrastructure to 

support R&D program goals and outputs. Outstanding program accomplishments include: 

FY 2008: 

• The Flight Program Team has participated in the development and acceptance flight testing of the 

ITT ADS-B system in southern Florida. These test consisted on numerous dual aircraft, highly 

scripted, flights to test system resolution, accuracy and performance. 

• Simulation Team successfully implemented Boeing’s Aircraft Intent Description Language (AIDL) 

• Simulation Team successfully completed manual flight capability in its Embraer-175 cockpit 

simulator using the manufacturer’s software. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-144 

• Research Development & Human Factors Laboratory (RDHFL) developed Aircraft Geometric Height 

Measurement Element (AGHME): 2006 – 2009 In support of Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation 

Minimum (D-RVSM) – consists of changing the current 2,000-ft vertical separation standard 

applicable to pairs of aircraft operating between 29,000 and 41,000 (flight levels 290 and 410), 

inclusive, to 1,000 ft. AGHME estimates aircraft geometric height. An already existing analysis 

process will then make use of this geometric height, in conjunction with other information, to 

determine aircraft height-keeping performance. 

FY 2007: 

• The Flight Program Team has participated in the development and improvement flight testing of 

the FAA’s “Legacy” ADS-B system operational on the east coast of the US. These test consisted on 

numerous multi-aircraft flights to test system resolution, accuracy and performance. 

• Simulation Team successfully completed baseline evaluations of the UFA VRR system. 

• Simulation Team successfully demonstrated a control tower visualization capability. 

• Research Development & Human Factors Laboratory (RDHFL) Future Terminal Workstation 

(FTWS): 2007- 2010 The project is part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) human factors 

research program to design and evaluate new air traffic control (ATC) capabilities for the 2015-

2020 timeframe. The new capabilities include new automation tools; user interfaces (UIs) and 

interaction techniques, and ATC procedures. The FTWS project focuses on the environment known 

today as the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON). 

• The NextGen Laboratory Team gave several demonstrations of PAS throughout the week ending 

September 28, 2007, to the FAA UAS Planning Team, showing some basic scenarios in support of 

the SC203 Document concerning Unmanned Aerial Systems integration into the NAS. 

• Research Development & Human Factors Laboratory (RDHFL) Tower Operations Digital Data 

System (TODDS): 2007 – 2010 Integrated tool to display aircraft location, electronic flight data, 

and other digital data for the ground and local controller positions in ATC Towers. Address the 

current limitations of paper and electronic flight strip systems by: 

− Consolidating information into a single source 

− Connecting flight data to aircraft position 

− Providing a means to organize flight data information spatially; Touch screen displays 

− Presenting only the information that controllers need when they need it 

− Providing timing capability, reminders, and notices of expired information 

FY 2006: 

• Numerous flight tests were performed, in multiple aircraft, throughout the US to test GPS WAAS 

performance, availability and accuracy. 

• Simulation Team successfully supported research and development of large airspace sectors in a 

study called Big Airspace 

• Simulation Team successfully supported research and development of an integration controller 

workstation in a study called Future En route Workstation (FEWS). 

• Research Development & Human Factors Laboratory (RDHFL) is Big Airspace: 2006 This 

experiment examined the impact of extending terminal procedures and spacing into en route 

airspace (Big Airspace (BA) concept) for both arrival and departure sectors. The simulation 

examined controller performance in a high fidelity, human-in-the-loop simulation designed to 

compare a baseline condition to two alternative operating conditions: a Big Airspace/Collocated 

condition (BA/C) and a Big Airspace/Non-collocated condition (BA/N). 

• The NextGen Laboratory Team (NGL) supported HOST testing with the Display System 

Replacement (DSR) team to provide DSR CHI (Computer Human Interface) requirements for the 

demonstration that took place on January 18 and 19, 2006. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Simulation Facilities 

• Simulation Team integrated TGF and Boeing Simulation Lab for UAS simulation capability. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-145 

• Simulation Team added 4-D trajectory negotiation capability using AIDL to its B-737 flight 

management system trainer. 

• Simulation Team completed the evaluation of the UFA VRR system. 

Flight Program’s Airborne Laboratories 

• The Flight Program Team improved its operational aircraft to enhance their ability to support 

project flight test. These included the installation of three new antennas to support the ADS-B and 

NextGen programs and the modification of the aircraft to permit the display of Advanced 

Navigational signals unto the basic cockpit displays, into the Bombardier Global 5000 test aircraft 

(N47). 

Future Development Laboratories 

• The Laboratory Future Development Team made improvements to laboratory environment to 

enhance our capability to support NextGen. These included the reallocation of Laboratory Space 

and Resources, co-locating, connecting, designing and installing necessary Laboratory 

Infrastructure and components to support, ADS-B, SWIM and NextGen programs based on their 

requirements and schedules. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Ongoing Activities 

The FAA will continue to modify, configure, and sustain the research facilities located at the William J. 

Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) to support its R&D program goals. 

New Initiatives 

No new initiatives are planned in FY 2010. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

The test beds at the WJHTC provide the necessary infrastructure for R&D programs to achieve agency 

goals. Specific milestones and products are contained within individual programs. 

Simulation Facilities 

• Simulation Team will conduct a human in the loop (HITL) simulation of UAS in the NAS. 

• Simulation Team will conduct an end-to-end evaluation of 4-D trajectory prediction and negotiation 

using TGF and B-737-800 cockpit simulator. 

Flight Program’s Airborne Laboratories 

• The Flight Program Team hopes to make great progress in the replacement of the Convair flight 

test aircraft with new and more fleet-representative test aircraft. This effort includes the 

completion of the Exhibit 300 process and the authorization from the Capital Investment Team for 

FY-11 funding. 

Future Development Laboratories 

• The Laboratory Future Development Team intends on making improvements to laboratory 

environment to enhance our capability to support NextGen. These includes the reallocation of 

Laboratory Space and Resources, co-locating, connecting, designing and installing necessary 

Laboratory Infrastructure and components to support, ADS-B, SWIM and NextGen programs based 

on their requirements and schedules. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-146 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 106,890 

FY 2009 Appropriated 3,536 

FY 2010 Request 3,614 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 15,612 

Total 129,652 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

WJHTC Laboratory Facility 572 779 667 684 859

Personnel Costs 2,712 2,584 2,642 2,672 2,675

Other In-house Costs 75 67 106 180 80

 Total 3,359 3,430 3,415 3,536 3,614

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

 FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 3,359 3,430 3,415 3,536 3,614

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3,359 3,430 3,415 3,536 3,614
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-147 

A14.b. – WJHTC Laboratory Facility Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

011-140 WJHTC Laboratory Facility Simulation Facilities (Target Generator 

Facility, Cockpit Simulators) 60 

Approach Procedures ♦ ◊ 

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Airspace Design ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Operational Evolution Plan Concept Validation ♦ ◊ 

Dynamic Vertical Reduced Separation Minima (DRVSM) ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Research & Development Flight Program 

(Airborne Laboratories) 739 

Satellite Communications and Navigation Programs ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Separation Standards ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

TERPS ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Aircraft Safety ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Runway Incursion ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

ADS-B ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Common Automated Radar Terminal System ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Research and Development Human Factors 

Laboratory 60 

Air Traffic Control Human Factors ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Airway Facilities Human Factors ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Operational Evolution Plan Concept Validation ♦ ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 2,755 

Total Budget Authority 3,614 3.536 3,614 3,728 3,841 3,959 4,084

Note: Out year numbers are for planning purposes only. Actual funding needs will be determined through the annual budget process. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-148 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction $10,000,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety and Greater Capacity. 

Intended Outcomes: The FAA has undertaken the Runway Incursion Reduction Program (RIRP) to 

minimize the chance of injury, death and damage, or loss of property caused by runway accidents or 

incidents within the civil aviation system. The program selects and evaluates runway incursion reduction 

technologies to validate their technical performance and operational suitability. Based on these evaluations, 

a business case for program implementation has been developed to support Agency investment decisions. 

Current program initiatives are aimed at evaluating pilot situational awareness tools. 

The Program directly contributes to achieving Objective 3, “reduce the risk of runway incursions,” of the 

FAA’s Flight Plan 2009 –2013 strategic goal of Increased Safety. 

Airports referred to in this program description include: 

DFW Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport 

SAN San Diego International Airport 

LGB Long Beach – Daugherty Field 

GEG Spokane International, Washington 

LAX Los Angeles International 

BOS Boston Logan International 

Agency Outputs: 

• Operational concepts, system prototypes, field test data, technical specifications and life cycle cost 

estimates for selected technology solutions. 

• Safety Risk Management Plan (SRMP) and National Airspace System Change Proposals (NCPs) for 

implementing equipment into the National Airspace System (NAS). 

• Non-technology solutions, such as improved airport markings/signage, education, training, and 

advisory circulars. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: Operational concepts, technical specifications and system 

evaluations for runway incursion reduction initiatives are fully coordinated with stakeholders within the air 

traffic service provider, pilot and airport operator communities. Reducing runway incursion incidents 

remains a top FAA priority – as reflected in Safety Objective 3 of the current FAA Flight Plan. 

Accomplishments: 

• Established MOAS to support implementation of RWSL Test Systems at two additional airports, 

BOS, LAX. 

• Conducted operational user evaluation of Low Cost Ground Surveillance System (LCGS) at GEG. 

• Initiated Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal (eFAROS) field evaluation at DFW. 

• Installed Runway Status Light (RWSL) Airfield Lighting Equipment (ALE). 

• Conducted initial investment analysis activity for LCGS program. 

• Initiated procurement action to support pilot LCGS program. 

• Completed engineering evaluation of Runway Intersection Lights (RILs) application at ORD. 

R&D Partnerships: Partnerships for RIRP technology initiatives exist with several members of industry, 

with Federally Funded Research and Development Consortia (e.g., MIT Lincoln Laboratory, MITRE), with 

selected airport operators (e.g., DFW, SAN, LGB, GEG), and with other government agencies (e.g., the 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center). 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-149 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Completed installation of RWSL test system at one additional airport. 

• Initiated RWSL Field Operational Evaluation at one additional airport. 

• Awarded contracts for pilot LCGS procurement. 

• Completed installation of LCGS product at additional “to be scheduled” airports. 

• Completed RIL engineering tests at BOS. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The requested funding will allow the program to: 

• Complete installation of LCGS at three additional airports. 

• Complete investment analysis activity for LCGS. 

• Conduct Runway Intersection Lights (RILs) operational trials. 

• Develop a low cost Runway Status Lights (RWSL) system design for applications at non-ASDE-X 

airports. 

• Evaluation of LED technology for application in runway safety systems. 

• Evaluation of airport wireless data communication system design alternatives. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Complete installation of LCGS at three additional airports. 

• Complete investment analysis activity for LCGS. 

• Conduct Runway Intersection Lights (RILs) operational trials. 

• Develop a low cost Runway Status Lights (RWSL) system design for applications at non-ASDE-X 

airports. 

• Evaluation of LED technology for application in runway safety systems. 

• Evaluation of airport wireless data communication system design alternatives. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-150 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 68,735 

FY 2009 Appropriated 12,000 

FY 2010 Request 10,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2010-2014) 14,000 

Total 104,735 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Runway Incursion Reduction 6,440 8,000 8,000 12,000 10,000

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 6,440 8,000 8,000 12,000 10,000

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 6,440 8,000 8,000 12,000 10,000

Total 6,440 8,000 8,000 10,000 10,000
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-151 

1A01A - Runway Incursion 

Reduction Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2009 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Runway Incursion Reduction 10,000 

Runway Status Lights (RWSL) 

Initiate RWSL test system ♦ 

Initiate RWSL Field Operation ♦ 

Complete Install of RWSL test system ♦ 

Complete RIL Eng Tests at BOS ♦ 

Conduct RIL operational trials ◊ 

Develop Low Cost RWSL system at non ASDE-X 

airports. 

 ◊ 

Evaluate LED technology for runway safety 

systems 

 ◊ 

Evaluate airport wireless data comm. Design 

alternatives 

◊ 

Low-Cost Ground Surveillance (LCGS) 

Award contract for Pilot Program ♦ 

Complete install at two airports by FY09 ♦ 

Complete install at three add’l 

airports by FY10

◊ 

Complete Investment analysis activity ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Budget Authority 10,000 8,000 10,000 5,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE ATO CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-152 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A01B System Capacity, Planning, and Improvement $4,100,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, International 

Leadership, and Organizational Excellence. 

Intended Outcomes: 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. The tracking and monitoring capabilities of PDARS 

support studies and analysis of air traffic operations at the service or national level. Also, the capacity and 

efficiency of the NAS is further expanded through capacity modeling which analyze the impact of NextGen 

operational improvements. 

Agency Outputs: The System Capacity, Planning and Improvement (SCPI) program strives to deliver 

high-quality, cost-effective services to meet the needs of its customers and the users of the air 

transportation system. A component of this program, the Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System 

(PDARS), captures real-time performance data at major operational facilities. Airport design studies will 

continue to provide problem identification and solution sets at specific targeted airports. Strategic Goals 

and related performance metrics required by the Air Traffic Organization (ATO), and captured through the 

organization’s Strategy 2013 Plan and the Agencies Flight Plan, will continue to provide a framework for 

assessing operational performance against Agency goals and targets. SCPI sponsors a wide range of tasks 

designed to measure, assess, and improve aviation capacity. The following programs are critical to the 

improvement of the aviation system: 

Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System 

• Supports the development of facility-level metrics that tie Agency goals to actions at the service 

delivery point and quantify specific outcomes. PDARS extracts radar data from the HOST, 

Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS), and STARS computer systems. The system records 

and integrates flight plan and track data in an interactive database. The data is aggregated to 

establish outcome metrics such as time, distance, altitude, and reroutes, with the fidelity necessary 

to make meaningful distinctions between the performance of facilities (both en-route and 

terminal). 

Performance Metrics Development 

• Includes the planning, coordination, data collection, and implementation of performance measures 

used to assess NAS operations. These metrics are also included in the Agency’s strategic planning 

documents and databases to determine whether or not the Agency is meeting its targets. Currently 

metrics have been developed to measure operational errors, runway incursions, on-time arrivals, 

delays, ground stop minutes, airport arrival efficiency rate, and airport arrival capacity. Forecasted 

metrics include the development of an indicator that effectively quantifies the impact of weather on 

NAS activity and the design of en route, system predictability, terminal departure, and efficiency 

rate metrics. 

ATO Strategy 2013 

• Provides focus and alignment to successfully implement FAA Flight Plan and ATO initiatives and all 

activities necessary to achieve our objectives. Strategy 2013 is a structured system used to 

identify Strategic Goals and Objectives with related measures or metrics which are used to 

determine the ATO’s progress in achieving these objectives. Performance metrics are important 

both to senior management leading the ATO, and employees in operational roles driving functional 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-153 

excellence in order to achieve Agency and ATO Goals and Objectives. Strategy 2013 links effective 

measures across organizational tiers as those measures are cascaded to the field. 

Airport Capacity Enhancement/Design Studies 

• Investigates capacity and delay at major airports, both domestically and internationally. The FAA 

works with airports and other aviation industry stakeholders to conduct computer simulation and 

modeling studies aimed at improving the operating efficiency of airports. The outputs are in the 

form of recommendations that can include any of the following: new runways, taxiways, 

intersections, operating procedures, or terminals. 

NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP) Performance Modeling 

• Models the impact of NGIP capabilities on the performance of the NAS. The NGIP includes seven 

“solution sets” in the air traffic operations “domain,” two in the airport development domain, and 

one in the aircraft and operator requirements domain. These solution sets are designed to 

maximize the capacity of the NAS over the next ten years, while ensuring the highest standards of 

safety. This activity will use fast-time models to analyze NGIP improvements in NAS performance 

retrospectively, and project anticipated improvements in performance prospectively. 

International Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) Benchmarking 

• Working with the Civil Air Navigation Services Organization (CANSO), compares the operational and 

financial performance of the ATO to that of other ANSPs. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The success of the FAA depends on effective capacity programs 

involving all elements of the Agency, its customers, and its stakeholders. Field experts from the affected 

disciplines – concerned airports, air carriers, aviation interest groups, and FAA regional and local facilities – 

collaborate on diversified airspace and airport capacity task forces and projects. 

The Office of Performance Analysis and Strategy is an active participant in formal advisory committees, 

informal seminars, and individual meetings with relevant industry elements regarding the NAS 

infrastructure. 

R&D Partnerships: 

Work with the National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research (Nextor) and the Partnership 

for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction to study 

• the causes and impacts of delay; 

• the economic cost of delay; 

• how to forecast future traffic, capacity, and environmental impacts of ATM inefficiencies; and 

• strategies to increase capacity. 

Accomplishments 

• Developed seasonally adjusted trajectory-based forecasts for use in DataComm Initial Investment 

Analysis. 

• Developed Service Delivery Point (SDP) demand projections for terminal and en route. 

• Completed deployment of PDARS to all TRACONs serving the 34 OEP airports in the continental 

United States. 

• Used the NAS Strategy Simulator (NSS) to analyze the impact of the proposed FAA reauthorization 

language, and Congressional alternatives, on Airport and Airway Trust Fund receipts. 

• Adapted a computable equilibrium model (GTAP) of to study EU-US Open Skies Agreement on 

North Atlantic operations in support of the ICAO North Atlantic (NAT) Economic and Financial 

Group (EFG). 

• Completed a study of the economic impact of civil aviation on the U.S. economy. 

• Developed an econometric model of NAT traffic. 

• Completed and released the Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT) II report. 

• Analyzed changes in excess fuel burn over the past seven years. 

• Prepared the ATO FY 2008 Economic Outlook. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-154 

• Developed airport delay forecasts for major airports in response to Flight Plan initiative. 

• Developed an NGIP “avoided delay” metric and prepared estimates of the expected value of this 

metric for the next 10 years. 

• Completed a study of the economic impact of civil aviation on the U.S. economy. 

• Performed a review of the ATO Strategy Map which identifies ATO Objectives in four pathways or 

areas of concentration. These four Pathways were updated and a new pathway with an employee 

focus was developed and populated with new Objectives and metrics. 

KEY FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Developed software and hardware to allow integration of surface movement data (e.g., ASDE-X) 

with PDARS, and develop initial surface movement metrics. Establish PDARS connection to at least 

one facility providing such data. 

• Played a key role in the development of automated delay reporting initiatives at the ATCSCC 

involving airborne holding information 

• Added 4 FAA organizations/facilities to the PDARS network 

• Enhanced the PDARS Enterprise Website to support broader use of PDARS. 

• Integrated oceanic data into PDARS. 

• As part of the ATO Strategy 2013 development process: 

− Developed the process and content for the goal area development meetings in all five goal 

areas and for the review of these results monthly with the Strategy Steering Group. 

− Maintained the web-based software application infrastructure to provide all ATO Service/ 

Business Units with centralized access to ATO and Service Unit cost and performance analysis, 

forecasting, reporting and initiative tracking capabilities; and 

− Prepared and coordinated the ATO updates for the 2010-2014 FAA Flight Plan 

− Performed system and process modifications based on the general needs of stakeholders, 

maintenance of Strategic Management Process software application for Service Units, 

communication of strategy management best practices. 

− Reviewed and if deemed necessary, developed new measures to monitor and assess strategic 

objectives, strengthen existing metrics, validate continuing relevance of metrics on Strategy 

2013. 

• Future Airport Capacity Team (FACT) will continue to work with aviation stakeholders to develop a 

strategy for implementing solutions from the toolbox developed for each airport projected to have 

an anticipated capacity shortfall in 2025. 

• Developed Biweekly Operations review, coordinating data intake from operational service units, 

analyzing data and presenting informational graphs, charts and talking points for discussion at 

Operational Executive Council meetings. 

o Operations Review currently is in the process of being automated, which will provide 

greater access to information, enhanced capacity for analysis and increased data 

consistency. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The requested funding will support the Agency goals documented in the FAA Flight Plan by continuing to 

focus on maximizing airport capacity through improvements in runways, taxiways, navigational/guidance 

aids, and operational procedures that can result in increased capacity and reduced delays. The SCPI 

Program will effectively design data systems to measure and analyze operational performance for the 

assessment of system improvements. The program will also produce capacity studies and analyses to 

improve operational activity at the nation’s most congested airports. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-155 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Develop high level metrics, supporting metrics, targets and key initiatives for the five strategic 

goals in the new Five Year ATO Strategic Plan. 

• Develop a new governance process for implementing and measuring the success of the ATO via 

the outcomes developed for the Five Year Strategic Plan. 

• Develop, analyze and report performance benchmarks with international partners 

• Expand network to include existing airport ASDE-X surface surveillance data. 

• Update current airport capacity estimates, and estimate future airport capacities considering fleet, 

infrastructure, and procedural changes to support Airport Design Teams, Future Airport Capacity 

Task (FACT) III report and NextGen modeling and analysis. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-156 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 41,158 

FY 2009 Appropriated 6,500 

FY 2010 Request 4,100 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 26,000 

Total 77,758 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

System Capacity, Planning, and 

Improvement 6,435 5,500 6,500 6,500 4,100

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 6,435 5,500 6,500 6,500 4,100

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 6,435 5,500 6,500 6,500 4,100

Total 6,435 5,500 6,500 6,500 4,100
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-157 

1A01B - System Capacity, Planning, 

and Improvement 

Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

System Capacity, Planning and Improvement 6,500 

NAS Performance Measurement 

Prepare FAA Flight Plan ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Update Strategy 2013 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Integrate surface surveillance data into PDARS ♦ 

Integrate oceanic data into PDARS ♦ 

Integrate Micro EARTS data into PDARS ◊ 

Airport Development 

Complete FACT II Next Steps report 

NGIP Performance Modeling 

Estimate NGIP impacts on NAS ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

 

Total Budget Authority 6,500 6,500 4,100 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM.
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-158 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A01C Operations Concept Validation $8,000,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, and International 

Leadership 

Intended Outcomes: Validated Operational Concepts and system designs will enable more efficient 

operations and changes in roles and responsibilities of the pilots and controllers for increased productivity 

and more efficient operations. 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. It provides the high-quality performance 

requirements needed to ensure that the next generation of National Airspace System (NAS) ground and 

airborne support systems succeed. This process assesses and redirects the tactical and strategic 

assumptions behind controller and pilot roles and responsibilities, and decision support tools in general – as 

well as requirements affecting information type, display and update rate – for the mutual benefit of the 

public and the aviation community. Associated with the changes in roles and responsibilities are 

opportunities for restructuring the services provided by air traffic control facilities to best support the realigned roles of humans in the NAS as enabled by new automation and communication capabilities. 

Agency Outputs: The project objective is to provide a well-defined and well-understood “validated” 

operational concept based on system modeling and simulation. This work evaluates and incorporates 

lessons learned from the recent delivery of decision support tools to provide guidance on “if”, “when”, and 

“where” advanced decision support and operational enhancements will be integrated into the NAS. The 

program develops and exercises advanced analysis capabilities to consider the benefit and operational 

feasibility of the supported procedural changes. In particular, the program is analyzing the methods for 

“genericizing” controller areas of specialty recognizing differences between high and low altitude work, 

opportunities to use multi-sector planners, and the expanded role of Traffic Flow Managers in managing 

airspace capacity versus limiting demand. It is looking at new ways of providing tower services to enhance 

tower operations under low visibility conditions. It looks at leveraging automation to change roles and 

responsibilities of NAS airspace users and service providers. Simulation and human-in-the-loop 

experimentation are used to integrate this new guidance revealing the type, update rate, and display 

requirements that need to be established to ensure optimum controller performance. The work program has 

three thrusts: Operational Concept Development, Concept Validation, and Concept System Design. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The RTCA Select Committee for Free Flight Implementation has 

been a strong external influence on the FAA in many aspects of operational concept development and 

validation. Additionally, the Agency works in conjunction with the JPDO to survey major stakeholders on 

their ranking of future concept sub-elements designed to support modernization. This level of stakeholder 

participation ensures that the evolving concepts are fully mindful of aviation user community requirements – 

an essential prerequisite to validating the concept of a modern NAS based on a shared, integrated 

infrastructure. 

Operational concept development and validation will utilize an iterative work group approach with members 

representing each of the FAA ATO Operational Service Units and representatives from the airspace user 

community, including pilots and flight operations centers. The work group approach will present an initial 

concept or scenario and elicit feedback from impacted stakeholders. This feedback will be incorporated into 

future versions of the concept that will be reviewed by stakeholders. Concept validation activities employing 

human-in-the-loop simulation will utilize participants with experience in the task being validated. The 

Program will identify the precise mechanism for obtaining stakeholder participation. It is currently 

envisioned that this participation will be through the Next Generation Air Transportation System Institute. 

R&D Partnerships: This work directly relates to the FAA/NASA Memorandum of Understanding on ATM 

research and development and to the objectives of the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) objectives advanced by the JPDO. Specifically, much of the research funded under this program 

is part of the Joint FAA/NASA Research Transition Team effort to ensure that planned research results will 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-159 

be fully utilized, and will be sufficient to enable implementation of NextGen Operational Improvements. The 

concept development and concept validation effort described here is also coordinated with the European 

community, via agreements with EUROCONTROL through various Action Plans. This cooperation ensures 

that unique solutions and transitions are not developed in different quadrants of the globe, a situation that 

would impose an undue burden on all carriers and manufacturers participating in the global airspace 

system. 

Accomplishments: Significant program accomplishments include: 

FY 2008: 

• Provided RTCA Annual Funding 

• Conducted FAA/EUROCONTROL Action Plan meetings such as Action Plan 2 - Operational Concept 

Development, comparing the JPDO operational concept for Trajectory Based Operations with the 

European SESAR concept, Action Plan 5 to develop an Operational Concept Validation and 

Verification Strategy, and Action Plan 16 to identify requirements for common four dimensional 

trajectories 

• Conducted analysis of the automation alternatives for Big Airspace 

• Modified human-in-the-loop laboratories, developed evaluation plan and conducted Cognitive 

Walkthrough Analyses on the Multi-Sector Planner concept down-selected in FY07. 

• Developed NextGen Towers Operational Concept 

• Developed preliminary NextGen Facilities Operational Concept 

FY 2007: 

• Provided RTCA Annual Funding 

• Developed Traffic Flow Management 2nd level concept 

• Conducted information flow analysis for a high altitude generic airspace operational concept 

• Evaluated various concepts for a Multi-Sector Planner and down selected to the most viable 

concept 

• Conducted analyses to support NextGen Facilities Executive Council Decision 

• Developed common trajectory definition and analysis white paper 

• Aligned the NextGen and NAS operational improvements 

• Validated the Big Airspace Operational Concept 

Previous Years: 

• Provided RTCA Annual Funding 

• Developed Big Airspace Operational Concept 

• Developed two alternative concepts for a Multi-Sector Planner Strategic Controller 

• Developed the international flight object 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Made recommendation on Big Airspace automation alternatives, conducted safety analysis and 

determined surveillance requirements for implementation of Big Airspace at operational test sites. 

• Conducted validation activities for high altitude, generic airspace and procedures 

• Conducted validation activities for Multi-sector planner concept 

• Continued support for the Validation Data Repository 

• Conducted fast-time analyses to support 2nd level concept validation 

• Provided RTCA support for concept development and validation 

• Conducted simulations to develop preliminary program requirements for Staffed NextGen Towers 

• Continued FAA/EUROCONTROL effort on Operational Concept and Simulation and Modeling related 

Action Plans (i.e., AP 2, AP 5, AP9, AP16) 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-160 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The FY10 funding request will be used for concept development, concept validation, and requirements 

development for lower level NAS concepts, such as requirements development and transition planning for 

the Multi-Sector Planner concept, development of mid-term (2018) requirements for new high altitude 

concepts and concept validation of far term (2025) high altitude concepts, modeling and requirements 

analysis of flexible airspace concepts, concept validation of surface concepts, and requirements 

development for Enhanced Visual Operations, and alternatives analysis and concept validation activities for 

flexible tower services. These activities will include validation of concepts for ground–ground and air-ground 

communications to support transfer of information and change the air traffic control paradigm, as well as to 

validate assumptions about flight deck evolution. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Develop 2nd-level concepts (multiple) 

• Continued support for the Validation Data Repository 

• Conduct joint FAA/NASA/user concept validation activities, including human-in-the-loop simulations. 

• Conduct fast-time analyses to support concept validation 

• Conduct human-in-the-loop simulations to support concept validation 

• Expand cognitive and analytic models to support assessments. 

• RTCA support for concept development and validation. 

• Development of operational, information and performance requirements 

• EUROCONTROL Action Plan Activities 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-161 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 27,838 

FY 2009 Appropriated 7,400 

FY 2010 Request 8,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 28,000 

Total 71,238 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010

Request

Contracts: 

Operational Concept Validation 2,970 3,000 3,000 7,400 8,000

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 2,970 3,000 3,000 7,400 8,000

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 2,970 3,000 3,000 7,400 8,000

Total 2,970 3,000 3,000 7,400 8,000
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-162 

1A01C - Operations Concept 

Validation Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Operations Concept Validation 8,000 

Operational Concept Development 

High altitude, generic airspace ♦ ◊ 

Flexible & dynamic airspace resectorization ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Concepts of operations for the evolution 

of Traffic Flow Management ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Phase 2/3 Concepts for NextGen Towers ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Concept Validation 

Validation Data Repository and metrics ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

High/low airspace split ♦ ◊ 

Flexible & dynamic airspace resectorization ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Concept validation/verification standard ♦ ◊ 

Delegation for separation authority ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Traffic Flow Management evolution ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Multi-sector Planner ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Provision of NextGen Tower Services ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

EUROCONTROL Action Plans ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Concept System Design 

Requirements Development to support 

concept implementation ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

RTCA 

Develop Aviation Community inputs to 

MASPS, MOPS and Integrated Plans to 

Support Future Concepts and 

Modernization

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

Total Budget Authority 8,000 7,400 8,000 8,000 8,000 6,000 6,000 

NOTE: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM.
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-163 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A01D NAS Weather Requirements $1,000,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, and 

International Leadership. 

Intended Outcomes: 

This program develops mission analysis and investment analysis for initial investment decision for aviation 

weather support to the NAS. The focus is upon NextGen including collaboration with SESAR and realignment 

of ICAO aviation weather standards. The purpose is to reduce the number of weather related accidents, 

reduce the number of aviation flight delays, diversions and cancellations, improve operational efficiency of 

the NAS, and harmonize ICAO standards with US practices in weather. 

The funding supports contract services to identify future demand for services, identify technological 

opportunities to address that demand, identify projected supply of services, perform gap analysis, perform 

mission needs analysis, and conduct initial requirements definition. It also supports planning, analysis and 

documentation studies in support of initial investment decisions for new or modified aviation weather 

capabilities. Included are (1) policy studies related to the boundary between FAA, NWS, and DOD roles and 

responsibilities in providing weather support, (2) analysis of and plans for integration of weather information 

into decision support systems, and (3) standards development for surface and airborne observations 

forecasts, and ICAO SARPS. 

This program also funds contract support to develop performance requirements for weather research and 

development and for transitioning weather research into operations including evaluation of human factors, 

compatibility of new technology with procedures, and analysis of the impact of new information on 

controller and pilot workloads. 

This work builds upon the similar work done under the RWI and NNEW programs. It provides additional 

detail to the requirements work from those efforts and updates the mission analysis and requirements 

development at the portfolio level. 

Agency Outputs: This line item enables: 

Research Goals: 

• By 2010, validate the first iteration of NextGen weather performance requirements with internal 

and external users representatives

• By 2011, refine FAA’s weather research plans to improve alignment with NextGen weather 

performance requirements

• By 2011, align NextGen with SESAR weather requirements and generate a joint proposal to ICAO 

to update Annex 3 weather SARPS

• By 2013, demonstrate how probabilistic weather information, in conjunction with metrics, can 

improve the collaborative ATM decision making process and improve the operational efficiency of 

the Air Traffic System

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: 

• External FAA users include pilots, dispatchers, airline operations centers, airport operators, and 

aviation meteorologists, all of whom are represented by entities that include ATA, NBAA, AOPA, 

ALPA, APA, RAA, SAMA, GAMA, IATA as well as individual airlines and others (see attached 

acronym list for clarification of unfamiliar acronyms); 

• Internal FAA Service units representing controllers service providers in Terminal, En route/Oceanic, 

Flight Service, Systems Operations, Operations Planning, and Technical Operations Services; 

• FAA Regulatory arm (aircraft certification and flight standards personnel); 

• The Joint Program Development Office (JPDO); 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-164 

• The weather and satellite services in the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration; 

• ICAO and the World Meteorological Organization; 

• The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology; and 

• The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

R&D Partnerships: 

FAA’s Air Traffic Organization, Operations Planning, Aviation Weather Office, Weather Policy and 

Requirements Group partners with the Agency’s Aviation Weather Research program, other Air Traffic 

Organization offices, Flight Standards, Aircraft Certification, and NWS offices as a part of the technology 

transfer process. The office partners with the Flight Standards and NWS personnel on a full range of 

aviation weather development activities. The office partners with the Joint Program Development Office 

(JPDO) to align FAA and NextGen weather architecture and address public/private roles and responsibilities 

for efficient sourcing. In the international arena, the office closely partners with ICAO and its contracting 

members. 

Accomplishments: 

The following summarizes major accomplishments to date: 

• Developed a reliable technique to measure avoidable weather delays as subset of overall weather 

delays. 

• Defined a program plan to produce a baseline of the quality of U.S. aviation weather information 

and the on-going measurements of product. 

• Populated a weather capabilities roadmap with information the current weather systems 

architecture roadmap and information contained in the JPDO enterprise architecture document. 

• Developed and obtained agreement that defines a common weather exchange model for use by 

JPDO agencies, EUROCONTROL and ultimately becomes an ICAO standard. 

• Researched, assessed, and developed and obtained initial display standards for meteorological 

information on flight deck displays. 

• Developed plan to align FAA with NextGen policies to optimize government and commercial 

vendor’s roles in observations, forecasting, and dissemination. 

• Updated aviation weather roadmap to integrate NextGen weather concepts 

• Defined Single Authoritative Source of weather information for NextGen Air Traffic Management. 

• Completed Operational Suitability and Environmental Description (OSED) for Weather and 

Aeronautical Information Data Link via joint RTCA/EUROCAE special committee. 

• Prepared Reduce Weather Impact (RWI) NGIP Solution Set. 

• Revised FAA NextGen Aviation Weather Strategic Plan (FY2008-2025) 

• Initiated NextGen Weather Evaluation Capability Plan. 

• Completed technology transfer into NAS operations of several new R&D products. 

• Transferred other products into the final R&D phase. 

• Conducted a safety risk assessment process for R&D products before being implemented on 

Government platforms. 

• Represented U.S. aviation interest at ICAO to minimize operating costs for U.S. carriers. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Continued to develop a weather capabilities roadmap that aligns FAA and JPDO goals. 

• Continued to develop and obtain agreement on display standards for meteorological information on 

flight deck displays. 

• Continued to develop a plan to align FAA with NextGen policies to optimize government and 

commercial vendor’s roles in observations, forecasting, and dissemination. 

• Continued to develop users’ needs analyses, simulations, and performance requirements and 

integrate ATO, NextGen and AVS requirements. 

• Developed various Concept and Requirements Definition (CRD) for weather. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-165 

• Developed NextGen Network Enabled Weather Requirements. 

• Continued to manage the Weather Portfolio Investment Management Plan. 

• Continued to refine/validate/balance performance requirements, including identifying gaps in 

JPDO/legacy systems; developing draft next tier performance requirements; planning, monitoring 

and conducting validation workshops with user groups; developing demonstration/simulations 

plans; and develop safety assessments for SPR data link applications;. 

• Developed JPDO Integration Plan which identifies the interface of weather information and decision 

support systems 

• Continued to transition the research to operations process; develop G-AIRMET training 

requirements and changes to documents/orders. 

• Conducted preliminary hazards assessment (PHA) for G-AIRMET and for LWE(de/anti-icing) 

• Continued to analyze and develop policies leading to requirements for phase-out of text products; 

safe use of gridded information within the NEO concept; MDCRS data use; converting VOR to 

lat/long; TAF Service Standards; government vs. commercial services. 

• Continued work to harmonize international and US standards and requirements to include plans for 

aligning ICAO SARPS/Guidance with NextGen/SESAR requirements; agree upon a WXXM standard; 

and develop requirements for World Area Forecast Services (WAFS). 

• Continued to support a variety of research requirements to include service standards; turbulence 

EDR demonstration; QICP program; anti-icing improvements. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The funding will continue to supports contract services that allow the Aviation Weather Office to prepare for 

the future increased demand for aviation weather services. Funding will continue to support requirements 

identification and setting, planning and analysis for investment decisions and setting performance 

requirements for weather research and development and the transition of that research into operational use 

by a variety of users. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Validate NextGen weather performance requirements with external customer representatives. 

• Refine weather research plans to meet NextGen weather performance requirements 

• Align NextGen with SESAR weather requirements and propose a joint package to ICAO to upgrade 

Annex 3 weather SARPS. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-166 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 12,978 

FY 2009 Appropriated 1,000 

FY 2010 Request 1,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 8,700 

Total 23,678 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

NAS Weather Requirements 790 800 1,000 1,000 1,000

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 790 800 1,000 1,000 1,000

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 790 800 1,000 1,000 1,000

Total 790 800 1,000 1,000 1,000
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-167 

1A01D - NAS Weather Requirements Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2009 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

NAS Requirements (Office of Weather Policy 

and Standards, NAS Weather Office, ATO-P) 

1,000 

Aviation Weather Requirements 

Development 

Develop next tier performance requirements ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop, plan, conduct and monitor validation 

workshops with user groups. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop and implement weather information verification 

program against performance requirements. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop data link requirements in support of RTCA and 

NextCom. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop requirements for weather information to be 

integrated into decision support tools. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop NextGen weather requirements tooptimize 

government and commercial provision of observations, 

forecasting, dissemination and integration. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Weather Policy Studies Develop and establish policy and requirements for US 

phase out of test products. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop and establish regulatory requirement that 

assures safe use of gridded information within the NEO 

concept. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop and implement policy and requirements for 

MDCRS Optimization and new Data Source. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop and establish policy requirements for 

converting from VOR to lat/long. ♦ ◊ 

Develop and implement policy and requirements for 

domain authority of 4D Cube ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

International Standards 

Develop and implement US plan under 

FAA/EUROCONTROL MOC for aligning ICAO SARPS and 

Guidance with NextGen/SESAR requirements. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop program plan, cost and schedule for 

developing and implementing WAFS requirements. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

Total Budget Authority 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,300 3,400

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-168 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A01E Airspace Management Program $3,000,000 

Goals: 

The program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, and International 

Leadership. 

FAA Air Traffic Control Facilities Cited in this program description: 

DFW Dallas Ft. Worth International Airport 

HAATS Houston Area Air Traffic System 

IAH George Bush Intercontinental Airport; Houston, Texas 

LAS McCarran International Airport; Las Vegas, Nevada 

NCT Northern California Terminal Radar Approach Control 

PHX Sky Harbor International Airport; Phoenix, Arizona 

ZAB Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center 

ZHU Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center 

ZJX Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center 

ZKC Kansas City Air Route Traffic Control Center 

ZLA Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center 

ZMA Miami Air Route Traffic Control Center 

ZME Memphis Air Route Traffic Control Center 

ZOA Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center 

Intended Outcomes: The Airspace Management Program (formerly National Airspace Redesign) directly 

supports all four objects of the “Greater Capacity” goal of the FAA’s Flight Plan 2006-2010. Airspace 

redesign accomplished through the Airspace Management Program will create a modern and effectively 

managed national airspace redesign that: 

• Increases system capacity and efficiency by removing as many airspace constraints as possible; 

• Manages complexity and congestion without continuously increasing sector splitting and growth in 

the number of sectors; 

• Increases flexibility and predictability for the benefit of air traffic controllers and aviation system 

users; 

• Balances the access needs of the diverse set of aviation system users; 

• Maintains the highest levels of system safety and security; and 

• Reduces expected delays and inefficient routing over the next ten years in major metropolitan 

areas. 

Agency Outputs: The Airspace Management Program 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. 

The program includes: 

• Regional Optimization and Redesign projects involve airspace changes that are targeted at local 

problem, but can have larger system-wide impacts. These projects can be smaller in scale, utilizing 

available resources, or can be larger in scale, encompassing multiple facilities that cross several 

Service Areas or FAA Regions. 

• National High Altitude and Oceanic Redesign are national level efforts that apply state-of-art design 

techniques in systematic way. These projects specifically leverage national automation and 

procedural enhancements. High Altitude Airspace Management has been a mechanism for 

influencing future infrastructure system requirements and the introduction of advanced concepts 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-169 

into airspace design. Oceanic Redesign capitalizes on the oceanic infrastructure and automation 

improvements across all oceanic and offshore facilities. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The Airspace Management Program utilizes both formal and 

informal methods to solicit and include customer/stakeholder perspectives. Since the inception of FAA’s 

national focus on airspace redesign, the program has worked with RTCA to communicate plans and receive 

appropriate feedback from the aviation customer community. Since 2001, the Airspace Working Group has 

been the main body to aid in understanding the operational views and perspectives of the diverse airspace 

customers and stakeholders. Airspace Working Group members represent major carriers, regional carriers, 

general and business aviation, and the military. Regarding environmental concerns, the Airspace 

Management Program communicates with communities through various forums and processes as prescribed 

by the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Accomplishments: Through the Airspace Management Program (and its predecessor, National Airspace 

Redesign), the FAA has implemented many airspace changes that have resulted in significant operational 

improvements. These accomplishments include: 

• NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Airspace Redesign – initial implementation of elements of Stage 1, 

including dispersal headings for departures at Newark, Kennedy, and Philadelphia 

• Houston Area Air Traffic System (HAATS) Airspace – completion of Environmental Assessment, 

including public meetings, implementation of HAATS Phase 3A 

• Chicago Airspace Project – implementation of departure portion of CAP Stage 2, including new 

southbound departure routes 

• Northern California Redesign (ZOA) – completion of sectorization for Three Tier Redesign 

• Las Vegas Redesign & Phoenix/Northwest 2000 – redesigned terminal/en route airspace and 

random navigation/area navigation (RNAV) procedures. 

• Honolulu Redesign – improved departure coordination procedures for flights; reduced departure 

times. 

• Great Lakes Integrated Design Plan – implemented new routes and improved procedures; reduced 

delays and restrictions. 

• Choke Points – implemented new sectors and route changes; reduced delays, miles in trail, and 

other restrictions. 

• High Altitude Redesign Phase 1 Initial – improved information about Special Use Airspace (SUA) 

availability and usage, implemented waypoints to circumnavigate SUA supporting improved flight 

planning information; reduced flying distance around SUA. 

• Oakland Oceanic Gateway – created new oceanic route access points; allowed Pacific bound 

aircraft to achieve desired altitudes quicker, saving fuel and time. 

• Denver South – created new routings for Denver satellite airports; reduced complexity. 

• Anchorage Center Redesign – created an oceanic specialty, added a new sector, and revised other 

sector boundaries; improved controller workload balance. 

• ZHU/ZMA/ZJX Boundary Realignment – revised the boundaries that divide control of Gulf airspace; 

improved safety for Gulf flights. 

• High Altitude Redesign Phase 1 – instituted non-restrictive routing, Navigational Reference System, 

and Q-Routes. 

• Denver Redesign – developed Ski Country procedures; better-managed delays and demand at key 

airports. 

• NY/NJ/PHL Redesign – instituted “Dual Modena” departure routes; increased departure throughput, 

reduced departure restrictions, and reduced taxi-out delays. 

• Atlantic Oceanic Redesign – instituted Coded Caribbean Routes; reduced coordination and 

communication errors, increased use of shorter distance access routes, and saved 11-35 miles for 

flights from Philadelphia and Boston to the Caribbean. 

• ZME 5th Area Redesign and ZKC East End – realigned sectors; balanced workload and reduce 

complexity. 

• HAATS Airspace and DFW RNAV – instituted new RNAV departures for DFW; tripled arrivals for IAH 

and expected to increase throughput. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-170 

• LAS Redesign – re-instituted RNAV procedures; reduced flight distances. 

• Bay to Basin Redesign and ZAB Redesign – instituted new sectors in ZLA and ZAB; reduced 

restrictions upon LAS and PHX. 

• Southern CA Redesign (LAX Departure Optimization) – instituted new departure routes; allowed for 

more fuel efficient departures and reduced the number of leveled-off departures by over 70 

percent. 

• Northern California Terminal Airspace Redesign – realigned airspace between NCT and ZOA; 

reduced FAA operational costs and reduced flight distances for customers. 

• Florida Airspace Optimization – added new sectors and routes; reduced delays and restrictions in 

the busy east coast corridor. 

• Central California Terminal Airspace – realigned en route airspace from Los Angeles center to Santa 

Barbara TRACON, providing enhanced service to general aviation customers in central California. 

• Southern CA Redesign (LAX Arrival Optimization) – instituted new arrival routes; allowed for more 

fuel efficient arrival altitudes into LAX. 

• High Altitude redesign Expansion Q-Routes – implemented remaining RNAV Q-routes for the 

southwest and southeast, expanding number of routes available to customers. 

• Airspace for New Runways – implement airspace changes to support new runways, specifically 

Minneapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Atlanta, adding new capacity and efficiency to the system. 

• Midwest Airspace Enhancement – large scale redesign of terminal and en route airspace to reduce 

complexity in the busy Great Lakes Corridor and to leverage previous runways built in Cleveland 

and Detroit. 

• Northern California Airspace Redesign (Dual Arrival Routes and Sector 33 Split) – en route airspace 

was realigned to add a new sector and to support improvements in arrival throughput at the Bay 

area airports. 

• NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign – published Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) in August 2007 and signed Record of Decision (ROD) in September 2007 

• Chicago Airspace Project – completed Stage 1, with new eastbound departure routes and 

supporting sectorization and airspace realignment changes 

R&D Partnerships: The Airspace Management Program works closely with the FAA’s Federally Funded 

Research and Development Center, MITRE’s Center for Advanced Aviation Development (CAASD). MITRECAASD’s work includes investigating, innovating, and developing modeling, simulation, and analysis 

capabilities facilitating airspace design. MITRE-CAASD will also research and explore issues that influence 

strategic policy in airspace management and design, such as sectorization concepts. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign (initial phases). 

• Chicago Airspace Project (additional airspace changes for new runway). 

• HAATS Airspace. 

• Southern California Redesign (environmental analysis initiated) 

• Western Corridor Airspace (including Southern Nevada Airspace) 

• Airspace for new runways in Seattle and Washington DC metro areas 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The airspace redesign projects supported by these requested funds are projected to deliver as much as 

$121 million of direct operating cost benefits by 2015. These benefits are realized through the reduction of 

restrictions, shorter flight distances, more fuel efficient routes, and reduced delays. The most significant 

benefits will be in the key metropolitan areas. Airspace redesign in New York and Philadelphia metropolitan 

areas will reduce delays by 20 percent in the next 10 years; based on today’s flight statistics. In Chicago, 

airspace redesign will ensure return on the runway investments. With airspace changes and the new 

runway, delays can be reduced by as much as 60 percent. Airspace redesign will also provide internal FAA 

benefits. Without airspace redesign, sector splitting and growth in the number of sectors will be the only 

methods to manage complexity and congestion, increasing operations costs by millions every year. Reducing 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-171 

the number of sectors in the HAAM program through standardization and reallocation of airspace boundaries 

could provide a minimum of $20 million of annual FAA cost savings. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Infrastructure changes resulting from the airspace redesign supporting the Chicago and New 

York/Philadelphia metropolitan 

• Infrastructure changes resulting from the airspace redesign supporting the Western Corridor 

project 

• Infrastructure changes resulting from the airspace redesign supporting the High Altitude Airspace 

Management project 

• Engineering analyses of operational feasibility of airspace concepts supporting transition to 

NextGen 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-172 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 7,800 

FY 2009 Appropriated 3,000 

FY 2010 Request 3,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 20,000 

Total 33,800 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Airspace Redesign 0 2,800 5,000 3,000 3,000

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 2,800 5,000 3,000 3,000

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 0 2,800 5,000 3,000 3,000

Total 0 2,800 5,000 3,000 3,000
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-173 

1A01E - Airspace Redesign Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Airspace Design 

Equipment and other ATO Capital 

expenditures to support Airspace 

Management Program projects 3,000

 

Develop/Initiate regional optimization and redesign ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Develop/Initiate high altitude and oceanic redesign ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

 

 

Total Budget Authority 3,000 3,000 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-174 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A01I Wake Turbulence Research $1,000,000 

GOALS: 

The program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety and Greater Capacity. 

Intended Outcomes: If the evaluations of air traffic control wake mitigation decision support tools done 

by this project show operational benefits, these tools will be added to the National Airspace System 

capabilities, enabling a more capacity efficient utilization of our nation’s air space and airport runways. 

Outcomes will be more airport arrival operations during periods of heavy demand and the capability to fly 

aircraft between airports with reduced aircraft to aircraft wake separations – resulting in more aircraft that 

can be accommodated in a given corridor of high demand airspace. 

Agency Outputs: This program will evaluate air traffic control decision support tool feasibility prototypes 

as possible enablers to safely meet the predicted NextGen demand for additional flights in the nation’s air 

transportation system. If these prototypes are successful, more flights can be accommodated in the 

existing airspace because the required wake mitigation separations between aircraft can be safely reduced. 

This program is taking the results of technology research and development and new wake separation 

concept modeling and simulation efforts and evaluating the resulting concept prototypes for flight safety 

and impact on the National Airspace System (NAS) capability for meeting demand for more flights. 

In FY 2010, it is expected that research and development will be sufficiently complete to allow the airport 

environment evaluation of a prototype Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Arrivals (WTMA) decision support 

tool. This tool would be used by controllers in reducing wake separations imposed on aircraft following 

behind Boeing 757 or heavier aircraft when landing on an airport’s set of closely spaced parallel runways 

(runways that are less than 2500 feet apart). Research is ongoing in Europe for developing a similar 

solution for aircraft landing directly behind each other on a single runway. In FY 2013, it is expected that 

this program will begin evaluating an FAA R,E&D developed an air traffic control prototype system that is 

based on the European research effort. The “single runway” prototype (WTMSR) will be used to evaluate its 

overall system safety and its ability to create more NAS capacity. 

Research Goals: This project collects prototype performance data and performs analyses and modeling 

based on this performance data as a means to finalize requirements for systems that support the R&D goals 

of: 

• By 2012, finish evaluation of the Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Arrivals (WTMA) air traffic control 

decision support tool feasibility prototype 

It is expected that the capability provided by WTMA will allow better utilization of closely spaced parallel 

runways for arrival operations at airports having closely spaced parallel runways and significant number of 

757 and heavier aircraft operations. Twelve to seventeen OEP airports are estimated to obtain operational 

benefit from the WTMA capability - allowing from 4 to 6 additional airport arrivals on the closely spaced 

parallel runways per hour (depending on the fleet mix operating at the airport) during periods of heavy 

arrival demand and the airport having to conduct ILS operations. Benefits are delay reduction during 

periods of heavy runway demand and low visibility; and, viewed in terms of a yearly basis, the capability will 

increase the airport's average daily arrival rate. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: A key stratagem of the FAA Wake Turbulence Program is 

providing semi-annual program status meetings (WakeNet USA) with the aviation community’s stakeholders, 

which include aircraft manufacturers, airport authorities, air carriers, pilot and controller unions, air traffic 

control system manufacturers, aviation safety regulators, academia, and other air navigation service 

providers. These forums (meetings) allow an exchange of ideas concerning the next steps in the 

development of the wake separation procedures, processes and systems that will facilitate the needed air 

traffic capacity increases of the NextGen era. The planning for the WTMA field evaluation has been a topic 

at the WakeNet USA meetings. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-175 

R&D Partnerships: As described under Customer/Stakeholder Involvement, the FAA Wake Turbulence 

Program is supported by a collaboration of researchers across FAA, NASA, EUROCONTROL and supporting 

organizations. Entities participating in the research program include: 

• NASA, Efficient Aircraft Spacing Projects 

• NASA, ASRS Support 

• FAA, Air Traffic Organization – System Operations, Planning 

• DOT, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 

• MITRE/Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development. 

• NEXTOR Universities. 

• National Institute of Aerospace 

• MIT Lincoln Laboratory. 

• NorthWest Research Associates. 

• ASE Inc. 

• Coherent Technologies Inc. 

• CASE, LLC. 

• Air Traffic Simulation, Inc. 

Accomplishments: The evaluation of the WTMA prototype will be starting in FY2010; however the 

feasibility prototype WTMA system will not complete its R,E&D development until early to mid FY 2010 and 

become available for evaluation by this project. The following accomplishments listed are related to the 

R,E&D development of WTMA only: 

• FY-2008: Completed high level economic feasibility assessment of potential concept for the WTMA 

system 

• FY 2008: Began assessment of the crosswind persistence that occur on the candidate airports’ 

approach corridors 

• FY2008: Began study of potential concept alternatives for accomplishing dependent instrument 

approaches to an airport’s closely spaced parallel runways with heavy aircraft leading some of the 

dependent pairs. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The evaluation of the 

WTMA prototype will be starting in FY2010. The following activities and anticipated accomplishments listed 

are related to the R,E&D development of WTMA only: 

• Initiated study of useful crosswind information that could be obtained from ACARS transmissions 

from aircraft on approach to an airport. 

• Selected the WTMA system concept for feasibility prototype system development. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: The requested $1,000,000 funding will initiate the activities associated 

with the evaluation of the WTMA concept feasibility prototype in an airport environment. Performance data 

collected in FY10 and FY11 will be analyzed for the required benefit, cost, and safety assessments needed 

for an FAA decision to initiate acquisition planning to acquire and implement a WTMA capability. Projected 

first operation use of WTMA will occur in FY2015. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Develop WTMA data collection and evaluation plan 

• Install WTMA prototype in evaluation airport/TRACON environment 

• Instrument airport environment for WTMA performance data collection 

• Initiate the WTMA data collection and analysis at the evaluation airport 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-176 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 12,000 

FY 2009 Appropriated 0 

FY 2010 Request 1,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 4,000 

Total 17,000 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

Wake Turbulence Research 3,960 1,000 3,000 0 1,000 

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0 

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total 3,960 1,000 3,000 0 1,000 

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and 

Development ($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0 

Applied 0 0 0 0 0 

Development (includes prototypes) 3,960 1,000 3,000 0 1,000 

Total 3,960 1,000 3,000 0 1,000 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-177 

1A01I – Wake Turbulence Research Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 

20010 

Request 

($000) 

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Evaluate WTMA Prototype in an airport 

environment 

Develop WTMA Prototype data collection and evaluation 

plan 150 ◊ 

Install WTMA Prototype, design and install associated 

data interfaces 350 ◊ 

Install evaluation instrumentation and begin data 

collection and analysis 500 ◊ 

Continue data collection and analysis ◊ ◊ 

Complete analyses and prepare documentation for the 

FAA initial investment decision for WTMA ◊ ◊ 

Evaluate Wake Turbulence Mitigation for 

Single Runway (WTMSR) Prototype in an 

airport environment 

 ◊ ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 

Total Budget Authority 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-178 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A07 NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure 

Development 

$33,774,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Greater Capacity. 

The FAA has identified this program as a “Transformational” program for NextGen. 

Description of Problem: The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

allocates only 2–3% of today’s global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to aviation. While its overall 

contribution is relatively small, aviation is considered one of the few rapidly-growing contributors. Efforts to 

minimize the industry’s environmental impacts will be complicated by anticipated increases in both domestic 

and international air transportation operations. 

Environmental impacts resulting from aircraft noise and emissions could emerge as a significant constraint 

on aviation industry growth. Cooperation to address the industry’s environmental challenges could both 

maximize aviation’s collective environmental improvements, and mitigate the potential adverse effects that 

environmental impacts and society’s concerns may impose on industry growth. 

With increasing demand the need grows to achieve peak throughput performance at the busiest airports 

and in the busiest arrival/departure airspace. Capability improvement via new procedures to improve 

airport surface movements, reduce route spacing and separation requirements, and improve overall tactical 

flow management into and out of busy metropolitan airspace is needed to maximize traffic flow and airport 

usage. Essentially the problem is getting the right aircraft to the right runway in the right order and time to 

minimize its individual impact on the system and maximize the use of these airports. Thus operations are 

conducted to achieve maximum throughput while facilitating efficient arrival and departure. Inefficiencies in 

any aspect of the operation reduces the total use of the capacity and, because of high demand, causes 

excessive compounding of delay. 

Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the NAS is strictly controlled. Operators of UAS must 

apply to the FAA for authorization to engage in flight activities and operations must be specifically 

authorized. Other restrictions may be applied that hamper the accomplishment of the UAS operator’s 

mission. The Certificate of Authorization (COA) process has been implemented until concerns over the 

safety of UAS operations can be allayed. The demonstration project is part of the process to prove the 

viability of UAS to operate safely in the NAS without undue risk. The ultimate goal is that UAS have 

unfettered access to the NAS. Unfettered access to the NAS for DoD UAS is a growing imperative. Future 

civilian demand is anticipated. 

Additionally, the following shortfalls in developing and demonstrating the future NAS need to be considered 

and resolved: 

• The integration of individual-domain (intra-domain) that would allow for end-to-end (or multidomain) demonstration and testing; 

• The immediate (near-term) integration of new emerging technologies, or applications into existing 

or planned demonstrations; 

• NAS near-term demonstration initiatives supporting government / industry partnership 

demonstrations; 

• The sustainment of the individual or end-to-end (multi-domain) demonstration sites; and 

• Costs for new airport air traffic control towers are between $25 and $30 million per airport, with 

some approaching a $100 million or more. With several hundred towers needing repair or 

expansion, the total annual operating costs are, or will exceed, budget expectations by a 

substantial margin. 

Description of Solution: For FY 2010, $24,800,000 is requested to fund the following activities: 

• International Air Traffic Interoperability – This demonstration is designed to help the FAA promote 

safe, affordable and rapidly implemented innovations into Air Traffic Management (ATM). The 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-179 

flight trials development stage will include system architecture, design, hardware and software 

development (where applicable), procedures development, simulations, component and subsystem 

testing and certification, and system checkout. Flight trial execution could include scripted flight 

tests, limited operational testing, and extended operational evaluations. The demonstrations will 

contribute directly to NextGen concepts and support international collaboration, avoid overlaps, 

and will “deconflict” activities with national and international organizations, including DoD. Further, 

this international air traffic interoperability demonstrations and development initiatives will assist 

the international communities and the FAA in validating 4-D Trajectory Based Operations (TBO) 

and Performance-based Air Traffic Management (PATM) alternatives. 

• High Density Airport (HDA) Capacity and Efficiency Improvement Project. Two arrival management 

projects associated with HDA; the 3-Dimsional (3-D) Path Arrival Management (3-D PAM) Project 

and Tailored Arrivals (TA). The two projects are symbiotic in nature in that the heart of the 3-D 

PAM is the development of a 4-D trajectory (4-DT) ground tool and voice-based procedures for 

non-datalink aircraft and the TA project is working the cross facility and sector procedures along 

with the datalink requirements required by both projects. In time the two projects will blend 

together creating a single 4-D trajectory capability in the arrival domain. The series of 

demonstrations associated with each project will provide enhanced airspace to accommodate the 

anticipated future demand. The demonstrations, along with the associated activities, will feature 

the development and demonstration of the 4-D trajectory automation tool that works in 

conjunction with the Traffic Management Advisor. The tool will calculate a trajectory from the Top 

of Descent (TOD) to an airport meter fix, and will eventually be extended into the TRACON. The 

clearance is issued by the controller and transmitted via voice or datalink to an aircraft which when 

loaded in the Flight Management System, will execute a fuel efficient arrival. The demonstrations 

will also measure whether increased capacity is achievable. The TA Arrivals project is aiming to 

implement an intermediate capability before the full development of the 4-DT ground tool that will 

enable fuel efficient arrivals for datalink equipped aircraft into medium to high density airports. The 

4-DT tool will significantly enhance this capability when available. 

• Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 4-Dimemsional Trajectory Based Operations (4-D TBO) 

Demonstration – This demonstration project consists of periodic demonstrations of actual and 

evolving capabilities, and will include corresponding risk assessments. The project has a phased 

approach with initial concept and requirements definition, performance modeling and simulation, 

and analyses including operational scenarios, metrics definition and procedures development. This 

preliminary work transfers to proof-of-concept demonstrations for both laboratory and live flight 

trials. This demonstration project completely complements and is coordinated with the DoD UAS 

NAS oriented demonstrations, leveraging community efforts. 

• Staffed NextGen Tower (Staffed and Autonomous) – Staffed NextGen Towers (SNTs) are planned 

for medium and high density airports as these airports are likely to have the surveillance 

infrastructure and the most aircraft equipped with avionics that will support SNT operations. A 

companion vision is for an Automated NextGen Tower (ANT) concept for non-towered and low 

density airports. The SNT field demonstration will serve as a proof of concept as well as a 

comprehensive site testing of the technology in an operational environment. It will serve to 

validate the SNT operational concept and develop preliminary program requirements. Operational, 

technical, and human factors data will be collected and user feedback obtained on their 

assessment of the operational feasibility, suitability, and acceptability of the concept. The SNT and 

ANT concepts will require substantial concept engineering funding commencing in FY-10 as 

advanced decision support tools will be needed for such events as conformance monitoring using 

aircraft movement tracking and advanced Data Communications to ensure safe operations. 

Certified surveillance will increase capacity in low-visibility/night conditions. New capabilities such 

as pre-departure clearance, coded taxi routes, and runway balancing will lead to increased airport 

capacity, enhanced safety and increased efficiency as well reducing the user’s operational costs. 

• JPDO Program Management – The JPDO’s oversight of NextGen requires approximately $18 million 

annually in support from the FAA. Prior to FY 2008, the entire amount was requested through the 

Research, Engineering, and Development appropriation. Beginning in FY 2008, as programs move 

toward implementation, part of that funding is being required in the F&E appropriation. 

Benefits: The NextGen Technology Demonstration program is a development effort to support the 

transformation of the NAS to 4-D trajectory management and a performance-based system. The program 

provided integration and demonstration of alternate technologies and concepts, while supporting procedures 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-180 

and standards development, integration of near-term emerging technologies and airspace customers’ 

initiatives with on-going scheduled demonstrations. This program provides a vehicle to test concepts and 

leverage individual transformational program and project technology to create multi-domain cohesive 

demonstrations to capture the synergies needed to transform the NAS in an expedited manner. The 

evaluation of technology and the collaboration between public / private industry partners, ANSPs, 

customers, and owners will continue into perpetuity. These demonstration and early implementation 

initiatives will provide the Agency and its public / private partner critical information to refine operating 

concepts and tools, including the following: 

• International Air Traffic Interoperability. The expected benefits are proof-of-concept and working 

prototypes for an operational environment with flight profile predictability and efficiency on longduration international flights, where fuel burn optimization is a prime concern. This activity will 

demonstrate the benefits of flexibility in a four-dimensionally managed environment through en 

route flexibility; demonstrate exchange of operational data between aircraft operators and air 

traffic / air navigation service providers for informed decision making in near real-time to increase 

productivity; and demonstrate efficient transition from the oceanic/en route phase of flight to the 

domestic/en route and offshore descent phases of flight to increase transition area efficiency and 

productivity. 

• High Density Airport (HDA) Capacity and Efficiency Improvement Project. This demonstration will 

show enhanced airspace use to accommodate the expected demand. It links two important 

activities: time based metering and procedures that reduce separation minima (RNAV/RNP) to 

more fully and efficiently utilize every landing opportunity at the airport runway. The 

demonstration will also test whether or not the FAA can increase capacity without additional 

staffing. 

• Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 4D Trajectory Based Demonstration. Initially, UAS will be used 

as surrogate transportation aircraft in this demonstration. The results of these tasks will allow for 

early implementation of trajectory management flight planning capabilities for all aircraft operating 

in the NAS. Significant benefits can be realized in airspace designated for high performance 

aircraft through problem identification and resolution earlier in the process, workload spread more 

evenly, and more effective management of airspace. 

• Staffed NextGen Tower (Staffed and Autonomous). The near-term goal and expected benefits are 

a proof-of-concept and working prototype for a Staffed NextGen Tower (SNT). The longer-term 

goal will be the Automated NextGen Tower (ANT). Both systems will support the predicted 

increases in future traffic demands while improving operational efficiency and enabling costeffective expansion of air traffic services to a significantly larger number of airports than possible 

with traditional methods of service delivery. 

Accomplishments: 

• Conducted Tailored Arrival (TA) demonstrations at San Francisco (SFO), and Miami (MIA). 

• Conducted Continuous Descent Arrival (CDA) demonstrations at Atlanta (ATL) and MIA. 

• Developed prioritized list of sites for Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) implementation in the 

National Airspace System (NAS). 

• Conducted a collaborative surface management demonstration at Memphis International Airport 

(MEM). 

• Conducted an Oceanic TBO demonstration, using manual procedures, to identify optimal flight 

profiles. 

• Conducted metrics evaluation throughout FY08 to determine the amount of jet fuel and emissions 

being reduced by the AIRE partnership demonstrations. 

• Developed and received approval for the NextGen Towers (NT) concept of operations (ConOps) 

including both Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) and Automated NextGen Towers (ANT). Approval of 

the NT ConOps was an Enterprise Architecture milestone that was completed on time. 

• FAA approved a research management plan for Phase 1, Supplemental Operations of SNT that 

includes certification of ASDE-X. 

• Completed a technology assessment for SNT and provided recommendations for SNT alternatives. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-181 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Conducted an interoperable oceanic and arrival demonstration into a U.S. east coast airport. 

• Conducted a collaborative surface management demonstration at Memphis International Airport 

(MEM). 

• Expanded Oceanic demonstration using existing oceanic systems and trajectory optimization tools 

to identify optimal flight profiles to improve fuel savings and reduce emissions. 

• Developed the ability to generate and issue Optimum Descent Profile arrivals (Tailored Arrival 

and/or 3-D Path Arrival Management (PAM) advisories to non-equipped aircraft. 

• Integrated en route descent advisor (EDA) functionality into the Miami International Airport (MIA) 

demonstration. 

• Developed a UAS Demonstration Project Concept of Operations 

• Prepared a UAS Demonstration Project Plan 

• Conducted preliminary UAS baseline flight demonstration 

• Established site selection criteria and select a site for the SNT field demonstration. 

• Developed a Field Demonstration Test Plan and Metrics Data Collection Plan for the SNT field 

demonstration. 

• Initiated site preparation at the selected airport for the SNT field demonstration. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

• The UAS demonstration project has two objectives. UAS capabilities are being used to validate 4D 

trajectory based operational concepts and flight demonstrations are being conducted to support 

unfettered access to the NAS for UAS. The project in FY10 focuses on continuing flight 

demonstrations following structured initial concept and requirements definition, performance 

modeling and simulation, and analyses including operational scenarios, metrics definition and 

procedures development. This preliminary work transfers to proof-of-concept demonstrations in 

both laboratory environments and live flight trials. This demonstration project complements and is 

coordinated with the DoD UAS NAS oriented demonstrations, leveraging community efforts. 

• The Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) field demonstration will serve as a proof of concept as well as a 

comprehensive site testing of the technology in an operational environment. It will serve to 

validate the SNT operational concept and develop preliminary program requirements. SNT will 

support decreasing delays in low visibility and night conditions and provide for a long-term strategy 

for system capability enhancements. 

• The Program request for HAD is TBD – Estimate - January 09 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Demonstrate an Oceanic pre-departure concept by utilizing trial tool set(s) such as web-enabled 

DOTS+ for pre-flight trajectory planning. 

• Conduct international interoperable gate-to-gate demonstration. 

• Conduct 4-dimenisional flight management system demonstration. 

• Complete UAS baseline flight demonstrations 

• Conduct UAS coupled capability flight demonstrations 

• Conduct UAS integrated capability flight demonstrations 

• Complete field site preparation for SNT field demonstration. 

• Develop procedures for the SNT Field Demonstration. 

• Conduct a Field Demonstration to validate the SNT concept. 

 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-182 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 50,000 

FY 2009 Appropriated 28,000 

FY 2010 Request 33,734 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 120,000 

Total 231,734 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

NextGen Demonstrations and 

Infrastructure Development 0 0 20,000 28,000 33,734

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 20,000 28,000 33,734

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and 

Development ($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 20,000 28,000 33,734

Total 0 0 20,000 28,000 33,734
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-183 

1A07 – NextGen Demonstrations 

and Infrastructure Development Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure 

Development $33,733 

International Air Traffic Interoperability 7,500 

Conduct an Oceanic Trajectory Based Operation 

(TBO) demonstration to identify optimal flight 

profiles. 

♦ ◊ 

Conduct an interoperable oceanic and arrival 

demonstration into a U.S. east coast airport. ♦ 

Conduct a collaborative surface management 

demonstration at Memphis International Airport 

(MEM). ♦ 

Conduct an Oceanic Trajectory Based Operation 

(TBO) demonstration to assess the potential 

requirements for future automation upgrades. 

 ◊ ◊ ◊

Demonstrate Optimum Profile Descents (OPS) at 

selected airports to validate projected benefits and 

develop a business case for OPDs. 

♦ ◊ 

Formulate global requirements and business case for 

Tailored Arrivals. ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct metrics evaluation to determine jet fuel and 

emissions reduction for demonstrations. ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Develop initial requirements, procedures and 

standards for integrated surface operations. ♦ ◊ 

Conduct international interoperable gate-to-gate 

demonstration. ◊ 

Conduct 4-dimenisional flight management system 

demonstration. ◊ 

High Density Airport (HDA) Capacity and 

Efficiency Improvement Project 

4,000

 

Conduct a High Density Tailored Arrival (TA) at MIA. ♦ 

Use fully defined 3D paths to achieve sequencing and 

spacing trials ♦ ◊ 

Demonstrate efficient transition from fuel-efficient 

ocean profiles to offshore/en route environment 

culminating in a TA. 

♦ ◊ ◊ 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 4D 

Trajectory Based Demonstration 

4,774

 

Utilize UAS community as a test bed for the 

exploration of future 4D trajectory based concepts ◊

 

◊ 

 

◊ 

 

◊ 

Conduct a demonstration of UAS for validation of 

RTCA SC-203 performance requirements and NAS 

operating requirements. ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Staffed NextGen Tower 5,700 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Establish site selection criteria and select a site for 

the SNT field demonstration ◊ 

Develop a Field Demonstration Test Plan and Metrics 

Data Collection Plan for the SNT field demonstration. ◊

Initiate site preparation at the selected airport for the 

SNT field demonstration ◊

Complete field site preparation for SNT field 

demonstration. ◊ 

Develop procedures for the SNT Field Demonstration ◊ 

Conduct a Field Demonstration to validate the SNT 

concept. ◊ 

Test Bed Demonstration Sites 8,000 

JPDO Program Management 3,800 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Total Budget Authority $33,734 $28,000 $33,734 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-184 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A08A NextGen – ATM Human Factors – Controller 

Efficiency & Air/Ground Integration 

$10,000,000 

Goals: 

The programs support the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, and 

Organizational Excellence. 

Intended Outcomes: By 2015, demonstrate improvements in air traffic controller efficiency (e.g., greater 

number of aircraft, fewer delays) and effectiveness (e.g., fewer operational errors) through the automation 

and standardization of operations, procedures, and information. 

This program for NextGen Human System Integration (HSI) in system development will examine the roles of 

the various actors in the NAS including controllers, pilots, dispatchers, and maintainers to ensure safe 

operations at increased capacity levels and how those roles are best supported by allocation of functions 

between human operators and automation. The technologies being introduced by the NextGen Enterprise 

Architecture indicate the roles and responsibilities of controllers may change significantly if there is 

increased reliance on automation for conflict monitoring and if separation functions migrate to the aircraft 

flight deck. This program will support further development of systems in the Enterprise Architecture and 

the NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP) solution sets by addressing human-system integration and human 

performance issues. The approach in this program is to use Human System Integration as a mechanism to 

bring cohesiveness to all the human-centered domains that bear on the people in the NAS. Some examples 

of the domains and major HSI issues are: 

Human Factors Engineering: 

• Deciding the appropriate role of the controller and aircraft operator relative to the automation 

when trajectory based operations are routinely used in the en route cruise regime. 

• Develop integrated workstations that enable the delivery of services throughout the NAS using the 

technology being introduced in the Enterprise Architecture and NGIP. 

• Ensuring that there is unambiguous transfer of separation responsibility between ground and flight 

deck elements of the system as aircraft make the transition between different types of airspace. 

• Effectively using automation to aid the controller in conformance monitoring during trajectory 

based operations 

• Providing the characteristics of usable merging and spacing tools in high density airspace to 

increase capacity and reduce environmental impact. 

• Making appropriate use of automation to aid the controller in airspace segments where there are 

variable separation criteria. 

• Avoiding the design of automated systems that are “brittle” and leave the controller and other 

actors in the NAS with inadequate clues regarding automation failures. 

Human Error/Human Performance in NAS Safety: 

• Preparing for degraded system modes so that safety can be maintained under emergency and offnormal conditions. 

• Enhancing the response of the NAS to weather disruptions using collaborative air traffic 

management techniques to accommodate operator preferences. 

• Managing safety risk associated with human errors as human operators interact in new or novel 

ways with automation that alters traditional relationship between actors in the air traffic system 

and between those actors and various automated system elements. 

Personnel Selection: 

• Predicting how the job of the controller will change in the NextGen environment and modifying the 

controller selection criteria and process to match the needs of the new job 

Training: 

• Ensuring that training needs for the NextGen controllers and maintainers are identified to prevent 

skill degradation in an automated NextGen environment 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-185 

• Identifying new skills, knowledge, and abilities that will be needed by controllers and maintainers in 

the NextGen time frame 

A systems approach to air-ground integration needs to address how to transition from current operations to 

new concepts taking into account changes in responsibilities and liabilities. This program is closely linked to 

the NextGen Self Separation and NextGen Air Ground Integration human factors research programs. 

Interoperability of air and ground decision support tools necessitates synchronization of conflict probe lookahead times, 4-D intent information, and alerting functions for Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) 

to enable the efficient and effective use of NextGen capabilities that rely on coordinated activities. Pilots 

and controllers need a shared understanding of how procedures change during transitions across different 

types of airspace (e.g., from a delegated separation regime to shared separation to traditional ground-based 

separation environments). 

Agency Outputs: The Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors Research Program provides 

leadership and products to motivate the evolution of the NAS to assure that the human component of the 

system will reliably perform to meet the needs of the flying public. Outputs include: 

• Design concepts for en route, terminal and tower workstations for increasing the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the workforce. 

• Develop human factors requirements for decision support tools, conformance monitors, advanced 

automation technologies and associated procedures. 

• Investigate human-in-the-loop performance level or safety benefit associated with specific 

technologies and concepts to determine the contribution to efficiency, safety risks, and workload 

costs. 

• Demonstrate a framework for using part task simulations, high fidelity simulations, and integrated 

full mission demonstrations to assess interoperability of air and ground systems 

• Accelerate the development of training and selection procedures to transform the workforce into a 

new generation of service providers who can manage traffic flows in a highly automated system. 

Research Goals: 

• By 2010, Determine preliminary efficiency improvements when controllers use selected NextGen 

decision support tools and automation. 

• By 2010, Explore the use of NextGen tools such as data communications, ADS-B, RNAV/RNP and 

improved conflict resolution tools to reduce controller workload in the terminal area including data 

entry requirements and workload benefits. 

• By 2010, Define initial requirements and anticipated efficiency benefits for merging and spacing 

decision support tools to support continuous descent approach in the terminal area 

• By 2013, define the new role for the controller that is more strategic in nature in the en route and 

terminal domains. 

• By 2013, demonstrate common situation awareness between flight operators and controllers to 

enable collaborative air traffic management. 

• By 2013, define procedural requirements for controllers to manage and introduce change into the 

four dimensional (position plus time) dynamic environment. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The ATC/TO Human Factors research program coordinates 

research priorities with its internal FAA sponsoring organizations and the JPDO. 

• Advanced Air Traffic Systems Requirements Group – operational personnel and systems developers 

from the En Route and Terminal Service units as well as System Engineering in Operations 

Planning coordinates NextGen research requirements for measuring human factors benefits and 

impacts of proposed technologies to controllers, traffic management specialists, and maintainers. 

• Individual and Team Performance Requirements Group – The Safety, En Route, Terminal, System 

Operations, Technical Operations and System Engineering functions participate to identify human 

performance research needs involving safety culture, human error hazard identification, age, 

operational errors, runway incursion prevention, and employee attitudes. The Safety Integrated 

Product Team of the JPDO participated in this requirements group. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-186 

• Technical Operations Research Group – The Technical Operations, En Route, and Terminal service 

areas recommend research for operation and maintenance of the NAS infrastructure including 

specification of displays, controls, and maintainability features of ATC systems. 

• Personnel Selection Research Group – Human Resources, Workforce Services, Workforce 

Development, and the financial services groups address personnel selection and retention including 

the ability to successfully screen applicants for controller positions, and the need to reduce training 

cost and time. 

R&D Partnerships: 

• Collaborative research with NASA on its aerospace systems and air portal projects includes the 

identification of human factors research issues in the NextGen as technology brings changes to air 

traffic management. 

• Collaboration with EUROCONTROL includes participation in semi-annual Air Traffic Management 

(ATM) Seminars and participation in ATM Safety Research symposiums. 

• Program personnel represent the agency in the Normal Operations Safety Survey Study Group of 

the International Civil Aviation Organization. 

• Grants will be used with universities to address NextGen human factors issues. 

Accomplishments: This is a new program starting in FY 2009. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Initiate Trajectory Based Operations 

• Defined a preliminary set of roles and responsibilities for the actors in the NextGen NAS when 

interacting with anticipated automated functions to achieve the expected performance levels. 

• Conducted a high fidelity TRACON simulation to assess efficiency from integrating NextGen 

concepts, capabilities, and procedures. 

Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports 

• Defined controller information requirements for merging and spacing operations and continuous 

descent approach in the terminal area. 

• Assessed types and modes of human error in operations for merging and spacing and continuous 

descent approach. 

Increase Flexibility in the Terminal Environment 

• Assessed controller workload benefits from data communications for mixed equipage aircraft in the 

terminal area. 

Improve Collaborative Air Traffic Management 

• Developed initial collaborative ATM requirements, ensuring information and communication flows 

support common situation awareness for controllers, pilots, and dispatchers in the future NAS. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The program will accelerate and expand research addressing human performance issues in NextGen 

concepts. 

Initiate Trajectory Based Operations (TBO) 

• Defining concepts, decision support tools, and procedures for integrating TBO capabilities into 

controller workstations to ensure improvements in controller efficiency. 

• Evaluating midterm workstation enhancements to ensure benefits intended from integration of 

data communications and NextGen operational concepts (e.g., variable separation criteria, merging 

and spacing, and continuous descent approach) are realized. 

Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports 

• Determine information requirements necessary to manage advanced operations such as selfspacing, merging, spacing, and passing in en route airspace. 

• Assessing the potential for human error in human-automation interaction and developing guidance 

supporting error tolerance and recovery. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-187 

• Identifying the potential human error modes when various actors in the NextGen system 

communicate and carry out new roles and responsibilities. 

Increase Flexibility in the Terminal Environment 

• Determine how to integrate traffic flow and contingency management information into the terminal 

service provider workstation. 

• Develop methods to display aircraft equipage differences to service providers in the terminal 

environment to enable the appropriate level of service. 

• Develop integrated tower workstations that enable the provision of airport traffic services using the 

NextGen suite of technology. 

Improve Collaborative Air Traffic Management (CATM) 

• Perform human factors analyses of the CATM concept to determine the optimum communications 

and decision paths for negotiating access to NAS resources and stating preferences. 

Reduce Weather Impact 

• Specify the human factors characteristics of decision support tools that will be used in strategic and 

tactical decision making by members of the air traffic community when adverse weather has an 

impact on NAS capacity or safety of flight. 

Cross-concept Human Factors Issues 

• Define human factors characteristics of decision support tools in terms of stability and reliability to 

assure that they help the service provider achieve the expected benefits. 

• Find the set of proposed changes in NextGen that provide the greatest human performance return 

on investment. 

• Prepare for operations in off-normal and emergency conditions to assure that system concepts and 

personnel skills can maintain safety in the NAS. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Initiate Trajectory Based Operations 

• Define a preliminary set of roles and responsibilities for the actors in the NextGen NAS when 

interacting with anticipated automated functions to achieve the expected performance levels. 

• Conduct a high fidelity simulation to assess efficiency from integrating NextGen concepts, 

capabilities, and procedures. 

Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports 

• Define controller information requirements for merging and spacing operations and continuous 

descent approach in the terminal area as roles and procedures delegate additional authority to the 

pilot. 

• Assess system performance requirements to recover from controller data entry errors. 

• Assess types and modes of human error in operations for merging and spacing and continuous 

descent approach. 

Increase Flexibility in the Terminal Environment 

• Model controller workload benefits from data communications for mixed equipage aircraft in the 

terminal area. 

• Perform initial simulations to assess the benefits of integrated tower workstations 

Improve Collaborative Air Traffic Management 

• Develop initial collaborative ATM human factors requirements, ensuring information and 

communication flows support common situation awareness for controllers, pilots, and dispatchers 

in the future NAS. 

Reduce Weather Impact 

• Assess NextGen concepts for the integration of weather information into decision support tools 

• Assess the impact of providing controllers and pilots with probabilistic weather information 

Cross-concept Human Factors Issues 

• Define stability and reliability requirements for decision support tools and automation to assure that 

they help the service provider achieve the expected benefits. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-188 

• Define reliability requirements for conformance monitors in terms of feedback, false alerts, and 

other human factors characteristics to achieve the goal of the operation. 

• Define threshold values of false alarms and other human factors characteristics that affect trust 

and usability of the tool. 

• Build an initial “human performance budget” to determine the contribution of various NextGen 

concepts to capacity and safety. 

• Perform dynamic analyses of the potential for human error using proactive human error analyses 

and modeling as changes to automation are considered. 

• Perform analyses of selected off-normal and emergency conditions for NextGen concepts to assure 

that system design and personnel skills can maintain safety in the NAS under degraded modes. 

• Analyze the human factors aspects of the transition of operations toward a more highly automated 

NAS which transfers selected functions to the flight operator and aircrew. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-189 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 0 

FY 2009 Appropriated 6,700 

FY 2010 Request 10,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 40,000 

Total 56,700 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors – Controller 

Efficiency 

0 0 0 6,700 10,000

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 6,700 10,000

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 6,700 10,000

Total 0 0 0 6,700 10,000
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-190 

1A08A – Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors – Controller 

Efficiency & Air Ground Integration

Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000)

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors – Controller Efficiency 10,000 

Trajectory Based Operations 1,500 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

High Density Airports 2,000 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Flexibility in the Terminal Environment 2,000 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Collaborative Air Traffic Management 1,000 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Reduce Weather Impact 500 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Cross-concept Human Factors 3,000 ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Budget Authority 10,000 6,700 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-191 

 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management 

Requirement 

$13,200,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Greater Capacity 

Intended Outcomes: The NextGen – New Air Traffic Management (ATM) Requirement program 

addresses the 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.” It also supports 

the FAA’s National Aviation Research Plan goal for “Fast, Flexible and Efficient” which supports development 

of a system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet 

customer needs. It fits within the Air Traffic Organization’s pathway 4, “Ensure Viable Future” which has 

the goal to assure a sustainable and affordable Air Transportation System for the future. 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. 

The program will include research and development for new procedures and technologies both on the 

ground and in the air to increase efficiency of the NAS. Program outcomes include procedures, 

technologies, and tools to support trajectory-based operations in transitional airspace, such as between 

oceanic and domestic en route, as well as all airspace to outer markers (approach and departure). 

Agency Outputs: The program will address several of the NextGen solution sets while aligning with the 

FAA Enterprise Architecture and will concentrate on final research and development activities to prepare 

capabilities to be transitioned into the NAS. These solution sets include the following: Trajectory Based 

Operations; High Density Arrivals/Departures and Airports; Flexible Terminal and Airports; Collaborative Air 

Traffic Management; and Networked Facilities. Research activities may contribute to more than one of 

these solution sets. Where appropriate, activities will be coordinated with MITRE and/or NASA to complete 

any required final research and development to transition their products into the NAS. Also as appropriate, 

these activities move into final development and implementation upon successful completion of Joint 

Resource Council 2-B level decisions. 

Research Goals: 

Trajectory Based Operations 

Enable strategic planning and execution of flight trajectories throughout the airspace for equipped aircraft. 

This will require performance-based separation management, performance-based trajectory management 

operations and decision support tools, flight object information exchange, and airspace support. 

• By 2010, conduct tradeoff studies to determine approaches to future air-ground data 

communications requirements implementing flexible airspace management 

• By 2013, develop requirements for development, negotiations and exchange standards trajectories 

• By 2014, determine conflict resolution approaches using aircraft intent data 

• By 2014, develop approaches for implementing flexible airspace management 

High Density Arrivals/Departures and Airports 

Using trajectory-based terminal operations and flow management, reduce spacing between aircraft. This 

will require implementation of high density corridors with reduced separation matching aircraft in transition 

to airport arrival capacity, enhanced surface technologies, parallel runway operations with reduced lateral 

separation, digital taxi clearance and conformance, expansion of terminal separation procedures throughout 

arrival and departure airspace. Higher performance navigation and communication capabilities will be 

necessary. 

• By 2011, determine requirements for TCAS “8.0” to continue to provide effective collision risk 

safety net in an environment of closely space parallel RNP route form top-of-descent to the runway 

approaches for parallel runway operations with spacing down to 750 feet 

• By 2013, develop concepts for surface traffic management with conformance monitoring 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-192 

Flexible Terminal and Airports 

Dynamically manage airspace and surface operations with appropriately equipped aircraft, as opposed to 

the static way of managing airspace today, to provide greater capacity, efficiency, and safety. Will be 

applicable to lower density terminal areas and either trajectory-based or classic operations can be 

conducted. This dynamic management will require changes to procedures for low or zero visibility 

conditions, as well as, related decision support tools for both air and ground applications. 

• By 2011, conduct tradeoff studies to determine approaches to future air-ground and groundground data communications requirements implementing flexible terminal management 

• By 2014, determine mixed equipage trajectory-based routes for RNAV/RNP and continuous descent 

(CDA) operations 

Collaborative Air Traffic Management 

Optimize capacity to balance demand by strategic and tactical interactions with air traffic managers and 

flight operators. Requires shared data communication among pilots, dispatchers, and controllers and 

decision support tools for both air and ground applications. This includes developing a software assurance 

standard for integrating the air ground applications safely. 

• By 2012, develop software assurance standard for integration of air and ground decision support 

systems 

• By 2013, test initial concepts in partial collaborative decision making application 

• By 2014, determine weather and performance requirements for decision support tools integration. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The program addresses the needs of the FAA Air Traffic 

Organization (ATO) and works with the FAA Aviation Safety organization to ensure new procedures and 

solutions are safe and that the airports and air routes targeted for their implementation are those with 

critical needs to reduce air traffic delays and air route congestion thus providing more capacity. The 

program works with controllers, airlines, and pilots to include user recommendations and ensure that 

training and implementation issues are addressed in the program’s research from the start. 

Customers: 

• Pilots 

• Air navigation service provider personnel 

• Air carrier operations 

• Airport operations 

Stakeholders: 

• Joint Planning and Development Office 

• Commercial pilot unions 

• FAA air navigation service provider unions 

• Other ICAO air navigation service providers 

• Avionics and Aircraft manufacturers 

R&D Partnerships: In addition to maintaining its partnership with FAA’s Aviation Safety organization, this 

research program will accomplish 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 potential partners: 

• Volpe National Transportation Center 

• MITRE/Center for Advanced Aviation and Systems Development (CAASD) 

• NASA Ames, Glenn, and Langley Research Centers 

• EUROCONTROL and associated research organizations 

Accomplishments: This is a new program in FY 2009. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-193 

KEY FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Trajectory Based Operations 

• Initiated the investigation of compatibility of prototyped L-Band components with existing systems in 

the L-band particularly with regard to the onboard co-site interference and agree on the overall design 

characteristics 

High Density Arrival/Departures and Airports 

• Initiated TCAS effectiveness in the NextGen environment and define requirements for improved 

performance 

Flexible Terminal and Airports 

• Initiated analyses of the IEEE 802.16e C-band standard best suited for airport surface wireless mobile 

communications and propose an aviation specific standard to appropriate standardization bodies; 

Collaborative Air Traffic Management 

• Initiated analysis of approaches/methodologies for software assurance of complex air-ground systems. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

In FY 2010, the FAA must begin developing the capabilities needed to make required capabilities supportive 

of NextGen solution sets. These capabilities are highly dependent on technologies that accurately predict 

the location and intent of aircraft and provide this information to other pilots and controllers. Some of the 

aspects of the NextGen Concept of Operations depend upon the aircraft as a participant in efficient, safe air 

traffic management. These capabilities also rely on procedures that keep traffic flowing smoothly in all 

weather and visibility conditions. The NextGen research initiative will result in enhanced methods of 

determining safe separation while optimizing capacity, for all flight regimes and all aircraft. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Trajectory Based Operations 

• Continue the investigation of compatibility of prototyped L-Band components with existing systems in 

the L-band particularly with regard to the onboard co-site interference and agree on the overall design 

characteristics; and 

• Considering the design trade-offs, propose the appropriate L-Band solution for input to a global 

aeronautical standardization activity. 

• Analyses of common trajectory requirements and implementation strategy – identify trajectory 

differences, evaluated need and fidelity and propose exchange standards 

High Density Arrivals/Departures and Airports 

• Determine compatibility of ground-based elements with airborne elements when using new High 

Density trajectory based procedures 

• Determine TCAS effectiveness in the NextGen environment and define requirements for improved 

performance 

Flexible Terminal and Airports 

• Identify the portions of the IEEE 802.16e C-band standard best suited for airport surface wireless 

mobile communications and propose an aviation specific standard to appropriate standardization 

bodies; 

• Evaluate and validate the performance of the aviation specific standard to support wireless mobile 

communications networks operating in the relevant airport surface environments through trials and 

testbed development; and 

• Develop a channelization methodology for allocation of safety and regularity of flight services in the 

band to accommodate a range of airport classes, configurations and operational requirements. 

• Analyses for RNAV/RNP via Data Communications – requirements for data communication delivery and 

evaluation. 

Collaborative Air Traffic Management 

• Conduct analysis of approaches/methodologies for software assurance of complex air-ground systems. 

• Initiate development of a coordinated airborne and ground software assurance standard to support AirGround operational integrity. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-194 

• Analyses of weather integration into ATM decision support tools – weather requirements for individual 

trajectory analysis and correlation of forecast impact. 

• Analyses of airborne SWIM – identify information distribution requirements for non-command and 

control information, evaluate alternative design and architecture, propose standard. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-195 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 0 

FY 2009 Appropriated 5,400 

FY 2010 Request 13,200 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2013-2014) 115,100 

Total 133,700 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts 0 0 0 0 0

New Air Traffic Management 

Requirement 5,400 13,200

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 5,400 13,200

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 5,400 13,200

Total 0 0 0 5,400 13,200
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-196 

1A08B – New Air Traffic Management 

Requirement Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

New ATM Requirement 13,200 

Trajectory Based Operations 

Future international frequency standards L-band ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Approaches for implementing flexible airspace 

management ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Requirements for interactive flight planning ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conflict resolution approaches using aircraft intent data ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Common Trajectory Requirements and Implementation 

Strategy ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

High Density Arrivals/Departures and 

Airports 

TCAS 8.0 analysis and requirements ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Surface management CNS technologies identification ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Flexible Terminal and Airports 

Surface CNS technologies C-Band ♦ ◊ ◊ 

RNAV/RNP via Data Communications ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Collaborative Air Traffic Management 

Efficient and safe certification methods of complex 

software systems (Software Standards) ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Real time integrated decision making information 

(Weather Integration) ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Shared data concepts (Airborne SWIM) ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Budget Authority 13,200 5,400 13,200 1,800 31,200 32,000 58,100

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-197 

Budget Item Program Title Budget Request 

1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation – 

Validation Modeling 

$10,000,000 

GOALS: 

This Program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, and 

International Leadership 

Intended Outcomes: The Operations Concept Validation Program addresses the 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.” It also supports the FAA’s National Aviation 

Research Plan goal for a “Fast, Flexible and Efficient” system that safely and quickly moves anyone and 

anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs. The program supports these goals 

by developing and validating 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 fits within the Air Traffic Organization’s pathway 4, “Ensure Viable 

Future” to assure a sustainable and affordable Air Transportation System for the future by developing future 

operational concepts that will decrease workload and increase reliance on automation for routine tasking, 

and new procedures both on the ground and in the air 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 (up to three times capacity) as well as reducing transit time 

(reduce gate-to-gate transit times by 30 percent and increasing on-time arrival rate to 95 percent.). 

Agency Outputs: The research will identify and validate changes to current air traffic management 

operations that will foster increased system capacity, efficiency, and throughput. The validated operational 

concept will identify system level requirements, airspace changes, and procedural changes that will need to 

be implemented in order to realize the capacity gains afforded by implementation of the concepts. Where 

appropriate, activities will be coordinated with MITRE and/or NASA to complete any required final research 

and development to transition their products into the NAS. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) Free 

Flight Steering Committee, the FAA’s R,E&D Advisory Committee, the White House Commission on Aviation 

Safety and Security, and numerous other members of the aviation community have called for the 

development and validation of a Concept of Operations for modernizing the NAS. This concept must be 

consistent with the JPDO’s concept for NextGen, and its impact on the FAA’s ATO, including transition steps, 

must be identified and validated. 

Operational concept development and validation will utilize an iterative work group approach with members 

representing each of the FAA ATO Operational Service Units and representatives from the airspace user 

community, including pilots and flight operations centers. The work group approach will present an initial 

concept or scenario and elicit feedback from impacted stakeholders. This feedback will be incorporated into 

future versions of the concept that will be reviewed by stakeholders. Concept validation activities employing 

human-in-the-loop simulation will utilize participants with experience in the task being validated. The 

Program will identify the precise mechanism for obtaining stakeholder participation. It is currently 

envisioned that this participation will be through the Next Generation Air Transportation System Institute. 

R&D Partnerships: This program is encouraged by the JPDO to ensure the FAA’s research and 

development activities support the evolution to NextGen. Participation of the JPDO assures that the 

Operational Concept activities reflect user community needs, and assures that identified improvements are 

evaluated for operational impacts on NAS users and FAA service providers. 

The concept development and concept validation effort described here is also coordinated with the 

European community via agreements with EUROCONTROL and the European Commission on SESAR. This 

cooperation ensures that unique solutions and transitions are not developed in different quadrants of the 

globe, a situation which would impose an undue burden on all carriers and manufacturers participating in 

the global airspace system. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-198 

Accomplishments: This is a new program in FY 2009. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Developed the Initial NAS End-to-End Mid-term (2018) Concept of Operation Narrative 

• Developed f the Initial NAS End-to-End Mid-term (2018) Concept of Operation Detailed Operational 

Scenarios and Traffic Scenarios 

• Developed Detailed Task Descriptions including functional analyses, information flows and task lists 

to determine function allocation and information requirements for the midterm 

• Validated the Data Communications Segment 2 Operational Concept and requirements 

development 

• Researched the integration of four dimensional trajectories (4DT) across operational environments 

(e.g., terminal, traffic flow management, and en route operations) to determine the level of 

accuracy needed in each phase of flight 

• Initiated planning activities to perform human-in-the-loop and fast-time simulations to validate the 

mid-term concept with particular emphasis on roles and responsibilities 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The FY 2010 research will provide an Initial End-to-End Midterm (2018) 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. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-199 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 0 

FY 2009 Appropriated 4,000 

FY 2010 Request 10,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 40,000 

Total 54,000 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Operations Concept Validation – Validation 

Modeling 0 0 0 4,000 10,000

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 4,000 10,000

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development ($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 4,000 10,000

Total 0 0 0 4,000 10,000
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-200 

1A08C – Next Gen - Operations 

Concept Validation – Validation 

Modeling Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Operations Concept Validation 10,000 

End-to-end mid-term (2018) concept of 

operation narrative ♦ 

End-to-end mid-term (2018) concept detailed 

task list descriptions ♦ 

End-to-end far-term (2025) concept of 

operations narrative ◊ ◊ ◊ 

End-to-end far-term (2025) concept detailed task 

descriptions ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Integration of 4DT across operational 

environments ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Detailed operational scenarios to support midterm concept validation ♦ ◊ 

Traffic scenarios to validate the mid-term 

operational concept ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Simulations to validate the mid-term concept ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Detailed operational scenarios to support farterm concept validation ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Traffic scenarios to validate the far-term 

operational concept ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Simulations to validate the far-term concept ◊ ◊ ◊

 

Total Budget Authority 10,000 4,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-201 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A08D NextGen - Environment and Energy – 

Environmental Management System and Advanced 

Noise and Emissions Reduction 

$7,000,000 

Goals: 

The programs support the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety and Greater Capacity. 

Intended Outcomes: The Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction and Validation Modeling program 

helps achieve the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) goal to increase capacity threefold 

while reducing significant environmental impacts in absolute terms. 

The program will explore advanced operational procedures to enable absolute reduction of significant 

aviation environmental impacts and establishing the benefits and costs for adopting these new procedures. 

The program will also develop and advance analytical tools and metrics to implement Environmental 

Management Systems (EMSs) to manage and mitigate NextGen environmental impacts. The analytical 

efforts are providing sufficient knowledge of climate change effects of aviation to enable assessing the 

impacts of various means to mitigate these effects. 

The program is also focused on assessing National Airspace System (NAS) infrastructure impacts of 

Continuous Low Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) technologies and alternative fuels developed under 

the Research, Engineering and Development program (RE&D) and establishing and advancing any NAS 

adaptation required to implement and benefit from these technologies and fuels. 

The Program specifically supports the following outcomes: 

Identify and explore how advances in Communication, Navigation and Surveillance technology can be 

leveraged in the short- to medium-term to further optimize advanced aircraft arrival and departure, surface 

and en route procedures to reduce noise, fuel burn and emissions. Develop airspace analytical tools for 

aviation noise and emissions impacts, and analysis of costs/benefits of mitigation techniques. Design, 

develop and demonstrate implementation of EMS approaches to dynamically manage environmental impacts 

on the NAS in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Specific activities include: 

• Explore advanced aircraft arrival, departure and surface operations to reduce emissions, fuel burn 

and noise 

• Advance noise, local air quality and climate impacts metrics to quantify and manage the impacts of 

operations associated with NextGen 

• Develop decision support tools to dynamically manage environmental impacts via EMSs 

• Conduct validation modeling of mitigation approaches 

• Develop decision support tools to assess the benefits and costs and aid in the implementation of 

clean and quiet procedures in the NAS 

• Determine and develop NAS infrastructure adaptation necessary to adopt new environmental 

technologies and advanced fuels. 

Assess impacts of adopting new aircraft environmental technologies and advanced fuels for the NAS 

infrastructure and advance any NAS adaptation necessary to benefit from these technologies. Specific 

activities include: 

• Assess the impacts of new aircraft technologies and alternative fuels on the NAS 

• Identify and develop any new elements of NAS infrastructure required to support the operation of 

new aircraft and alternative fuel technologies 

• Demonstrate flight and ground integration of new CLEEN technologies and alternative fuels in the 

NAS 

Agency Outputs: The program is protecting the environment by reducing significant aviation 

environmental impacts associated with noise, emissions, and global climate impact. The program will 

explore, collaboratively with industry and academia, advanced operational procedures that mitigate NextGen 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-202 

environmental impact while satisfying safety requirements. The program will support the design, 

development and implementation of EMSs that will allow adapting environmental protection to the dynamic 

needs of the NAS. In addition, the program will establish the benefits and costs for adopting new 

procedures and practices and develop decision support tools that can be introduced into the NAS in the 

short and medium term to enable better planning and decisions. Finally, the program will also establish and 

advance any NAS infrastructure adaptation required to support the operation of new aircraft technologies 

and alternative fuels. 

Research Goals: 

• By FY 2010, evaluate impacts of CLEEN technologies on NAS infrastructure integration. 

• By FY 2010, evaluate benefits of alternative fuels on NAS infrastructure integration. 

• By FY 2010, conduct demonstration of algorithms to enable clean and quiet operational 

procedures. 

• By FY 2010, develop architecture for Environmental Management Systems (EMSs). 

• By FY 2011, apply metrics for health and climate impacts to develop a sample NAS EMSs and 

define impact of mitigation actions. 

• By FY 2011, conduct significant demonstration of environmental control algorithms for en route 

(Oceanic) operational procedure for reduced aircraft emissions that may influence climate. 

• By FY 2011, define standards, policy and procedures for environmental control logic for use in 

automated systems for surface and arrival operations. 

• By FY 2011, integrate modifications to static environmental analyses models to enable dynamic 

assessment and control of environmental impacts. 

• By FY 2011, deliver specific recommendations for environmental procedures to be integrated and 

demonstrated within appropriate NGIP solution sets. 

• By FY 2011, conduct demonstration of environmental control algorithms for advanced ground, 

terminal area, and en route operational procedures to reduce emissions and noise. 

• By FY 2012, apply the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) to evaluate environmental 

impact for regional airspace needs and support EMSs. 

• By FY 2012, design significant demonstration of CLEEN mitigation technologies and NAS 

infrastructure integration. 

• By FY 2012, design significant demonstration alternative fuels and NAS infrastructure integration. 

• By FY 2012, conduct significant demonstration of alternative fuels integration into the NAS. 

• By FY 2013, conduct significant demonstration of CLEEN mitigation technologies and NAS 

infrastructure integration. 

• By FY 2013, conduct significant demonstration alternative fuels and NAS infrastructure integration. 

• By FY 2013, define standards, policy and procedures for environmental control logic for use in 

automated systems for en route (Oceanic) operations. 

• By FY 2014, define standards, policy and procedures for CLEEN technologies integration into NAS. 

• By FY 2014, define standards, policy and procedures for alternative fuel integration into the NAS. 

• By FY 2014, assess the potential environmental benefits of improved efficiency coupling of 

separate automated system for surface, en route and arrivals/departures. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The FAA works closely with other federal agencies, industry, 

academia, and international governments and organizations to design R&D efforts that can advance 

understanding of aviation environmental health and welfare impacts. 

• NextGen -- FAA is leading an Environmental Working Group (EWG) responsible for all 

environmental dimensions of the JPDO. The EWG comprises FAA, NASA, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), DoD, Department of Commerce, Council on Environmental Quality, 

Department of the Interior, and Office of the Secretary of Transportation, as well as industry, 

academia, local government, and community groups. The efforts of the EWG are centered on 

advancing the national vision and recommendations for aviation in the NextGen and in the 

congressionally mandated study on “Aviation and the Environment”, including advanced 

operational procedures, aircraft technologies and alternative fuels development. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-203 

R&D Partnerships: As does the Environment and Energy Research Program and other NextGen activities, 

the Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction and Validation Modeling program relies on a series of 

Memorandums of Agreement (MOA), to work closely with NASA. In FY 2005, FAA signed an MOA with DoD 

to pursue joint activities to understand and mitigate aviation noise and emissions. The FAA is also pursuing 

collaborative agreements with DOE, and EPA to leverage resources to address aviation’s environmental 

impact. 

• Through the JPDO NextGen, the program established a Working Group comprising FAA, NASA, 

EPA, DoD, Department of Commerce, Council on Environmental Quality, and Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation, as well as industry, academia, local government, and community groups. The 

Working Group 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. 

Accomplishments: This is a new effort to address the challenges of NextGen. However, relevant 

stakeholders have achieved significant accomplishments mitigating aviation’s environmental impact. The 

number of people exposed to significant noise levels was reduced by about 90% between 1975 and 2006. 

Today's aircraft are also 70 percent more fuel-efficient-per-passenger-mile than jet aircraft of the 1960s. 

Reduced fuel consumption has also led to a 90 percent reduction in carbon monoxide, smoke, and other 

aircraft emissions. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Advanced Operational Procedures 

• Explored advanced algorithms and approaches for en route operations that reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions that may contribute to climate impacts 

• Explored advanced algorithms and approaches for surface operations that reduce criteria pollutants 

that contribute to ambient air quality 

• Explored advanced algorithms and approaches for terminal procedures that optimize noise and air 

quality emissions reductions 

Environmental Management System 

• Defined existing and planned environmental mitigation methods to counter NAS constraints (today 

and for NextGen) 

• Modified the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) to enable evaluating environmental 

impact for regional airspace needs and support EMSs 

• Applied metrics for health and climate impacts to develop a sample NAS EMSs and define benefits 

of mitigation actions 

CLEEN and Alternative Fuels and NAS Infrastructure Integration 

• Evaluated potential benefits of CLEEN aircraft technologies on the NAS 

• Evaluated potential benefits of aviation alternative fuels on the NAS 

• Analyzed new aircraft types (e.g., aircraft featuring CLEEN technologies, VLJ, UAV, SBJ) to 

ascertain their influence on environmental impacts and assess approaches to optimize 

environmental performance 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

NextGen has adopted environmental goals to reduce significant noise and air quality impacts in absolute 

terms, to enhance fuel efficiency, to limit or reduce greenhouse gases. The growth enabled by NextGen 

increases environmental impacts 150-200% - even in the near term. The ATO Capital environmental 

investments enable delivering the NextGen noise goal of reducing the number of people exposed to noise 

each year by 4% and improving fuel efficiency by at least 1% per year. Future environmentally responsible 

aviation environmental mitigation must be based on a new, interdisciplinary approach that addresses the 

relationship between noise and emissions and different types of emissions, and provides the cost-benefit 

analysis capability necessary for data-driven decision making. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-204 

This effort will identify and explore how advances in Communication, Navigation and Surveillance 

technology can be leveraged in the short- to medium-term to explore advanced air and ground operations 

to reduce fuel burn, noise and emissions. 

The FAA is developing a robust new comprehensive framework of aviation environmental analytical tools 

and methodologies under the RE&D program to develop integrated noise and emissions models. This effort 

will build upon the RE&D investment that is developing the fundamental modules of such models to develop 

computer models to assess environmental impacts of NAS changes and controls to enable environmental 

management systems to actively mitigate noise and emissions. The effort will allow developing a the 

regional versions of our analyses tools in the next 3-5 years to help guide NextGen environmental activities 

(for example right now we are unable to assess the impact of three time growth at a level beyond a rough 

order of magnitude; this is inadequate to make decisions that cost millions in infrastructure development) 

and support the development of robust EMSs. We would also conduct the validation and verification 

required to make these tools acceptable for environmental impact assessments and EMS implementation. 

Finally, this effort seeks to assess the impacts of new aircraft technologies and alternative fuels on the NAS 

and establish and advance any NAS adaptation required to implement and benefit from environmentally 

beneficial technologies. Elements of this initiative include: 

• Explore operational procedures to mitigate NextGen environmental impacts 

• Develop metrics and models to implement NAS Environmental Management Systems to reduce 

NextGen environmental impacts 

• Establish the impacts of CLEEN aircraft technologies and alternative fuels on the NAS infrastructure 

and advance any changes required to adopt these aircraft technologies and fuels 

Ongoing Activities 

Environment and Energy –Advanced Noise and Emission Reduction 

Achieving the NextGen target of meeting forecasted demand of three times current levels of capacity could 

cause a three times increase in aircraft noise and emissions. The potential for environmental damage could 

restrict capacity growth and prevent full realization of NextGen. The problem is to reduce the 

environmental impact of aviation in absolute terms through new operational procedures, technologies, 

alternative fuels, policies and market based options to allow the desired increase in capacity. The solutions 

must demonstrate an acceptable benefit to cost ratio and infrastructure adaptation plan. 

Environment and Energy – Validation Modeling 

Achieving the NextGen target of meeting forecasted demand of three times current levels of capacity could 

cause a three times increase in aircraft noise and emissions. There must be a thorough understanding of 

the economic and operational impacts of the system alternatives for reducing noise and emissions with 

respect to the system alternatives for increasing capacity. There must also be sufficient knowledge of 

human health and welfare impacts of aviation noise and emissions to enable appropriate means to mitigate 

these effects. As the system solutions to increase capacity develop, alternative operational procedures must 

be explored, and there must be validation that proposed solutions to reduce noise, fuel burn, and emission 

are sufficient to prevent environmental constraints that might limit the required capacity increases. Models 

and metrics must be developed and demonstrated to implement Environmental Management Systems 

(EMSs) to manage and mitigate NextGen environmental impacts. Advances in noise, fuel burn, and 

emissions reduction will enable the air traffic system to handle growth in demand up to three times current 

levels. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Advanced Operational Procedures 

• Conduct significant demonstration of environmental control algorithms for surface (taxi/ramp) area 

operational procedure to reduce emissions. 

• Conduct significant demonstration of environmental control algorithms for terminal area operational 

procedure to reduce emissions and noise. 

• Conduct significant demonstration of environmental control algorithms for surface (taxi/ramp) area 

operational procedure to reduce emissions. 

• Conduct significant demonstration of environmental control algorithms for terminal area operational 

procedure to reduce emissions and noise. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-205 

Environmental Management System 

• Analytically explore advanced algorithms and approaches for en route (Oceanic) automated 

systems that optimizes en route operations for reduced aircraft emissions that may influence 

climate, quantify potential benefits and design and conduct a simple experiment to demonstrate 

viability and validate benefits. 

• Conduct a significant demonstration of the capability of integrated environmental models to 

analyze noise and emissions regional impacts of new NAS operations. 

• Define architectural modifications to static environmental analyses models to enable dynamic 

assessment and control of environmental impacts. 

CLEEN and Alternative Fuels and NAS Infrastructure Integration 

• Define existing and planned environmental mitigation methods to counter NAS constraints (today 

and for NexGen). 

• Analyze environmental impacts on NAS of new aircraft types (e.g., aircraft featuring CLEEN 

technologies, Very Light Jets (VLJ), Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV), Supersonic Business Jet (SBJ)) 

and assess approaches to optimize system environmental performance. 

• Analyze the environmental impacts of alternative fuels on NAS and assess approaches to optimize 

system environmental performance. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-206 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 0 

FY 2009 Appropriated 7,000 

FY 2010 Request 7,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 72,000 

Total 86,000 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request 

Contracts: 

Operational Procedures Explorations/ 

EMSs models and metrics 0 0 0 4,500 4,500

CLEEN/Alternative Fuels NAS impacts 0 0 0 2,500 2,500

Personnel 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 7,000 7,000

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request 

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 7,000 7,000

Total 0 0 0 7,000 7,000
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-207 

1A08D - Environment and Energy – Program Schedule 

Environmental Management System 

and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 

Validation Modeling - EMS Models and 

Metrics 4,500 

Assess efficacy of metrics ♦ ◊ ◊

EMSs development ♦ ◊ ◊ 

EMSs demonstration ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Validation modeling ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Benefit/Cost Assessment ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Publish Research Reports ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction - 

Operational Procedure Exploration/NAS 

Impacts of CLEEN/Alternative Fuels 2,500

 

Impacts assessment ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

CLEEN technologies integration demonstrations ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Alternative Fuels integration demonstrations ◊ ◊ 

Control Algorithm Development ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Procedures Exploration ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Validation Modeling ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Publish Research Results ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Budget Authority 7,000 7,000 7,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-208 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A08E NextGen - Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization $2,000,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Greater Capacity. 

Intended Outcomes: The Wake Turbulence – Re-Categorization project (Wake Re-Cat) 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.” Redefining (based on enhanced 

understanding of aircraft generated wake turbulence and its transport/demise) the basis for the air 

navigation service provider’s (ANSP) required minimum spacing between aircraft to mitigate the effects of 

wake turbulence is a major first step towards the NextGen efficient use of our nation’s airspace. Wake ReCat provides the analysis, experimentation, and validation activities necessary to replace today’s safe but 

capacity inefficient air traffic control wake mitigation procedures for separating aircraft. The work is 

conducted cooperatively with EUROCONTROL and the Joint Aviation Authorities and will result in global 

changes to the ANSP wake turbulence mitigation procedures. Project outcomes include: 

• Current 6 weight categories and safe separation distances adjusted to account for fleet mix 

changes since the last re-categorization effort in the early 1990s (adjustments will include 

additional factors beyond aircraft weight) 

• Increased capability to safely place more aircraft in the same volume of airspace – resulting in 

ability to meet increased demand for air travel. 

Increased opportunity and flexibility for safe aircraft pair-wise maneuvering within airspace and other 

system constraints 

Agency Outputs: Wake Re-Cat uses applied research to develop the enhanced methods of defining wake 

safe separations between aircraft. Previously used methods are being reviewed and refined. Current wake 

characterization models are being enhanced to allow experimentation with the use of various aircraft design 

parameters as mechanisms for defining the strength and longevity of aircraft produced wake vortices. 

Results of the modeling efforts will be validated through field measurements. Wake encounter models will 

be developed, validated and integrated into aircraft simulators. Separation standards will be refined based 

on field data, analysis and pilot-in-the-loop simulations. Wake mitigation separation procedures developed 

for use by the ANSP will be evaluated using scenario based simulations to include human-in-the-loop 

simulations to insure usability and safe operations. Work will also include the development of the safety risk 

management documentation necessary for the implementation of the revised ANSP wake mitigation 

separation procedures. 

Research Goals: 

• By 2011 refine the boundaries of the current 6 weight categories and associated wake separation 

minima into a static wake-based set of categories and separation minima for National Airspace 

System (NAS) wide fleet mix and define automation requirements to support those modifications 

• By 2011, in support of variable wake separations, determine optimal set of aircraft flight 

characteristics and weather parameters for use in setting wake separation minimums. 

• By 2013, develop additional static wake-based set of categories and separation minima to optimize 

capacity for a set of airport-specific fleet mixes and define the automation requirements to support 

those modifications. 

• By 2016, develop the algorithms that will be used in the ANSP (and potentially on flight deck 

automation systems) for setting dynamic wake separation minimum for each pair of aircraft. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The Wake Re-categorization project addresses the needs of the 

FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) and works with the FAA Aviation Safety organization to ensure new 

procedures and solutions are safe for implementation both by the ANSP and for the flight deck. The project 

consults with aircraft manufacturers, controllers, airlines, airport operators and pilots to include their 

recommendations; ensure an open safety assessment process and a shared understanding of the results of 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-209 

the safety assessments. The project’s emphasis is insuring user’s training and implementation issues are 

addressed in the project’s research from the start. 

Customers: 

• Pilots 

• Air navigation service provider personnel 

• Air carrier operations 

• Airport operations 

• Aircraft manufacturers 

Stakeholders: 

• Joint Planning and Development Office 

• Commercial pilot unions 

• FAA air navigation service provider unions 

• Other ICAO air navigation service providers 

• Aircraft manufacturer associations 

• General aviation associations 

R&D Partnerships: In addition to maintaining its partnership with FAA’s Aviation Safety organization, this 

project will accomplish its research agenda 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: 

• Volpe National Transportation Center 

• MITRE/Center for Advanced Aviation and Systems Development (CAASD) 

• NASA Ames and Langley Research Centers 

• EUROCONTROL and associated research organizations 

• National Institute of Aerospace 

Accomplishments: The following represent major accomplishments of the Wake Re-categorization 

project: 

• FY2008 - Series of work sessions with several candidate sets of standards developed for 

evaluation 

• FY2008 - Existing data sets and models examined for utility to this project 

• FY2007 – Second international meeting - Developed strategy for accomplishing the recategorization work 

• FY2006 – First international meeting – reviewed history of wake separation standards setting and 

various potential approaches to accomplishing re-categorization. 

• FY 2006 – Completion of a two year effort to determine required wake separation minimums for 

the A-380 and similar sized aircraft. 

• FY 2004-2006 – Utilized wake turbulence data collected from ground based and aircraft based 

prototype pulsed LIDAR systems, along with wake turbulence transit and demise models for 

characterizing the wake generated by the A-380 aircraft in relation to the wake generated by the 

747-400 aircraft. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Enhanced analysis tools (to include effects of wake encounter) for evaluating alternative methods 

of defining safe wake separations between various types of aircraft. 

• Conducted analyses and aviation community forums to vet potential methods for determining safe 

wake separations between various types of aircraft 

• Developed an approach for evaluating the safety risks associated with the potential methods for 

determining safe wake separations between various groups of aircraft (i.e. Jumbo, Heavy, Large, 

Small, Very Small) 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-210 

• Developed human-in-the-loop ANSP and Flight Deck simulations to evaluate usability of a proposed 

set of wake separation standards 

• Developed potential methods for defining the minimum safe wake separations between aircraft, 

beginning with the more general groupings of aircraft types and progressing (subsequent years) 

with defining how minimum separations could be set for individual pairing of aircraft. 

• Conducted analyses to link wake transport and decay characteristics to aircraft flight and 

surrounding weather parameters. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

In FY10, FAA must continue developing the capabilities needed to enable separation requirements 

supportive of NextGen shared separation and dynamic spacing super density operations. Wake Re-cat 

addresses the existing wake separation standards and seeks to determine if these static standards can be 

safely modified to allow more aircraft in the same volume of airspace. It is one component in the overall 

effort to apply technology toward achieving the envisioned NextGen number of aircraft operations in the 

NAS. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Apply enhanced analysis tools (to include effects of wake encounter) for evaluating alternative 

methods of defining safe wake separations between various types of aircraft. 

• Continue to conduct analyses and aviation community forums to vet potential methods for 

determining safe wake separations between various types of aircraft – which may vary for specific 

airport operational environments 

• Evaluate the safety risks associated with the potential methods for determining safe wake 

separations between various groups of aircraft (i.e. Jumbo, Heavy, Large, Small, Very Small) 

• Conduct human-in-the-loop ANSP and Flight Deck simulations to evaluate usability of a proposed 

set of wake separation standards 

• From the examined alternatives for defining safe wake separations between aircraft, develop a 

recommendation for a change to wake separation standards. This proposed change (proposed by 

both FAA and EUROCONTROL) will be sent to ICAO for international review. 

• Using results from collected data, continue to upgrade analytical models - linking wake transport 

and decay to aircraft flight and surrounding weather parameters. 

• Initiate development of variable wake separation standards that account for airport fleet mix, 

trajectories of aircraft being separated and weather conditions along route of flight 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-211 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 0 

FY 2009 Appropriated 2,000 

FY 2010 Request 2,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 12,000 

Total 16,000 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Wake Turbulence 0 0 0 2,000 2,000

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 2,000 2,000

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and 

Development ($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 2,000 2,000

Total 0 0 0 2,000 2,000
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-212 

1A08E - NextGen - Wake Turbulence 

– Re-categorization Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization 2,000 Develop and apply enhanced analysis tools (to 

include effects of wake encounter) for evaluating 

alternative methods of defining safe wake 

separations between various types of aircraft. 

♦ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct analyses and aviation community 

forums to vet potential methods for determining 

safe wake separations between various types of 

aircraft 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Evaluate safety risks associated with potential 

methods for applying wake separations between 

various groups of aircraft (i.e. Jumbo, Heavy, 

Large, Small, Very Small) 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop and conduct human-in-the-loop (ANSP 

& Flight Deck) simulations for usability 

evaluations of potential alternative methods of 

defining safe wake separation between various 

categories of aircraft. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop FAA/EUROCONTROL coordinated 

recommendation to ICAO for a change in wake 

separation standards 

♦ ◊ ◊ 

Using results from collected data, continue to 

upgrade analytical models linking wake transport 

and decay to aircraft flight and surrounding 

weather parameters 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop variable wake separation standards ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 

Total Budget Authority 2,000 2,000 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM.
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-213 

 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A08F NextGen – Operational Assessments $7,500,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goal: Greater Capacity 

Intended Outcomes: The NextGen Operational Assessments Program addresses the FAA’s goal for 

greater capacity. The program includes research and development of system wide assessment of NAS 

performance, safety and environmental impacts. The transition to NextGen requires the conduct of 

operational assessments to ensure that safety, environmental, and system performance considerations are 

addressed throughout the integration and implementation of NextGen. Such assessments are particularly 

important as the NextGen program begins to evaluate current airspace design and as new procedures are 

developed and implemented within the NAS. In FY 2010, funding is requested to conduct system wide 

operation performance, system wide safety assessments, environmental-specific assessment, and system 

risk management activities. 

Agency Outputs: The program will support several of the NextGen solution sets through operational 

assessment of new capabilities and its impact on NAS-wide performance, safety and environment. These 

solution sets include the following: Trajectory Based Operations; High Density Arrivals/Departures and 

Airports; Flexible Terminal and Airports and Collaborative Air Traffic Management. Where appropriate, 

research and development and assessment activities will be coordinated with JPDO to complement JPDO 

NextGen working groups’ activities on far term capabilities. 

Research Goals: 

• By 2011, develop initial NAS wide model(s) to support operational assessments of the Airport and 

Terminal Domains. 

• By 2011, conduct limited safety assessment of NextGen capabilities 

• By 2011, conduct limited environmental assessment of NextGen capabilities 

• By 2012, enhance NAS wide model(s) to support operational assessments of the en route domains 

• By 2012, continue to conduct safety assessment of NextGen capabilities 

• By 2012, continue to conduct environmental assessment of NextGen capabilities 

• By 2013, enhance NAS wide model(s) to support operational assessments of strategic flow 

management operations 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The program addresses the needs of the FAA Air Traffic 

Organization (ATO) and works with the FAA Aviation Safety and Aviation Environment organizations to 

perform comprehensive NAS wide operational assessments of NextGen capabilities. The program works with 

controllers, airlines and pilots to include user recommendations and ensure that implementation issues are 

addressed early on. 

Customers: 

• Air Navigation Service Provide personnel 

• Air carrier operations 

• Airport operations 

• Pilots 

Stakeholders: 

• Joint Planning and Development Office 

• FAA Air Traffic Operation service units, Aviation Safety and Aviation Environmental offices 

R&D Partnerships: This program will partner with the FAA Aviation Safety and Aviation Environmental 

organizations, industry, academia and other government agencies. The coordination and tasking are 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-214 

accomplished through joint planning/reviews, contracts and interagency agreements with the program’s 

potential partners: 

• MITRE/Center for Advanced Aviation and Systems Development (CAASD) 

• NASA Ames, Glenn and Langley Research Centers 

• EUROCONTROL and associated research organizations 

• Volpe National Transportation Center 

Accomplishments: This is a new program in FY 2010. 

KEY FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

This is a new program in FY 2010. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

In FY2010, FAA must begin developing/enhancing the modeling capabilities to support the NextGen solution 

sets. These modeling capabilities will support the agency in assessment capabilities feasibilities, safety and 

environmental impacts. The output from NAS wide operational assessments will support service units and 

programs in developing system and interface requirements, procedural and training requirements, cost and 

benefits assessments and documentations. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Complete inventor and catalog of NAS wide operational models, safety models and environmental 

models 

• Complete gap analysis of models 

• Developed requirements for models enhancements 

• Conduct limited NAS wide operational assessment of NextGen capabilities 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-215 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 0 

FY 2009 Appropriation 0 

FY 2010 Request 7,500 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 40,000 

Total 47,500 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts 0 0 0 0 0

Operation Assessments 7,500

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 0 7,500

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 0 7,500

Total 0 0 0 0 7,500
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-216 

1A09X – NextGen – Operational 

Assessments Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Gap Analyses 1,500 Assess and inventory of existing NAS wide 

operational models. Safety and environmental 

models

◊ ◊ ◊

Develop requirements for model enhancements ◊ ◊ 

Model Developments 3,500 Develop enhancements to NAS wide operational 

models, safety and environmental models ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Modeling and Simulations 2,500 Model NextGen capabilities for the Airports and 

Terminal domains ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Model NextGen capabilities for the en route domain ◊ ◊ ◊

Conduct limited NAS wide safety assessment of 

NextGen capabilities ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Conduct limited NAS wide environmental assessment 

of NextGen capabilities ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Conduct limited NAS wide operational assessment of 

NextGen capabilities ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Budget Authority 7,500 0 7,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-217 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation $16,300,000 

GOALS: 

The program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety and International Leadership. 

Intended Outcomes: This program enables NextGen by reducing the fatalities rate commensurate with 

the increases in capacity. By 2015, this program element will provide system knowledge to enable early 

identification of event precursors allowing intervention strategies to avoid accidents and incidents and to 

understand economic (including implementation) and operational impact (with respect to safety) of NextGen 

system alternatives. This will be done by encouraging and participating in global safety practices to ensure 

the safety of the traveling public and cargo. A cutting-edge operational data analysis capability will be 

developed that identifies safety issues. This research will promote expansion of the U.S. capability to meet 

national and international safety goals and objectives with less oversight of individual carriers. Understand 

which alternatives are most likely to decrease accidents rates as air traffic increases 3 times the current 

levels. 

Agency Outputs: The program will develop an infrastructure that enables the free sharing of deidentified, safety information that is derived from various government and industry sources in a protected, 

aggregated manner. This will be accomplished through the following transformation directions: 

• Develop a comprehensive, cooperative approach to safety across the system-of-systems at the 

national level. 

• Develop a comprehensive set of safety management principles and practices to establish a 

common framework for the aviation community: 

• Ensure an evolution of present certification, testing, and inspection of individual system elements 

to comprehensive approvals of operators’ and manufacturers’ safety management programs: 

• Promote safety through training, sharing of safety data, and dissemination of lessons learned 

• Establish a non-punitive reporting system, relieving concerns about corrective action processes. 

Research Goals: The approach includes developing the information analysis and sharing capabilities to 

support the FAA and NextGen safety initiatives; generating guidelines and shared capabilities to help 

stakeholders successfully implement their own safety management systems; and modeling activities to help 

measure progress toward achieving FAA goals. 

• 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. 

• 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) pre-implementation 

activities, including concept definition, with other JPDO member agencies, participants, and 

stakeholders. 

• 2014: Demonstrate a National Level System Safety Assessment capability that will proactively 

identify emerging risk across the NextGen. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: Stakeholders are integral participants in the research effort by 

providing subject matter experts in the areas of safety, operations, design, production, and maintenance. 

In addition, stakeholders will share their data, processes, resources and tools with other participating 

stakeholders. 

Stakeholders include, but are not limited to the following: 

• Other government organizations, within and outside the JPDO 

• Aerospace manufacturers 

• Aerospace repair stations and maintenance organizations 

• Air traffic service providers (civilian and military) 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-218 

• Local and state governments (port authorities, funding offices) 

• Aerospace industry associations 

• Private, commercial, government, and military operators 

• International airworthiness authorities 

• Providers of other aviation products (e.g., ARINC, contract towers, weather service providers, 

Jeppesen) 

R&D Partnerships: R&D Partnerships have not been established yet but may include academia, 

government and foreign research and government organizations. 

Accomplishments: 

The following are planning activities, completed by the JPDO, that have provided support to this effort: 

• 2004 Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan 

• 2006 Progress Report to the Next Generation Air Traffic System Integrated Plan 

• 2007 Safety Management System National Standard 

• 2007 Initial Safety Culture Improvement Plan 

• 2007 Safety IPT Program Plan that integrates planning and research activities 

• 2007 Proposed ASIAS (Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing) Environment Concept of 

Operations 

• 2007 ASIAS Related Implementation Guidance Material 

Although this budget request is a new start in FY 2009, this research will be leveraging the ongoing program 

System Safety Management/Aviation Safety Risk Analysis (A11.h). The scope of the ASIAS initiative being 

developed within that Program using RE&D funds is for near-term research initiatives. The long-term goal 

of the ASIAS effort is to reduce the number of aviation accidents and incidents through systemic sharing of 

sharing and proactive analysis of safety information. This will be done by developing a secure, 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. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Safety Management Systems 

• Began developing selected prototype solutions based on National SMS requirements for 

management of safety risk of hazards that cross multiple agencies and users of the air 

transportation system. 

• Assess integration of industry SMS with FAA’s internal SMS and oversight responsibilities. 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) 

• Completed evaluation of current protection and assurance models and potential conflicts with 

privacy and consumer advocacy groups. 

• Completed enhanced ASIAS Concept of Operations (ConOps) document to include NextGen 

member agency aviation safety information needs, expanding upon the existing ASIAS ConOps. 

• Completed the baseline for the enhanced ASIAS, include information on infrastructure, 

data/information protection policies, information access policies, procedures, equipment, tools, 

processes, data architectures, resources and budgets, building upon existing ASIAS baseline. 

• Completed an analysis to identify any gaps between the existing ASIAS baseline and the enhanced 

ASIAS ConOps. 

• Completed interim implementation plan using expanded ASIAS ConOps and the results of the gap 

analysis. The interim plan will be used by JPDO member agencies to communicate required ASIAS 

implementation activities. 

• Developed an ASIAS data management plan that addresses data set integration, data 

standardization, taxonomy issues, data quality issues; including data quality assessments and 

mitigation analyses. 

• Used existing ASIAS ConOps and baseline and gap analysis products expand existing ASIAS 

architecture (AA) to meet Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) requirements. Develop and 

expand AA Framework and Standards documentation. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-219 

• Conducted ASIAS policy research to support the development of ConOps for all future 

enhancements of ASIAS. 

Safety Risk Management 

• Began evaluating NextGen processes, components, and their relationships and rules to identify 

characteristics of the air transportation system which should be assessed for risk (complexity, 

dynamic, etc) 

System Safety Assessment 

• Developed prognostic safety assessment methods for systems and operations 

• Began baseline risk assessment for system-wide risks associated with current operations in (1) 

terminal area airspace, (2) transition airspace, or (3) en route airspace 

• Conducted initial safety assessments of proposed concepts, algorithms, and technologies to 

indicate the relative safety impacts with respect to the baseline system 

• Began developing a proof of concept of an assessment process, including data collection, risk 

baseline calculation, system impact assessment, development of a risk analysis function and 

application to a limited set of new NextGen technologies and procedures 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The FY 2010 research will continue development of methodologies that enable safety assessments of 

proposed NextGen concepts, algorithms, and technologies and provide system knowledge to understand 

economic (including implementation) and operational impact (with respect to safety) of NextGen system 

alternatives. Work will begin on the development of a National Level System Safety Assessment working 

prototype that will proactively identify emerging risk across the proposed NextGen system. Research will 

continue on developing ASIAS capabilities to include enhancements that build upon and extend existing 

capabilities for managing and processing aviation performance data, advancing tools that convert both 

textural and numeric data into information, and creating visualization capabilities that aid casual and 

contributing factor analyses and risk assessment. NextGen member agency and additional stakeholder 

aviation safety information needs will be included. Research supports operational implementation by 2025. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Safety Management Systems 

• Develop an action plan and data requirements that support a national level demonstration of SMS. 

• Develop an action plan and system requirements that support the OEM evaluation criteria related 

to design activities within Safety Assurance and SMS. 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) 

• Begin implementing enhanced ASIAS, including the selected support architecture and requirements 

for information security, near real-time operations, and new and expanded participants. 

• Begin making analytical text mining tools available for stakeholder use at the local level. 

• Execute recommendations from the FY09 data quality assessment and mitigation analysis across all 

primary data sources of ASIAS. 

• Further expand scope of ASAIS to include additional NextGen stakeholders and begin development 

of ConOps, baseline, gap analysis, and implementation plan for expanded version. 

• Begin integration of initial limited set of data from JPDO participating agencies into ASIAS, using 

suitable data protection policies and procedures. 

System Risk Assessment 

• Complete identification of characteristics of the NAS which should be assessed for risk. 

• Continue determining requirements for NextGen prognostic risk assessment and risk management 

tools. 

• Promote guidance on taxonomy, analytical methods and integrated evaluation applications that 

ensure that consistent risk assessment processes are employed throughout AVS. 

System Safety Assessment 

• Extend baseline risk assessment process to incorporate human performance and infrastructure 

assessment modules, including airport surface and terminal area airspace specific data. 

• Extend safety performance assessments for mid-term concepts (2018) NextGen implementation 

program in addition to long-term NextGen plan. 

• Extend application of concept demonstration of the integrated assessment process to include 

demonstration program data collection, risk baseline comparison using demonstration results, 

translation to national system impact assessment for mid-term concept NextGen enhancements. 

• Conduct a validation test on human performance and safety operating characteristic measures as 

evaluation tools and real-time trend indicators. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-220 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 0 

FY 2009 Request 16,300 

FY 2010 Request 16,300 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 72,000 

Total 104,600 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts 

System Safety Management 

Transformation 0 0 0 16,300 16,300

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 16,300 16,300

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 0 16,300 16,300

Total 0 0 0 16,300 16,300
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-221 

1A08G - NextGen - System Safety 

Management Transformation 

Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

System Safety Management Transformation Safety Management Systems 2,000

Develop selected prototype solutions based on 

National SMS requirement ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Assess integration of industry SMS with FAA’s 

internal SMS and oversight responsibilities ♦ ◊ 

ASIAS 7,000 

Develop ASIAS ConOps, with expanded scope ♦ 

Baseline expanded scope of ASIAS ♦

Conduct gap analysis ♦

Develop ASIAS Implementation Plan ♦

Conduct ASIAS policy research ♦ ◊ 

Develop ASIAS Enterprise Architecture ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop and validate ASIAS training curriculum ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Further expand scope of ASAIS and develop 

ConOps, baseline, gap analysis, and 

implementation plans 

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

System Risk Management 2,000 Identify characteristics of the NAS which should 

be assessed for risk ♦ ◊ 

Determine requirements for NextGen prognostic 

risk assessment and risk management tools ♦ ◊ ◊ 

System Safety Assessments 7,000 Develop prognostic safety assessment methods 

for systems and operations ♦ ◊ 

Baseline risk assessment for system-wide risks 

for current operations ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct initial safety assessments of proposed 

concepts, algorithms, and technologies ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Proof of concept demonstration of an 

assessment process on new NextGen 

technologies and procedures 

♦ ◊ ◊ 

Develop predictive, conceptual-level, safety 

assessment method for complex systems ◊ ◊ 

Estimate the change in safety risk resulting for 

changes in ATO NGIP domain 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Operational Safety Assessments 1,000 Complete an OSED of NextGen ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

 

 

Total Budget Authority: 16,300 16,300 16,300 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-222 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

F&E 4A09A Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development 

(CAASD) 

$23,266,000 

GOALS: 

The program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, International 

Leadership, and Organizational Excellence. 

Intended Outcomes: The FAA applies knowledge and expertise developed at the Center for Advanced 

Aviation System Development (CAASD) to produce a safer, more efficient global air transportation system. 

Studies performed at CAASD comprise an essential component of FAA research, systems engineering, and 

technical analyses. CAASD, a Federally Funded research and development Center (FFRDC), is operated 

under a Sponsoring Agreement with the MITRE Corporation. 

Agency Outputs: CAASD research and development identifies and tests new concepts and technologies 

for the National Airspace System (NAS) in the areas of aviation safety, performance-based navigation, 

airspace design, and traffic flow management that impact worldwide standards and applications. CAASD 

produces detailed reports and briefings on subjects across the entire spectrum of their work program. 

CAASD also develops sophisticated models and prototypes to test concepts and/or systems proposed for use 

in the management and control of air traffic. Presently, some of these new products are helping to shape a 

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) that will be safer, more efficient, and more readily 

available. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: The FAA responds to a constant challenge to increase safety in 

the nation’s civil aviation system while increasing capacity and efficiency. CAASD is playing an instrumental 

role in the achievement of the NextGen goals and objectives, providing key operational and technological 

inputs based on its many years of research and analysis in areas such as Air Traffic Management (ATM), 

communications, navigation, and surveillance operations/capabilities. CAASD contributes directly to the 

goals and activities of the RTCA Air Traffic Advisory Committee, which is the principal forum to bring 

industry, aircraft operators, and FAA representatives together to define the operational needs and to identify 

an affordable NAS Architecture capable of satisfying those needs. Additionally, CAASD efforts contribute to 

the FAA’s global aviation goals and the goals of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) through 

international aviation standards development activities. 

Accomplishments: CAASD has supported the following accomplishments: 

• Developed detailed cross-domain operational and technical evolution plans for transitioning to 

proposed Performance-Based Air Traffic Management concepts for the mid-term. Assess and 

coordinate user benefits (e.g. capacity) that may be realized from the concepts. Initiate 

development of terminal concept extensions to the current scope of the overall Performance-Based 

Air Traffic Management concept that could further enable transition to NextGen. 

• Developed and evaluated an evolving set of simulation capabilities and curriculum changes that can 

be integrated by the FAA into the overall controller training process to improve the overall 

controller training process to improve the quality and consistency of training, reduce the training 

time and costs to certify a controller, and facilitate a more effective operational transition of the 

implementation of the NextGen solutions. Based on the success of these capabilities at ZID, the 

FAA has recommended the inclusion of speech recognition and voice synthesis capabilities in the 

training system requirements for the ERAM Program. 

• Conducted experiments in collaboration with other research and stakeholder organizations to 

improve the FAA’s understanding of key benefits enablers for the future TFM and NextGen 

operations. 

• Identified gaps in the TFM future vision, particularly how it leads to the NextGen. Address gaps 

through concept development, refinement, and evaluation. 

• Completed a benefits and safety assessment for mid-term wake vortex procedures for departures 

under pre-defined wind conditions. This will help the FAA to move forward with the implementation 

decision based on the benefits associated with safely increasing departure capacity at relevant 

airports. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-223 

• Provided technical and systems engineering analysis of UAS operations concerning detect, sense 

and avoid concepts, air-ground communications requirements, and national and international 

standards for development and operation, resulting in integrated guidance to commercial and 

government operators of UASs. 

• Conducted several HITLS and analyses to further refine the next stage of Merging and Spacing 

(M&S)/Continuous Descent Arrival (CDA) concepts, algorithms, and simulations to allow the 

applications’ benefits to be expanded, thus providing additional benefits to the airline as well as the 

FAA. 

• Performed HITLS and analyses in support of the Enhanced Airport Surface Alerting application. 

This application is being researched as a future cockpit-based application that will reduce runway 

incursions and thus enhance safety on the airport surface. 

R&D Partnerships: Extensive partnerships have been forged with industry suppliers, aircraft operators, 

other government entities and other non-profit research institutions through the CAASD work program. 

These relationships include: 

• Air Force Research Laboratory (UAS collision avoidance technology); 

• Cargo Airlines Association, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (research on ADS-B and its use for 

situational awareness [traffic and weather information in the cockpit] and self-spacing); 

• Commercial industry (collaboration in support of development of a UAT Beacon Radio for UAS); 

• Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Lockheed-Martin, NASA Ames & Langley, FAA Technical 

Center, UPS, Boeing, Federal Express, Crown Consulting, and Raytheon (development of the 

AviationSimNet standard for distributed Air Traffic Management simulation); 

• EUROCONTROL (future ATM research information exchange and flight object interoperability 

proposed standard); 

• George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science (economic analyses); 

• Joint University Program (research on National Airspace System capacity and NextGen concepts); 

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division (developing tools & 

techniques for enterprise systems engineering); 

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology, International Center for Air Transportation (UAS and 

National Airspace System capacity research); 

• MIT Lincoln Laboratory (wake turbulence mitigation, safety analyses, UAS, and Traffic Flow 

Management under weather uncertainty); 

• NASA Ames (continuous descent arrivals and merging & spacing concepts); 

• NASA Langley (wake vortex and surface issues - capacity improvement); 

• The National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research (NEXTOR) (National Airspace 

System capacity analyses and operations research); 

• New Mexico State University Physical Sciences Laboratory (research on UAS operations in the 

NAS); 

• Santa Fe Institute (research on complexity and complex systems engineering); 

• United Parcel Service (research on techniques for merging and spacing); 

• University of North Dakota (research on ground radar surveillance of UAS); 

• University of Virginia (Software Assurance) 

• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (system capacity analysis & modeling); 

• The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (operational evaluation of Air Traffic 

Management research topics); 

• University of Alaska at Anchorage (ADS-B integration on UAS and operational applications); 

• North Carolina Department of Transportation Aviation Division (ADS-B technology demonstrations 

and operational applications); and 

• Aurora Flight Sciences (ADS-B integration on UAS and operational applications). 

In addition, CAASD has collaborative relationships with a number of the other R&D Programs described in 

this Plan. These relationships include Airspace Redesign, Aviation Safety Risk Analysis, Joint Planning and 

Development Office, NextGen-New ATM Requirement, Runway Incursion Reduction, Wake Turbulence, 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research, and the William J. Hughes FAA Technical Center. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-224 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Enhanced the en route Trainer prototype with additional student performance measures and ITS 

capabilities that include additional real-time performance feedback and skill development aids. 

These will be assessed at ZID during developmental training. Evaluation data supports 

enrouteTrainer prototype capability technology transfer and investment decision. 

• Developed additional capabilities (technology, tools, and strategies) that will help the controller 

perform tasks for the mid-term and post mid-term concept of operations. Conduct HITL evaluations 

with FAA operational personnel. Evaluations and analyses of future concepts and capabilities 

provide operational understanding for deciding the evolution of capabilities toward NextGen. 

• Developed a concept of operations for en route wake turbulence avoidance and assessed the 

potential impact of integrating wake turbulence separation standards in the automation for conflict 

probe, conflict alert, or as a distinct capability. 

• Conducted experiments in collaboration with other research and stakeholder organizations to 

improve the FAA’s understanding of key benefits enablers for the future TFM and NextGen 

operations. These experiments provided insight into the full benefits potential for future concepts 

and help identify concepts and capabilities holding the greatest promise for NAS stakeholders. 

• Identified technical, operational, and safety risks and mitigations associated with implementing 

wind-dependent wake departure procedures nationally. This work helps the FAA move forward with 

the implementation of new procedures that will safely increase departure capacity at relevant high 

density airports. 

• Provided enhanced en route data for the FAA to identify major issues and to facilitate investment 

and resource decisions. 

• Provided technical and systems engineering analysis of UAS operations concerning detect, sense 

and avoid concepts, air-ground communications requirements, and national and international 

standards for development and operation, resulting in integrated guidance to commercial and 

government operators of UASs. 

• Modeled and assessed the impact of procedures for new FY 2009 traffic management capabilities, 

airspace changes, and emerging operational issues that require procedure enhancements to 

provide better efficiency. 

• Refined and validated other advanced, high-benefit NextGen cockpit-based ADS-B applications that 

will provide the greatest benefits to the FAA and user community. Applications included call sign, 

oceanic – in-trail, and extensions of CDTI Assisted Visual Separation in other conditions. 

• Researched and explored sector and airspace management concepts (e.g. dynamic sectorization) in 

the mid-term for operational efficiency, productivity, and workload balancing to enable national 

decisions on airspace policy and facility structure

• Performed analyses that characterize the performance of critical capabilities in various operational 

conditions for the en route mid-term concept. Detailed algorithmic analyses determine the 

sensitivity of key performance metrics to algorithm parameters (e.g., problem resolution). 

Evaluations and analyses of future concepts and capabilities provide operational understanding for 

deciding the evolution path of NextGen capabilities. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

CAASD provides independent advanced research and development required by the FAA to obtain technical 

analyses, prototypes and operational concepts needed to fulfill the vision for the FAA’s Flight Plan, the 

NextGen Integrated Plan, and the NAS enterprise architecture. CAASD has unique knowledge, skills, and 

capabilities in aviation research, systems engineering and analysis. Its expertise is critical to the FAA in 

transforming the nation’s air transportation system in an effective and timely manner. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Expand the scope of terminal training ITS evaluation activity to include field evaluation activities at 

a second site in order to validate adaptability and demonstrate shorter training cycle times as a 

cost savings to the FAA. Conduct a high level needs assessment for the FAA’s TRACON facilities to 

help prioritize where to deploy terminal training ITS systems. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-225 

• Develop and refine the terminal automation roadmap that aligns with the emerging NextGen 

Implementation Plans and concepts. The roadmap will need to accommodate advancements in 

RNAV/RNP concepts, Big Airspace, Virtual Tower, TFM advanced concepts, high density airport 

operations, and increasingly complex wake vortex separation algorithms. 

• Demonstrate the benefits of advanced intelligent training systems (ITS) and curriculum changes at 

different phases of en route training. Continue transfer of validated ITS capabilities as available. 

Technology transfer products will reduce acquisition risk and support improved, more efficient en 

route controller training. 

• Model and assess the impact of procedures for new FY 2010 traffic management capabilities, 

airspace changes, and emerging operational issues that require procedure enhancements to 

provide better efficiency. 

• Provide technical and system engineering analysis of UAS operations concerning detect, sense and 

avoid concepts, air-ground communications, requirements, and national and international 

standards for development and operation, resulting in integrated guidance to commercial and U.S. 

government operators of UASs. 

• Provide technical and system engineering analysis for an infrastructure and capabilities that enable 

the sharing of de-identified, aggregate safety information, supporting expanded and more effective 

safety analysis of U.S. aviation called for by the CAST. Establish an architecture that supports 

scores of simultaneous data queries from approved industry studies as well as automated risk 

detection applications. The initiative, called ASIAS, will result in early detection of emerging safety 

trends and permit early intervention by FAA and industry.

• Provide detailed concept and capability assessment as input to the FAA’s down selection process 

for the third iteration (i.e. WP3) of TFM system enhancements. Quantify FAA efficiency and 

productivity benefits resulting from the down-selected list of TFM operational enhancements. This 

will allow the FAA to better justify planned TFM F&E expenditures and provide additional context 

for the investment decision expected in FY 2010. 

• Provide initial data from the terminal analysis core capability to identify major issues and to 

facilitate investment and resource decisions. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-226 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 236,732 

FY 2009 Appropriated 22,932 

FY 2010 Request 23,266 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 96,167 

Total 379,097 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Center for Advanced Aviation Systems 

Development (CAASD) 37,895 30,100 24,640 22,932 23,266

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 37,895 30,100 24,640 22,932 23,266

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 37,895 30,100 24,640 22,932 23,266

Total 37,895 30,100 24,640 22,932 23,266
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-227 

4A09A - Center for Advanced 

Aviation System Development 

Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Research, Engineering and 

Development 23,266

 

Evolve/perform next phases of merging and 

spacing, cockpit display of traffic information 

assisted visual separation, and continuous descent 

arrivals simulations. 

♦ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct analyses of key requirements issues (e.g. 

system safety) and plan for NAS evolution to inform 

NextGen decisions related to productivity 

improvements, including defining functional and 

system requirements and NAS architecture changes 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop and validate controller performance 

measures, real time performance feedback and skill 

development aids related to the evaluation of 

controller training technologies. 

♦ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct HITLS and analyses examining the 

potential benefits to and operational changes for 

ATC as the result of the eventual deployment of 

ADS-B on the ground and in the cockpit in the 

near-, mid-, and far-term 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Advance the maturity of TFM concepts to account 

for uncertainty in predictions and decision making 

by developing algorithms and prototype capabilities 

and conducting (HITL) evaluations 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Provide assessments of TFM concept maturity, 

operational feasibility and implementation risks, 

including identification of cross-domain 

dependencies 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop an aviation environmental portfolio tool 

that allows the FAA to evaluate the impact of 

environmental policies on aviation demand and on 

the national economy 

 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Develop information derived from enhanced data to 

address key FAA issues and inform decisions. ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Enhance and extend terminal performance data 

used in FAA operational and investment decision 

making. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Air Traffic Operational Research and 

Special Situation Support 

Provide technical and operational expertise to 

enhance the quality and efficiency TRACON 

controller training through the use of advanced 

training technologies 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Provide technical and operational insight into 

systems that can be used to safely permit increase 

productivity and capacity in the terminal area. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Determine the potential safety risks, operational 

concepts, and standards associated with increased 

unmanned aircraft system access to the NAS 

♦ ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Provide technical and system engineering analysis, 

evolution planning, data and analytical model 

integration, requirement analysis, and validation 

experimentation for ASIAS. 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Total Budget Authority 23,226 22,932 23,226 23,226 23,755 24,314 24,872

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 

IN THE F&E APPROPRIATIONS, PERSONNEL AND OTHER COSTS ARE BUDGETED IN ACTIVITY 5, NOT THE PROGRAM BUDGET LINE ITEM. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-228 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

AIP N/A Airport Cooperative Research – Capacity $5,000,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, and 

International Leadership. 

Intended Outcomes: The objective of the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) is to carry out 

applied research on problems that are shared by airport operators and are too difficult for individual airports 

to solve on their own. Additionally, ACRP studies issues that are not being adequately addressed by existing 

Federal research programs. ACRP undertakes research in a variety of airport subject areas, including 

design, construction, environment, maintenance, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, 

administration, and operations. 

Congress established ACRP through the Vision 100–Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act of 2003 (Vision 

100). As called for in Vision 100, a Memorandum of Agreement was developed to provide organizational 

guidance for the three main entities that fund, administer, and oversee ACRP. The FAA funds the program. 

The National Academies, acting through its Transportation Research Board (TRB), administers the program. 

The ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), an independent governing board comprised of airport managers and 

other aviation officials appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, selects all of the program’s 

research projects. 

Agency Outputs: The ACRP-Capacity 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 near-term and current airport capacity issues. 

Research Goals: TRB annually solicits the aviation community for input on future research topics and 

industry concerns. New research priorities are therefore generated on a yearly basis under the direction of 

the AOC. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport 

professionals, air carriers, shippers, State and local government officials, equipment and service suppliers, 

airport users, educational institutions, other research organizations, and the general flying public. These 

stakeholders generate project ideas, guide projects while they are under way, and serve as the ultimate 

end-users of the final research products. 

Representatives from these organizations also serve on the AOC where they help select ACRP research 

projects. Federal representation on the AOC is comprised of the FAA, along with NASA and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The aviation industry is further represented on the AOC through 

the participation of the following groups: the Airports Council International (ACI), the American Association 

of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), and the Air 

Transport Association (ATA). 

R&D Partnerships: ACRP is a cooperative partnership with airports and federal agencies to conduct 

airport research. The research will be conducted by universities, airports, and companies within the aviation 

industry. 

Accomplishments: Program outputs during the first two years have been focused on low-cost, rapidresponse projects on urgent airport problems: 

FY 2007: 

• Produced a report that explores alternative financing options and revenue sources currently 

available or that could be available in the future to airport operators, stakeholders, and 

policymakers. The report examines capital funding and revenue sources, as well as various finance 

mechanisms for airports. (ACRP Synthesis 1) 

• Produced a report that examines the state of airport forecasting methods. Areas of discussion 

include: common aviation metrics, aviation data sources, issues in data collection and preparation, 

and special data issues at non-towered airports. In addition the report reviews forecast 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-229 

uncertainty, accuracy, issues of optimism bias, and options for resolving differences when multiple 

forecast are available. (ACRP Synthesis 2) 

• Produced a report that explores the different methods used by states, airports, and metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs) for counting and estimating aircraft operations at non-towered 

airports. The report also examines the new technologies that enable those counts and estimates. 

(ACRP Synthesis 4) 

FY 2008: 

• Produced a report containing new and updated documentation of the characteristics of ground 

access markets to airports. This will provide airport managers with user-friendly, concise, and 

accurate documentation concerning changing trends in the area of airport ground access. (ACRP 

Report 2, formerly 11-02/T2) 

• Airport Ground Access Mode Choice Models. (ACRP Synthesis 5, formerly 11-03 / S03-02) 

• Airport Economic Impact Methods and Models. (ACRP Synthesis 7, formerly 11-03 / S03-03) 

• Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports. (ACRP Synthesis 8, formerly 11-03 / S10-02) 

• Effective Rubber Removal Techniques to Minimize Damage on Grooved Runways. (ACRP Synthesis 

11, formerly 11-03 / S09-01) 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

• Guidebook for Airport Capital Project Delivery Systems Publication of Project. (ACRP 01-05) 

• U.S. Airport Passenger-Related Processing Rates. (ACRP 03-02) 

• Guidelines for the Collection and Use of Geospatially Referenced Data for Airfield Pavement 

Management. (ACRP 09-01) 

• Evaluating Airport Parking Strategies and Supporting Technologies. (ACRP 10-03) 

Human-Centered Design 

• Guidebook for Developing and Managing Airport Contracts. (ACRP 01-02) 

• Recommended Practices to Collect and Integrate Airport Operational and Financial Data. (ACRP 

01-03) 

• Guidebook for Airport-User Survey Methodology. (ACRP 03-04) 

• Spreadsheet Models for Airport Terminal Planning and Design. (ACRP 07-04) 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Vision 100 authorized $10 million per year for ACRP. The FAA has requested $15 million for ACRP in FY 

2010 as part of the Airport Improvement Program. Of the total amount, $5 million will be provided for each 

of the 3 ACRP program areas of Safety, Capacity, and Environment. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

• Passenger Space Allocation Guidelines for Planning and Design of Airport Terminals Project Data. 

(ACRP 03-05) 

• Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. (ACRP 

03-06) 

• Guidebook for Measuring Performance of Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. (ACRP 03-

07) 

• Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-Regions. (ACRP 03-

10) 

• Guidebook for Preparing Peak-Period and Operational Profiles to Improve Airport Facility Planning 

and Environmental Analyses. (ACRP 03-12) 

• Airport Passenger Conveyance System Usage/Throughput. (ACRP 03-14) 

• Effects of Constrained Public and Employee Parking on Airport Access. (ACRP 10-06) 

• Airport System Planning Practices. (ACRP 11-03 / S03-04) 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-230 

Human-Centered Design 

• Guidebook for Managing Small Airports. (ACRP 01-01) 

• Marketing Techniques for Small Airports. (ACRP 01-04) 

• Guidebook for Developing an Airport Performance-Measurement System. (ACRP 01-06) 

• Airport/Airline Agreements and Rate Methodologies—Practices and Characteristics. (ACRP 01-07) 

• Developing Best Management Practices-Airport Leasing Policy and Metrics for Evaluating Private 

Investments on Airports. (ACRP 01-08) 

• Passenger Air Service Development Techniques. (ACRP 03-08) 

• Guidebook for Strategic Planning in the Airport Industry. (ACRP 03-09) 

Situational Awareness 

• Understanding Airspace, Objects, and Their Effects on Airports. (ACRP 03-13) 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-231 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 14,950 

FY 2009 Appropriated 5,000 

FY 2010 Request 5,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 20,000 

Total 44,950 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Airport Cooperative Research - Capacity 4,950 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 4,950 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 4,950 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Total 4,950 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-232 

Airport Cooperative Research - 

Capacity Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Airport Cooperative Research Program 

Capacity-Related Research 5,000 

Conduct research on selected AOC proposals ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Airport Capital Project Delivery Systems ♦ 

Airport Passenger Processing Rates ♦ ◊ 

GIS Data for Airfield Pavement Management ♦ 

Airport Parking Strategies and Technologies ♦ Collection of Airport Operational and 

Financial Data ♦ 

Airport User Survey Methodology ♦ 

Aviation Capacity in Coastal Mega-Regions ♦ ◊ 

Automated People Mover Performance ♦ ◊ Automated People Mover Planning and 

Implementation ♦ ◊ 

Airport Peak-Period Operational Profiles ♦ ◊ Airport Management – Contracts /Software/ 

Revenue ♦ 

Small Airport Management BMPs ♦ ◊ 

Constrained Airport Public and Employee 

Parking ♦ ◊ 

Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility ♦ ◊ 

Airport System Planning Practices ♦ ◊ 

Developing Airport Strategic Plans ♦ ◊ 

Airport Terminal Design ♦ ◊ ◊ 

Small Airport Marketing Techniques ♦ ◊ 

Airport Performance Measurement Systems ♦ ◊ 

Airport Impacts of Very Light Jets ♦ ◊ Airspace Restrictions and Impact on Airport 

Performance ♦ ◊ 

Improving Airport Ground Access ♦ ◊ 

Aviation Forecasting Techniques ♦ 

 

Total Budget Authority 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-233 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

AIP N/A Airport Cooperative Research –Environment $5,000,000 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, and 

International Leadership. 

Intended Outcomes: The objective of the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) is to carry out 

applied research on problems that are shared by airport operators and are too difficult for individual airports 

to solve on their own. Additionally, ACRP studies issues that are not being adequately addressed by existing 

Federal research programs. ACRP undertakes research in a variety of airport subject areas, including 

design, construction, environment, maintenance, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, 

administration, and operations. 

Congress established ACRP through the Vision 100–Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act of 2003 (Vision 

100). As called for in Vision 100, a Memorandum of Agreement was developed to provide organizational 

guidance for the three main entities that fund, administer, and oversee ACRP. The FAA funds the program. 

The National Academies, acting through its Transportation Research Board (TRB), administers the program. 

The ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), an independent governing board comprised of airport managers and 

other aviation officials appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, selects all of the program’s 

research projects. 

Agency Outputs: The ACRP-Environment program conducts research to examine the impact an airport 

has on the surrounding environment and advances the science and technology for creating an 

environmentally friendly airport system. Areas of focus include the study of airport-related hazardous air 

pollutants, airport impact on climate change, alternative aviation fuels, and advanced noise and emissions 

models. 

Research Goals: TRB annually solicits the aviation community for input on future research topics and 

industry concerns. New research priorities are therefore generated on a yearly basis under the direction of 

the AOC. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport 

professionals, air carriers, shippers, State and local government officials, equipment and service suppliers, 

airport users, educational institutions, other research organizations, and the general flying public. These 

stakeholders generate project ideas, guide projects while they are under way, and serve as the ultimate 

end-users of the final research products. 

Representatives from these organizations also serve on the AOC where they help select ACRP research 

projects. Federal representation on the AOC is comprised of the FAA, along with NASA and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The aviation industry is further represented on the AOC through 

the participation of the following groups: the Airports Council International (ACI), the American Association 

of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), and the Air 

Transport Association (ATA). 

R&D Partnerships: ACRP is a cooperative partnership with airports and federal agencies to conduct 

airport research. The research will be conducted by universities, airports, and companies within the aviation 

industry. 

Accomplishments: Program outputs during the first two years have been focused on low-cost, rapidresponse projects on urgent airport problems: 

FY 2008: 

• Conducting an energy-use study of Terminals B and D at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. This effort will 

provide a model energy report and informational brochure for airport managers that focuses on 

pro-typical operations, building commissioning, and energy conservation retrofits opportunities. 

(ACRP Research Results Digest 2, formerly 11-02/T1) 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-234 

• Impacts of Airport Pavement Deicing Products (PDPs) on Aircraft and Airfield Infrastructure. (ACRP 

Synthesis 6, formerly 11-03 / S10-03) 

• Effects of Aircraft Noise: Update on Selected Topics. (ACRP Synthesis 9, formerly 11-03 / S02-01) 

• Airport Sustainability Practices. (ACRP Synthesis 10, formerly 11-03 / S02-02) 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Clean and Quiet – Baseline Measurement 

• Airport-Related Hazardous Air Pollutants Analysis. (ACRP 2-03) 

• Research Needs Associated with Particulate Emissions at Airports. (ACRP 2-04) 

Clean and Quiet – Threshold Levels 

• Summarizing and Interpreting Aircraft Gaseous and Particulate Emissions Data. (ACRP 02-04A) 

• Guidebook on Preparing Airport Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventories. (ACRP 02-06) 

Clean and Quiet – Reduction Techniques 

• Alternative Aircraft and Airfield Deicing and Anti-Icing Formulations with Reduced Aquatic Toxicity 

and Biological Oxygen Demand. (ACRP 02-01) 

• Managing Runoff from Aircraft and Airfield Deicing and Anti-Icing Operations. (ACRP 02-02) 

• Handbook for Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Alternative Turbine Engine Fuels at Airports. 

(ACRP 02-07) 

• Optimizing the Use of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing Fluids. (ACRP 10-01) 

Human-Centered Design 

• Guidebook for Airport Operators on Community Responses to Aircraft Noise. (ACRP 02-05) 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Vision 100 authorized $10 million per year for ACRP. The FAA has requested $15 million for ACRP in FY 

2010 as part of the Airport Improvement Program. Of the total amount, $5 million will be provided for each 

of the 3 ACRP program areas of Safety, Capacity, and Environment. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Clean and Quiet – Baseline Measurement 

• Dependence of Hazardous Air Pollutants Emissions from Idling Aircraft on Ambient Conditions. 

(ACRP 02-03A) 

• Estimate of National Use of Aircraft and Airfield Deicing Materials. (ACRP 11-02 / T10) 

Clean and Quiet – Threshold Levels 

• Guidance for Quantifying the Contribution of Airport Emissions to Local Air Quality. (ACRP 02-08) 

Clean and Quiet – Prediction 

• Developing a Comprehensive Work Plan for a Multimodal Noise and Emissions Model. (ACRP 02-

09) 

• Enhanced Modeling of Aircraft Taxiway Noise—Scoping. (ACRP 11-02 / T8) 

Clean and Quiet – Reduction Techniques 

• Handbook for Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Alternative Turbine Engine Fuels at Airports. 

(ACRP 02-07) 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-235 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

Budget Authority ($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Airport Cooperative Research - Environment 0 0 3,000 5,000 5,000

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 3,000 5,000 5,000

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

 FY 2007 

Enacted 

 FY 2008 

Enacted 

 FY 2009 

Enacted 

 FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 0 0 3,000 5,000 5,000

Total 0 0 3,000 5,000 5,000

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 3,000 

FY 2009 Appropriated 5,000 

FY 2010 Request 5,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 20,000 

Total 33,000 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-236 

Airport Cooperative Research - 

Environment 

Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Airport Cooperative Research Program 

Environment-Related Research 5,000 

Conduct research on selected AOC proposals ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Airport Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Inventories ♦ 

Managing Deicing Runoff ♦ Cost Benefit Analysis of Alternative Aviation 

Fuels ♦ ◊ Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from 

Idling Aircraft ♦ ◊ 

National Inventory of Deicing Use ♦ ◊ Airport Emissions Impact on Local Air 

Quality ♦ ◊ 

Multimodal Noise and Emissions Model ♦ ◊ 

Enhanced Aircraft Taxiway Noise Model ♦ ◊ 

Airport Hazardous Air Pollutants Analysis ♦ ◊ 

Optimize Alternative Deicing Fluids ♦ ◊ 

Particulate Emissions Analysis ♦ ◊ 

Community Attitudes to Aircraft Noise ♦ ◊ 

 

 

Total Budget Authority 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-237 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

AIP N/A Airport Cooperative Research –Safety $5,000,000 

GOALS: 

The program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, and International 

Leadership. 

Intended Outcomes: The objective of the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) is to carry out 

applied research on problems that are shared by airport operators and are too difficult for individual airports 

to solve on their own. Additionally, ACRP studies issues that are not being adequately addressed by existing 

Federal research programs. ACRP undertakes research in a variety of airport subject areas, including 

design, construction, environment, maintenance, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, 

administration, and operations. 

Congress established ACRP through the Vision 100–Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act of 2003 (Vision 

100). As called for in Vision 100, a Memorandum of Agreement was developed to provide organizational 

guidance for the three main entities that fund, administer, and oversee ACRP. The FAA funds the program. 

The National Academies, acting through its Transportation Research Board (TRB), administers the program. 

The ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), an independent governing board comprised of airport managers and 

other aviation officials appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, selects all of the program’s 

research projects. 

Agency Outputs: The ACRP-Safety 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. 

Research Goals: TRB annually solicits the aviation community for input on future research topics and 

industry concerns. New research priorities are therefore generated on a yearly basis under the direction of 

the AOC. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport 

professionals, air carriers, shippers, State and local government officials, equipment and service suppliers, 

airport users, educational institutions, other research organizations, and the general flying public. These 

stakeholders generate project ideas, guide projects while they are under way, and serve as the ultimate 

end-users of the final research products. 

Representatives from these organizations also serve on the AOC where they help select ACRP research 

projects. Federal representation on the AOC is comprised of the FAA, along with NASA and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The aviation industry is further represented on the AOC through 

the participation of the following groups: the Airports Council International (ACI), the American Association 

of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), and the Air 

Transport Association (ATA). 

R&D Partnerships: ACRP is a cooperative partnership with airports and federal agencies to conduct 

airport research. The research will be conducted by universities, airports, and companies within the aviation 

industry. 

Accomplishments: Program outputs during the first two years have been focused on low-cost, rapidresponse projects on urgent airport problems: 

FY 2007: 

• Developing an overview document regarding airport Safety Management Systems (SMS) that 

defines what such a system is, and provides a summary of existing practice in other countries and 

industries. (ACRP Report 1, formerly 11-02/T4) 

• Producing a report that examines safety and security practices at GA airports. Areas of focus 

include a discussion of: the resources used in the development of safety and security programs, 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-238 

the funding sources and issues that determine the amount of money spent on such programs, and 

the current practices that GA airports use to keep their facilities safe and secure. (ACRP Synthesis 

3) 

FY 2008: 

• Conducting a workshop for airport, airline, and federal government representatives who are 

involved in responding to potential pandemic events. This activity helps to clarify roles, discuss 

issues of mutual interest, and identify further coordination activities that are needed. (11-02/T6) 

• Guidance for Developing Regionally Coordinated Airport Emergency Plans for CBRNE Events. 

(ACRP 5-01) 

• Improving Stabilization and Use of Aircraft Evacuation Slides at Airports. (ACRP 11-02/T3) 

• Quarantine Facilities for Arriving Air Travelers: Identification of Planning Needs and Costs. (11-

02/T5) 

• Preventing Vehicle/Aircraft Incidents During Winter Operations. (ACRP S04-02) 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Human Protection 

• Aircraft Overrun and Undershoot Analysis for Runway Safety Areas. (ACRP 4-01) 

• Lightning-Warning Systems for Use by Airports. (ACRP 4-02) 

• Guidebook for Approach Light System Hazard Assessment and Mitigation. (ACRP 04-03) 

• Exercising Command-Level Decision Making for Critical Incidents at Airports. (ACRP 04-04) 

• Airport and Air Carrier Resource Manual: Employees Coping with Traumatic Events. (ACRP 06-01) 

• Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. (ACRP 07-03) 

System Knowledge 

• A Guidebook for Airport Safety Management Systems (ACRP 04-05) 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

Vision 100 authorized $10 million per year for ACRP. The FAA has requested $15 million for ACRP in FY 

2010 as part of the Airport Improvement Program. Of the total amount, $5 million will be provided for each 

of the 3 ACRP program areas of Safety, Capacity, and Environment. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

Human-Centered Design 

• Identification of the Requirements and Training To Obtain Driving Privileges on Airfields. (ACRP 

S04-03) 

Self-Separation 

• Best Practices for Improving Airport Ramp Management and Safety. (ACRP 04-07) 

Situational Awareness 

• Analysis and Best Management Practices for the Prevention of Wildlife Strikes at Small Airports. 

(ACRP 04-06) 

• Airport Signage and Way-finding Information Guidelines. (ACRP 07-06) 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-239 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 15,000 

FY 2009 Appropriated 5,000 

FY 2010 Request 5,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 20,000 

Total 45,000 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Airport Cooperative Research - Safety 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Total 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-240 

Airport Cooperative Research - 

Safety Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Airport Cooperative Research Program 

Safety-Related Research 5,000 

Conduct research on selected AOC proposals ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Aircraft Overrun and Undershoot Analysis for RSAs ♦ 

Airport Lightning-Warning Systems ♦ 

Runway Structure Hazard-Mitigation Analysis ♦ 

Training of Emergency Response Personnel ♦ ◊ 

Developing Airport Safety Management Systems ♦ 

Airport Emergency Plans for CBRNE Events ♦ 

Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems ♦ 

Improving Use of Aircraft Evacuation Slides ♦ 

Airfield Driving Privilege Requirements ♦ ◊ 

Improve Ramp Management and Safety ♦ ◊ 

Airport Signage and Way-finding ♦ ◊ 

Total Budget Authority 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-241 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

AIP N/A Airport Technology Research – Capacity $10,596 

GOALS:

This program supports the following FAA Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, and 

International Leadership. 

Intended Outcomes: The FAA is enhancing airport system capacity through better airport planning, 

airport design, and through improved pavement thickness design, construction, and maintenance. 

Agency Outputs: Federal law requires the FAA to develop standards and guidance material for airport 

design, construction, and maintenance. The Airport Technology program provides the technical information 

needed to support and update these FAA outputs in a timely manner. 

The airport ACs related to capacity improvements are the Agency’s principal means of communicating with 

U.S. airport planners, designers, operators, and equipment manufacturers. These ACs apply to airport 

geometric design, pavement thickness design, and airport planning. 

The FAA and its regional offices enforce standards and guiding material when administering the Airport 

Improvement Program (GIAA). 

Research Goals: 

Conduct R&D to support the development of standards in the airport system areas to improve pavement 

thickness design, construction methods, and maintenance issues. 

• By 2015, improve prediction of pavement service life and provide accurate assessment of aircraftpavement compatibility. 

• By 2015, provide more durable, long-lived airport pavements and reduce downtime due to 

construction & maintenance activities. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: GIAA grants contribute about half of the approximately $2 billion 

spent each year to provide operationally safe and reliable airport pavements. Projects funded under the 

GIAA grants must conform to the FAA ACs or designated standards. The remaining costs are borne by state 

and local governments. 

To ensure new pavement standards will be ready to support the safe international operation of nextgeneration heavy aircraft, the FAA and the Boeing Company have entered into a Cooperative Research and 

Development Agreement. Together, these partners have built the National Airport Pavement Test Facility 

(NAPTF), a unique full-scale research vehicle, at the William J. Hughes Technical Center. Along with the 

International Civil Aviation Organization, the FAA is using data collected at the facility in developing the 

pavement design standards that airports throughout the world need to accommodate the new large aircraft 

weighing in excess of 1,000,000 pounds. 

R&D Partnerships: 

• FAA-U.S. Army ERDC*

• FAA-U.S. Air Force, Tyndall Air Force Base2

• FAA-Center of Excellence for Airport Technology, University of Illinois3

• FAA-Boeing Company, Cooperative Research and Development Agreement ($7 million Boeing/$21 

million total for the NAPTF)4

• FAA-IPRF5

• FAA-Auburn University4

• FAA-Rowan University4

 

2 Interagency agreement or Memorandum of Agreement

3 Partnership through matching funds

4 Cost Sharing

5 Cooperative Agreement
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-242 

Through these partnerships, research results are published in scientific journals, presented at technical 

conferences, and discussed at workshops. 

Accomplishments: The Airport Technology research program has provided products to enhance airport 

capacity in the United States and around the world. Recent research results are published as FAA reports 

and ACs and made available to users worldwide. Some major accomplishments are: 

• Built the NAPTF and dedicated it on April 12, 1999; began testing at the facility on June 4, 1999. 

• In FY 2004, completed reconstruction and full-scale traffic testing of three concrete pavement test 

items at the NAPTF. 

• In FY 2005, completed overlay construction at the NAPTF and conducted full-scale traffic testing of 

three asphalt concrete overlay test sections (rubblized sections as well as conventional overlay). 

• Issued Layered Elastic Design (LED) FAA version 1.3, a pavement design-standard software based 

on NAPTF-generated data, to allow the introduction of the Airbus A380 and other new aircraft into 

the fleet mix. 

• In FY 2006, delivered FAARFIELD 1.0 (FAA Rigid and Flexible Iterative Elastic Layered Design), a 

new desktop computer program for pavement thickness design that incorporates 3D finite element 

models of pavement structures 

• Conducted technical workshops in airport pavement design using LEDFAA version 1.3 and the beta 

version of FAARFIELD (FEDFAA). 

• Maintained an airport pavement database containing full-scale test data collected at the NAPTF, 

and gave on-line access to international researchers. 

• Established or expanded cooperative programs with non-profit research foundations, located at the 

Innovative Pavement Research Foundation (IPRF) and Auburn University, to conduct research into 

concrete and asphalt airport pavement technology. 

• In FY 2006, completed the first phase of full-scale testing of concrete-on-concrete overlay 

pavements at the NAPTF through the IPRF cooperative research program. 

• Established a new Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development 

Center (ERDC) to cooperate on research projects of interest to both military and civil aviation. 

• In FY 2005, released DOT/FAA/AR-04/46, a technical report entitled “Operational Life of Airport 

Pavements,” that addresses the extent to which current FAA thickness design standards for airport 

pavements conform to the Agency’s 20-year life requirement. 

• Released ProFAA, a software program that combines an inertial profiler with simulations of the 

standard outputs from other commonly used devices, to analyze runway smoothness. 

• In FY 2007, delivered the updated FAARFIELD 1.1 (FAA Rigid and Flexible Iterative Elastic Layered 

Design), a desktop computer program for pavement thickness design that incorporates 3D finite 

element models of pavement structures. 

• In FY 2007, delivered the updated and rewritten AC 150/5320-6E, “Airport Pavement Design and 

Evaluation” to include the new pavement design program FAARFIELD. 

• In FY 2007, alpha factors used in the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) ACN/PCN 

method developed and proposed by the FAA were accepted by IACO. 

• In FY 2008, released DOT/FAA/AR-08/01, a technical report entitled “New Alpha Factor 

Determination as a Function of Number of Wheels and Number of Coverages,” that addresses the 

new accepted alpha factors. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Continued analyzing full-scale data from the NAPTF. 

• Improved upon airport pavement thickness design package, including 3D finite element structural 

models, using FAARFIELD, an analytical program developed for the Agency. 

• Completed a final report on rubblization of airfield pavements. 

• Started development of a web-based application for airport pavement database management 

system. 

• Developed models for airport funding strategies and passenger surveys. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-243 

• Continued full scale testing and analyze effects of subgrade quality and aircraft wheel gear spacing. 

• Performed full scale testing and analyze effects of high tire pressure of aircraft wheels. 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The Airport Technology research program is a collaborative effort among many government organizations, 

universities, and industry associations. The requested funding will allow this group to continue developing 

standards and guidelines for maintaining and enhancing our national airport infrastructure. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Continue analyzing full-scale data from the NAPTF. 

• Improve upon and update the pavement design procedures based on data from the FAARFIELD 

computer program. 

• Continue conducting technical workshops in pavement design using FAARFIELD. 

• Conduct technical workshops in pavement roughness criteria using PROFAA. 

• Develop conceptual guidelines and computer tools for terminal building design. 

• 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 

• Continue development of a web-based application for airport pavement database management 

system as a suite of FAA analysis tools (PROFAA, FAARFIELD, BAKFAA, LEDFAA) 

• Install pavement instrumentation at assorted Airports throughout the Unites States and analyze the 

recorded data. 

 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-244 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 54,994 

FY 2009 Appropriated 9,109 

FY 2010 Request 10,596 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 42,384 

Total 117,083 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Airports Technology Research – Capacity 6,725 7,337 7,220 7,536 8,856

Personnel Costs 1,200 1,318 1,535 1,573 1,740

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 7,925 8,655 8,755 9,109 10,596

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 7,925 8,655 8,755 9,109 10,596

Total 7,925 8,655 8,755 9,109 10,596
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-245 

Airport Technology Research - 

Capacity Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Airport Technology Research – Capacity Goal 

Airport Technology Research - Capacity 8,856 

Continue full-scale testing at NAPTF ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Continue analysis of full-scale data from NAPTF; 

maintain equipment, instrumentation, conduct material 

testing, develop pavement specifications, demolition 

and reconstruction activities 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Develop advanced airport pavement design procedures; 

conduct related workshops in development, 

programming and documentation 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Next phase of rigid pavement design, analysis of slab 

curling, materials characterization, field 

instrumentation, and continue support of airport 

technology center of excellence 

♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Conduct non-destructive pavement testing ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Support development of a web-based airport pavement 

management software ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Conduct pavement roughness research ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Operate material testing lab ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

Improve paving materials ♦ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 

In-situ instrumentation and data collection at selected 

Airports ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Develop conceptual guidelines and computer tools for 

terminal building design ♦ ◊ 

Develop models for airport funding strategies, and 

passenger surveys ♦ 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 1,740 

Total Budget Authority 10,596 9,109 10,596 10,596 10,596 10,596 10,596 

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-246 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

AIP N/A Airport Technology Research – Safety $11,876 

GOALS: 

This program supports the following FAA Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, and Greater Capacity. 

Intended Outcomes: The FAA conducts safety-related research to improve airport lighting and marking, 

reduce wildlife hazards, improve airport fire and rescue capability, and reduce surface accidents. The FAA 

will also develop and maintain standards in airport system areas to: 

• Reduce aircraft accidents due to incursions, particularly in low-visibility conditions; 

• Reduce aircraft accidents due to slipperiness caused by ice and snow on runways; 

• Improve post-crash rescue and firefighting capabilities; and 

• Reduce the negative impact of wildlife on airport safety. 

Agency Outputs: Federal law requires the FAA to develop and publish standards and guidance material 

for airport design, construction, and maintenance. The Agency uses the airport AC system as its principal 

means to communicate this guidance with a user community consisting of U.S. airport planners, designers, 

operators, and equipment manufacturers. 

Achieving the overall FAA goal of reducing accidents requires improvement in airport safety as well as 

aircraft safety. Outputs of the program include guidance regarding: new technology and techniques that 

can improve airport lighting and marking to help reduce surface accidents and runway incursions; improve 

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. 

The Airport Improvement Program (GIAA) provides current technical information to support and update ACs 

covering design of airport safety areas, visual aids, rescue and firefighting, ice and snow control, and wildlife 

control. The FAA and its regional offices then enforce these standards and guidance materials as part of 

administering the GIAA. 

Research Goals: 

Conduct R&D to support the development of standards in the airport system areas to improve safety, 

improve situational awareness, and reduce accidents. 

• By FY 2014, increase post crash passenger survivability and improve current levels of fire fighting 

effectiveness. 

• By FY 2014, improve airport design standards to provide increased levels of safety for airport 

operations. 

• By FY 2015, reduce rate of accidents involving slipperiness and save lives in the event of overruns. 

• By FY 2015, reduce wildlife strike risks to aircraft and provide more accurate and timely wildlife 

strike advisories. 

• By FY 2015, reduce pilot disorientation and provide better visual cues to reduce the risk of 

incursion. 

Customer/Stakeholder: Projects funded under the GIAA grants must conform to the FAA ACs or 

designated standards. GIAA grants contribute about half of the approximately $2 billion spent each year to 

provide operationally safe and reliable airport pavements. The remaining costs are borne by state and local 

governments. 

R&D Partnerships: 

• FAA-U.S. Air Force, Tyndall Air Force Base*. 

• FAA-USDA, National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, Ohio*. 

• FAA-Agencies of Canadian Government (for pavement technology and winter operations safety)**. 

• FAA-NASA (for joint runway traction research)*. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-247 

• FAA-Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey (for design and construction of aircraft arrestor 

bed)*. 

• FAA-industry - soft-ground arrestor materials)**. 

* Inter-agency agreement or Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

** Cost Sharing 

Accomplishments: The Airport Technology Research Program has provided products to enhance the 

safety of airport operations in the United States and around the world. Research results are published as 

FAA ACs and made available to users worldwide. Recent program accomplishments include the completion 

of: 

• Installation of the Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) long-term durability test bed; 

• Final report on anti-icing overlay at Chicago O'Hare during winter operations; 

• Final report on a polyurea alternative marking material; 

• Evaluation of a prototype foreign object debris (FOD) detection radar at a large airport; 

• Report on installation criteria for taxiway centerline lights; 

• Evaluation of small airport firefighting systems; and 

• Demonstrated use of aircraft lighting to make aircraft on the ground more conspicuous. 

• Construction of a full scale New Large Aircraft fire test facility. 

Through these partnerships, research results are published in scientific journals, presented at technical 

conferences, and discussed at workshops. 

FY 2009 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Studied Next Generation High Reach Extendible Turret. 

• Validated commercial avian radars. 

• Evaluated alternative runway groove shape on asphalt and concrete runway surfaces. 

• Evaluated camera based FOD detection systems at Boston Logan and Chicago O'Hare. 

• Evaluated a mobile FOD detection system at Chicago’s Midway Airport. 

• Evaluated Taxiway Deviation data collection at Manchester, NH and West Palm Beach and Orlando, 

FL, and Chicago O’Hare. 

• Completed phase 1 study of fire fighting agent quantities for NLA. 

• Initiated full scale testing of composite fires at NLA Facility, Tyndall AFB, Panama City, FL. 

• Completed Report on New Photoluminescent Technology for Visible Surface Markings 

• Evaluated effectiveness of a prototype alternative runway groove shape. 

• Completed Study of Engineered Material Arresting System cold region freeze-thaw durability 

• Completed Testing of Effects of Runway De/Anti-Icing Chemicals on Traction 

• Initiated Experimentation on Alternative Arresting System Concepts 

FY 2010 PROGRAM REQUEST: 

The Airport Technology FY 2008 research program is a collaborative effort among many government 

organizations, universities, and industry associations. The requested program funding provides the contract 

support necessary for an integrated, effective research program that delivers the standards and guidelines 

for maintaining and enhancing airport infrastructure. 

KEY FY 2010 MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• Develop specifications for a new Visual Guidance Technology Testbed. 

• Complete recommendations to improve Heliport Design AC. 

• Publish recommendations for airfield LED electrical Infrastructure. 

• Update General Aviation “Community Service Airports Lighting Handbook”. 

• Complete validation testing (phase 2) of study of firefighting agent quantities for NLA. 

• Initiate full scale testing of composite fires at NLA facility, Tyndal AFB, Panama City, FL. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-248 

• Complete taxiway deviation study, and develop final statistical analysis for deviation behavior of all 

aircraft design groups. 

• Complete evaluation of second level access vehicle at New Large Aircraft Test Facility. 

• Complete report on automated FOD detection system technology. 

• Complete report on alternative runway grooving research. 

• Complete Evaluation of Contaminant Drag Measurement Devices 

• Complete Prototype Design of Dynamic Internal Drum Tire Pavement Test Machine 

• Complete Report on Avian Radar Validation Study 

• Complete Evaluation of Alternative Arresting System Concepts 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-249 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1982-2008) 52,310 

FY 2009 Appropriated 10,239 

FY 2010 Request 11,876 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 47,504 

Total 121,929 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Airports Technology Research – Safety 8,375 7,897 8,312 8,465 10,135

Personnel Costs 1,200 1,318 1,493 1,774 1,741

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 9,575 9,215 9,805 10,239 11,876

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted 

FY 2007 

Enacted 

FY 2008 

Enacted 

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 0 0 0 0 0

Development (includes prototypes) 9,575 9,215 9,805 10,239 11,876

Total 9,575 9,215 9,805 10,239 11,876
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-250 

Airport Technology Research - 

Safety Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Airport Technology Research – Safety Goal 

Airport Technology Research - Safety 10,135 

Complete study of Next Generation High Reach 

Extendible Turret. ♦ 

Complete avian radar validation study. ◊ ♦ Complete evaluation of alternative runway groove 

shape on asphalt and concrete runway surfaces. ◊ ♦ 

Complete evaluation of automated FOD detection 

system technology. ◊ ♦ 

Complete evaluation of Taxiway Deviation Study for all 

aircraft design groups. ◊ ♦ 

Complete agent quantity research for NLA. ◊ ♦ Initiate full scale testing of composite fires at NLA 

Facility, Tyndall AFB, Panama City, FL. ◊ ♦ Complete Report on New Photoluminescent Technology 

for Visible Surface Markings ◊ ♦ Complete Study of Engineered Material Arresting 

System cold region freeze-thaw durability. ♦ Complete Testing of Effects of Runway De/Anti-Icing 

Chemicals on Traction. ♦

Complete recommendations to improve Heliport Design 

AC. ◊ ♦ Publish recommendations for airfield LED electrical 

Infrastructure. ◊ ♦ Update General Aviation “Community Service Airports 

Lighting Handbook”. ◊ ♦ Develop specifications for a new Visual Guidance 

Technology Test bed. ◊ ♦ Complete evaluation of second level access vehicle at 

New Large Aircraft Test Facility. ◊ ♦ Complete Evaluation of Contaminant Drag Measurement 

Devices ◊ ♦ Complete Prototype Design of Dynamic Internal Drum 

Tire Pavement Test Machine ◊ ♦ Complete Evaluation of Alternative Arresting System 

Concepts ◊ ♦ 

 

Personnel and Other In-House Costs 1,741

Total Budget Authority 11,876 10,239 11,876 11,876 11,876 11,876 11,876 

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-251 

FAA Budget 

Appropriation 

Budget 

Item 

Program Title Budget Request 

Ops N/A Commercial Space Transportation Safety $145,000 

Goals: 

This program supports the following Flight Plan goals: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, International 

Leadership, and Organizational Excellence. 

Intended Outcomes: 

The mission of the Commercial Space Transportation Safety Program is to ensure protection of the public, 

property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial 

launch or re-entry activities, and to encourage, facilitate, and promote U.S. commercial space 

transportation. 

To achieve its mission, the program undertakes research projects intended to: 

• Perform a comprehensive survey of existing technologies available for determining wind conditions 

from the upper troposphere to the stratosphere (50,000 to 100,000 feet). This project will address 

possible modifications of radar wind profilers to obtain data on winds for greater altitudes than 

currently available. This is a continuation of 2008 research. 

• Conduct a comprehensive review of wind requirements to support the launch of unguided 

suborbital launch vehicles that use wind weighted systems. This project will survey the adequacy 

of existing winds databases with particular emphasis on temporal winds to ensure proper 

considerations of winds to support analysis products and day of launch decision making. This is a 

continuation of 2008 research. 

• Prevent safety incidents (such as fires and explosions) involving nontraditional monopropellants 

and oxidizers (specifically Hydrogen Peroxide, H2O2, and Nitrous Oxide, N2O) in commercial space 

transportation applications. 

• Provide information on the capability, limitations, and considerations for GPS implementation in a 

dynamic environment, such as Space and Air Traffic Control. The results shall include information 

on topics such as requirements for signal reception, system accuracy, signal processing delay 

times, and GPS vs. future/alternate technologies. 

• Review integrated operations of reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) from spaceports, joint use 

airport/spaceports, as well as the airspace surrounding those facilities. This review shall provide 

recommendations on how to safely integrate and conduct routine RLV operations from these 

locations, to include minimum airspace and airport/spaceport restrictions that must be in place. 

• Construct a series of scenarios to describe a broad spectrum of point-to-point suborbital missions. 

These scenarios will address specific regulatory measures that could be needed and explore 

international cooperation issues relevant to each scenario. The study to develop these scenarios 

will include market research to address potential demand implications for space tourism, 

transportation, and cargo delivery services. 

• Survey and analyze existing and planned spaceport infrastructure needs. The assessment will 

categorize and catalogue projects that would be incorporated into future developmental plans. 

Estimated costs of the projects will be identified, as well as requirements for project planning and 

studies, environmental assessments, security requirements, and infrastructure considerations. 

Agency Outputs: 

The research program completes or provides inputs for the development of regulations, advisory circulars, 

and/or guidelines that identify the requirements for the safe operation of expendable, as well as reusable 

launch vehicles (ELV/RLV). These outputs include: 

• Recommendation for the best mix of wind technologies, atmospheric models, or best practices for 

obtaining wind data primarily for small RLVs operating out of remote launch sites. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-252 

• Delineation of wind requirements to support analysis of unguided suborbital launch vehicles using a 

wind weighting system, and recommendations with regards to the requirements for wind 

databases at launch site locations. 

• Develop clear, written, user-friendly guidelines for transport, processing/loading, usage, and 

disposal of H2O2 and N2O in commercial space transportation applications. Transmit these 

guidelines to the commercial space transportation community via an outbrief to COMSTAC, a 

summary report, and potentially a FAA Advisory Circular containing them. 

• Recommendations for standards to consider for GPS implementation in conjunction with licensed 

activities, for both AST and industry. 

• Identification of potential interface and safety issues associated with RLV launch and re-entry 

operations from existing and envisioned airports/spaceports. 

• Enhancing safety for suborbital missions by identifying future needs of air traffic control (ATC). 

Development of requisite information to determine whether to request an appropriation to fund a 

spaceport grant program. 

• A requirements document of infrastructure needs to safely conduct future RLV operations, i.e. 

unique visual approach slope information requirements, runway marking requirements, navaid 

requirements, etc. 

Research Goals:

• To conduct a study that will assess existing technologies for determining wind conditions from the 

upper troposphere to the stratosphere in support of reusable launch vehicle launches in remote 

locations. This study will focus on identifying available technologies for retrieving wind data within 

the 50,000 – 150,000 ft range. The study will also investigate the sensitivities of each technology, 

and compare them to atmospheric model data in terms of accuracy, representativeness, and other 

benefits. 

• The goals of the research to be conducted by Aerospace Corporation on behalf of the FAA are to 

clarify the impact of temporal winds on launch operator requirements for safety clear out zones for 

the launch of unguided suborbital launch vehicles. In addition the research will show whether wind 

databases which exist at these launch sites, monthly and temporal, are suitable for determining 

safety clear out zones for the launching of unguided suborbital launch vehicles using a wind 

weighting system. 

• A set of clear written guidelines, in terms of the established conditions and/or technical parameters 

(concentration, impurities, temperature, pressure, liquid vs. vapor state, shock sensitivity, and 

incompatible materials), in which H2O2 and N2O may safely be handled and used. These 

guidelines would also include conditions to avoid. Note: In the (unlikely) event that some of the 

conditions and/or technical parameters associated with H2O2 and N2O cannot be defined to 

sufficient granularity to develop clear guidelines, then further research to define specific conditions 

and/or technical parameters will be recommended. 

• To conduct a study on current and near-term capabilities and limitations of GPS user equipment 

suitable for use in suborbital, ballistic trajectories with emphasis on low cost. The study will capture 

lessons learned wherever possible. 

• To develop initial guidelines and considerations for insuring safe commercial space transportation 

operations at airports/spaceports. 

• To explore possible suborbital scenarios to help AST better strategically plan for the future with 

respect to Air Traffic Interfaces, international relations, and potential vehicle technologies (if 

applicable). 

• To develop an initial list of possible spaceport infrastructure needs/requirements to insure safe 

commercial space transportation operations. 

Customer/Stakeholder Involvement: 

• The research project concerning high altitude wind measurement is requested by the Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation to be performed by Aerospace Corporation. AST will review the 

findings of Aerospace Corporation and will work with them to perform analysis to redefine the 

knowledge base of best mix of wind technologies and modeling, or best practices for obtaining 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-253 

wind data at high-altitudes, to support analysis products and day of launch decision making to 

support the launch of both RLVs and ELVs. 

• The research project concerning temporal winds database study is requested by the Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation and to be performed by Aerospace Corporation. AST will review 

the findings of Aerospace Corporation and work in tandem with Aerospace Corporation to perform 

analysis to redefine wind requirements to support the launch of unguided suborbital launch 

vehicles using a wind weighted system. 

• A survey of the companies in the aerospace industry (as well as other industries) that use H2O2 

and N2O regarding safety incidents they have experienced and lessons learned will be part of the 

study. 

• The study will request inputs from COMSTAC on current plans and challenges for GPS user 

equipment for commercial vehicles. 

• The identification of how RLVs will routinely operate, what airspace they will operation in, today’s 

users of that airspace, and the needs of the pilots and operators of vehicles to safely integrate into 

common runway/spaceport environs will assist air traffic organizations, airport organizations, state 

and federal planners, safety professionals, and representative organizations such as the Personal 

Spaceflight Federation. 

• Within the ISU/AST partnership, recent studies have incorporated elements of suborbital 

transportation. This knowledge and understanding will be a major contributor to this study and the 

scenarios generated from this work. 

• The project will generate interfaces with launch site/spaceport operators, as well as permit and 

license holders. Commonality of their needs will allow airport/spaceport planners to better allocate 

funds. 

R&D Partnerships: 

• AST will partner with the Aerospace Corporation to conduct the research on high altitude wind 

measurement technology. This project is expected to generate interfaces with launch site 

operators and launch operators launching at licensed launch sites who do not have the capability of 

measuring winds at high altitudes. 

• AST will partner with the Aerospace Corporation to investigate the impact of monthly and temporal 

winds on safety clear zones at commercially licensed launch sites. This project is expected to 

provide new methodology or additional capability for evaluating temporal winds at commercially 

licensed launch sites. 

• AST will partner with the Air Force Research Lab, Air Force Space and Missile Center and NASA 

safety organizations for the research and to establish the guidelines and recommendations related 

to the use H2O2 and N2O. 

• AST will coordinate the goals of the study (and if appropriate) partner with the GPS Joint Program 

Office (JPO), the Naval Research and Air Force Research Labs, Kennedy and Johnson Spaceflight 

Centers, and Ames Research Center to determine plans for development or modification of GPS 

user equipment suitable for use in suborbital, ballistic trajectories, while focusing on low-cost 

opportunities. 

• Likely will take advantage of the ISU/AST partnership and incorporate elements of the recent ISU 

study on suborbital transportation. Currently exploring other agencies to partner with in addition. 

Accomplishments: 

FY 2008 was the first year of funding for the activities known as: 

• “Informed Consent” 

o Completed in FY 2008; Accomplishment Summary included in Appendix B 

• “Temporal Winds Database Study”* 

• “Low Cost ,Field Portable, High Altitude Wind Profiler”* 

*These projects were extended into FY 2009, and are included in this NARP submission. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-254 

FY2009 is the first year of funding for the activities known as: 

• “Lessons Learned in Handling Nontraditional Monopropellants/Oxidizers” 

• “Application of GPS to Space Transportation Technologies” 

• “RLV Operations: Airspace, Airport, and Spaceport Considerations” 

• “Point-To-Point Suborbital Missions” 

• “Critical Infrastructure Needs of Spaceports” 

FY 2009 Major Activities and Anticipated Accomplishments: 

• Completed the study that lead to methodologies or best practices for obtaining upper level wind 

data at commercially licensed launch sites who do not have the capability of measuring winds at 

high altitudes. 

• Generated findings which will support the decision making on purchasing wind measuring 

equipment that in turn supports analysis products and day of launch decision making regarding 

public safety. 

• Provided for the following: 

1) Examining existing standards on H2O2 and N2O, from agencies such as DOT, IATA, NFPA, and 

DOD; 

2) Surveying the aerospace industry and other industries that use H2O2 and N2O; 

3) Develop and deliver briefing to COMSTAC; and 

4) Develop summary report with guidelines and (if needed) recommendations for future research. 

• Provided for the following: 

1) Conduct brief survey of RLV users state of the art and plans on GPS user equipment for use in 

suborbital, ballistic trajectories; 

2) Discuss results of survey of RLV users coordinate the goals of the study (and if appropriate) 

partner with the GPS Joint Program Office (JPO), the Naval Research and Air Force Research Labs, 

Kennedy and Johnson Spaceflight Centers, and Ames Research Center to determine their plans for 

development or modification of GPS user equipment suitable for use in suborbital, ballistic 

trajectories, while focusing on low-cost opportunities; 

3) Review ongoing state of the art and plans on GPS user equipment in development in national 

labs and avionics industry suitable for use in suborbital, ballistic trajectories; and 

4) Develop summary report with guidelines and (if needed) recommendations for future research. 

• The research findings will enhanced the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS) during RLV 

operations by identification of operational requirements and commensurate airspace restrictions. 

• Published a research study with current information on the state of the commercial suborbital 

transportation industry with a focus on market demand, safety, operability, and international 

coordination. 

• The requirements document is a basis for the incorporation of identified infrastructure needs in 

airport/spaceport plans. It will serve as a foundation for the future research that may need to be 

accomplished. 

FY 2010 Program Request: 

For all projects, authorized Commercial Space Transportation research is currently included in the Safety 

and Operations budget. 

Key FY 2010 Major Activities and Anticipated Accomplishments: 

None identified as yet, although call for topics both internally and externally have been extended. However, 

as research is conducted during the year, there may be indications of additional research efforts required 

during FY 2010, with appropriate products and milestones determined at that time. 
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-255 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

 Amount ($000) 

Appropriated (FY 1983-2008) 328,000 

FY 2009 Appropriated 145,000 

FY 2010Request 145,000 

Out-Year Planning Levels (FY 2011-2014) 580,000 

Total 1,198,000 

Budget Authority 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Contracts: 

Commercial Space Transporation Safety 75 125 125 145 145

Personnel Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other In-house Costs 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 75 125 125 145 145

OMB Circular A-11, 

Conduct of Research and Development 

($000) 

FY 2006 

Enacted

FY 2007 

Enacted

FY 2008 

Enacted

FY 2009 

Enacted 

FY 2010 

Request

Basic 0 0 0 0 0

Applied 38 63 63 73 73

Development (includes prototypes) 38 63 63 73 73

Total 75 125 125 145 145

.
2009 NARP Appendix A 

June 22, 2009 

A-256 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety Program Schedule 

Product and Activities 

FY 2010 

Request 

($000) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Commercial Space Transportation Safety $145 

Temporal Winds Database Study Report that delineates wind requirements to support 

analysis of unguided suborbital launch vehicles using a 

wind weighting system, and recommendations with 

regards to the requirements for wind databases at 

launch site locations. 

◆ 

Low Cost, Field Portable, High Altitude Wind 

Profiler 

A recommendation of the best mix of wind technologies 

and modeling, or best practices for obtaining wind data 

(model data) for small RLVs operating out of remote 

launch sites. 

◆ 

Lessons Learned in Handling Nontraditional 

Monopropellants/Oxidizers 

Guidelines for transport, processing/loading, usage, and 

disposal of H2O2 and N2O in commercial space 

transportation applications. These guidelines will be 

transmitted to the commercial space transportation 

community via an outbrief to COMSTAC, a summary 

report, and potentially a FAA Advisory Circular 

containing them. 

◆ ◇ 

Application of GPS to Space Transportation 

Technologies 

Recommendations for standards to consider for GPS 

implementation in conjunction with licensed activities, 

for both AST and industry. 

◆ ◇ 

RLV Operations: Airspace, Airport, and 

Spaceport Considerations 

Identification of potential interface and safety issues 

associated with RLV launch and re-entry operations 

from existing and envisioned airports/spaceports. 

◆ ◇ 

Point-To-Point Suborbital Missions 

Publish a research study with current information on 

the state of the commercial suborbital transportation 

industry with a focus on market demand, safety, 

operability, and international coordination. 

◆ ◇ 

Critical Infrastructure Needs of Spaceports 

A requirements document of infrastructure needs to 

safely conduct future RLV operations, i.e. unique visual 

approach slope information requirements, runway 

marking requirements, navaid requirements, etc. 

◆ ◇ 

 

Total Budget Authority $145 **$145 $145 $145 $145 $145 $145

◆ - Activities Accomplished ◇ - Activities Planned 

NOTES: OUT YEAR NUMBERS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDS WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-i 

APPENDIX B: FY 2008 R&D Annual Review: 

Accomplishments by FAA R&D Goals 

Table of Contents 

Introduction............................................................................................................................... B-1

Fast, flexible, and efficient........................................................................................................ B-2

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation ..................................................B-2 

Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports................................................................B-2 

Controller Aids for Aircraft on Terminal Air Navigation Routes...........................................B-3 

Equivalent Visual Operations for the National Air Space ......................................................B-3 

Integrated Departure Route Planning ......................................................................................B-4 

Air Traffic Control Changes in Applying Wake Separations .................................................B-5 

NextGen Wake Separation Standards, Processes, and Decision Support Tools .....................B-5 

Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures ..........................................................................B-6 

Airport Traffic Control Tower Simulation Infrastructure Development.................................B-6 

Clean and quiet ......................................................................................................................... B-8

Airport Particulate Matter Emissions Research ......................................................................B-8 

Energy Use at U.S. Airports....................................................................................................B-8 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Research ..........................................................................................B-9 

Impact of Airport Pavement Deicing Products on Aircraft and Airfield Infrastructure........B-10 

Aircraft Emissions Inventories..............................................................................................B-10 

Alternative Fuels for Aviation...............................................................................................B-11 

Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative .......................................................................B-13 

Aviation Environmental Design Tool ...................................................................................B-14 

Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool...........................................................B-15 

Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise Program .................................................B-16 

Desulfurization of Aviation Fuel to Mitigate Environmental Impacts..................................B-16 

International Aviation Interoperability to Reduce Environment Impacts over the 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans...........................................................................................B-17 

International Noise Technology Goals..................................................................................B-18 

National Parks and Air Tour Noise Research .......................................................................B-19 

New Noise Research Program...............................................................................................B-19 

Scenarios and the Environmental Design Space Tool...........................................................B-20 

High quality teams and individuals....................................................................................... B-21

Air Traffic Control Safety Risk Assessment Analysis..........................................................B-21 

Air Traffic Control Selection Instruments: Assessment of Cognitive Aptitude ...................B-21 

Air Traffic Control Specialist Biographical Data and Interview Selection Procedures........B-22 

Color Vision Tests for Air Traffic Control Specialist Applicants.........................................B-22 

Controller Displays for Severe Weather Avoidance .............................................................B-22 

Future En Route Workstation II Simulation..........................................................................B-23 

Methods to Assess Applicant Temperament and Emotional Stability..................................B-24 

Advanced Systems for Air Traffic Workforce Training .......................................................B-25 

Flight Simulator Fidelity Requirements Research ................................................................B-26 

Mental Model Assessments for Training Design and Assessment .......................................B-26 

Research on the Human Factors of Conveying Safety-Critical Information ........................B-27 

Understanding Human Performance in Aviation ..................................................................B-28 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-ii 

Weather-related Training and Testing of General Aviation Pilots........................................B-28 

Cockpit Task Demands .........................................................................................................B-29 

Human-centered design.......................................................................................................... B-31

Airport Ground Access Mode Choice Models ......................................................................B-31 

Air Traffic Control Display Standard – Terminal Color.......................................................B-31 

Future Terminal Workstation ................................................................................................B-32

Human Factors Concept of Operations .................................................................................B-32 

Allowable Manual Control Forces in Aircraft Control Systems...........................................B-33 

Assessment of Flight Attendant Fatigue ...............................................................................B-34 

Aviation Accident/Incident Prevention/Mitigation ...............................................................B-34 

Color Vision Requirements for Pilots ...................................................................................B-35 

Electronic Flight Bags...........................................................................................................B-36 

Fatigue Assessment under Ultra Long Range Flight Operations ..........................................B-36 

Flight Symbology..................................................................................................................B-37 

General Aviation Data Collection .........................................................................................B-38 

Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Database for Aviation Community 

Research.........................................................................................................................B-38 

Instrument Procedures...........................................................................................................B-39 

Native and Foreign Airline Pilots’ International Language Experiences..............................B-40 

Operational Voice Communications between Native and Foreign Airline Pilots and 

Controllers during Oceanic Operations .........................................................................B-40 

Pilot Training and Experience with Transport Category Rudder Control Systems ..............B-41 

Surface Moving Maps ...........................................................................................................B-42 

Synthetic Vision for Primary and Multifunction Flight Displays .........................................B-43 

Human Factors Generic Guidance ........................................................................................B-43 

Human protection ................................................................................................................... B-45

Aircraft Decontamination System .........................................................................................B-45 

Comprehension of Safety Briefing Card Pictorials and Pictograms .....................................B-45 

Drug Usage in Pilots Involved in Aviation Accidents Compared With Drug Usage in 

the General Population...................................................................................................B-46 

Laser Illumination of Aircraft by Geographic Location .......................................................B-46 

Occupant Seat and Restraint Models.....................................................................................B-47 

Aircraft Overrun and Undershoot Analysis...........................................................................B-48 

Evaluation and Mitigation of Aircraft Slide Evacuation Injuries..........................................B-48 

Alternative Pavement Grooving Evaluation..........................................................................B-49 

Next Generation High Reach Extendable Turret ..................................................................B-49 

Operation of New Large Aircraft – Second Level Fire Fighting Evaluation........................B-50 

Powered Air Purifying Respirator Feasibility Study.............................................................B-50 

Informed Consent..................................................................................................................B-51 

Acute Human Exposure Limits for Gaseous Halocarbon Extinguishing Agents..................B-52 

Burning Behavior of Cabin Materials ...................................................................................B-53 

Thermal Acoustic Insulation Burnthrough Resistance Certification and Installation 

Guidance Material (AC 25.856A)..................................................................................B-54 

Icing Forecasting ...................................................................................................................B-55 

Turbulence.............................................................................................................................B-55 

Side-Facing Seat Crash Dynamics ........................................................................................B-56 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-iii 

Terminal Area Safety ............................................................................................................B-56 

Safe aerospace vehicles........................................................................................................... B-58

Friction Stir Welded Aviation Structures Design Criteria ....................................................B-58 

Surface Condition Determination for Reliable Processing for Bonded Structures and 

Repair.............................................................................................................................B-58 

Geometry Conversion Tool for Rotorburst Vulnerability Reduction ...................................B-59 

Propulsion Malfunction Research .........................................................................................B-59 

Turbine Engine Research ......................................................................................................B-60 

Unleaded Fuels and Fuel System Safety Research ...............................................................B-60 

Integrated Modular Avionics Research.................................................................................B-61 

Microprocessors Evaluations for Safety-Critical, Real-Time Applications..........................B-61 

Qualification of Airborne Electronic Hardware Tools..........................................................B-62 

Cargo Fire Suppression Effectiveness of a Halon 1301/Nitrogen Enriched Air Mixture.....B-63 

In-flight Fire Exposure of Aluminum and Composite Fuselage Materials ...........................B-64 

Low False Alarm Cargo Compartment Fire Detector Prototype ..........................................B-65 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems .................................................................................................B-66 

FAA-Drexel Fellowship........................................................................................................B-67 

Characterization of Fatigue Crack Threshold in High-Cycle Fatigue Applications .............B-67 

Situational awareness ............................................................................................................. B-69

Quarantine Facilities for Arriving Air Travelers...................................................................B-69 

Automated Foreign Object Debris Detection System Evaluation.........................................B-69 

Light Emitting Diode Airport Applications ..........................................................................B-70 

Wildlife Mitigation................................................................................................................B-71 

Improving Pilots’ Visual Approaches through Perceptual Training.....................................B-72 

Vision Model to Predict Target Detection and Recognition .................................................B-72 

Vision Model to Predict Target Detection and Unmanned Aerial System Ground 

Observer Requirements..................................................................................................B-73 

Application of Sequential Decision-making to Traffic Flow Management ..........................B-74 

Runway Safety Alerting ........................................................................................................B-74 

Assessment of Weather-Related Training Aids ....................................................................B-76 

Sensory Deficiencies in the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems ...............................B-77 

Terrain Awareness and Warning System Feasibility for Helicopter Operations ..................B-77 

Weather in the Cockpit Baseline and Assessment ................................................................B-78 

System knowledge ................................................................................................................... B-79

Airport Economic Impact Methods and Models ...................................................................B-79 

Asphalt Test Sections at the National Airport Pavement Test Facility.................................B-79 

Monitoring and the Use of Checklists...................................................................................B-80 

Pilot, Designee, and Inspector Perceptions of FAA Services ...............................................B-80 

Pilot Procedures and Practices for Automated Flight Decks ................................................B-81 

NextGen Towers....................................................................................................................B-82 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-iv 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-1 

Introduction 

This appendix showcases the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) research and 

development accomplishments in 2008 that are contributing to the achievement of the ten 

research and development (R&D) goals described in Chapter 2. 

Funding for programs supporting the Separation Assurance R&D goal starts in fiscal year (FY) 

2009, so no accomplishments are reported at this time. 

The majority of activities under the World Leadership R&D goal are drawn from the other nine 

goals. The accomplishments for those activities are shown under the other sections in this 

appendix. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-2 

Fast, flexible, and efficient 

A system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, 

anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs. 

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation 

Airports around the United States, and around the world, are dealing with the challenge of 

improvement to the ground access systems. In the past five years several major American 

airports have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in new capital facilities to connect their 

facilities with the rest of the region's public transportation systems. 

To deal with this issue, the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) six years ago 

undertook two major studies of the issue of airport ground access, published as TCRP Report 62 

and TCRP Report 83. These two studies presented accurate, up-to-date descriptions of major 

airport access projects and strategies around the world. With the creation of the Airport 

Cooperative Research Program, there is an opportunity to revise, update, and build upon a 

substantial body of work, which is now somewhat out of date. 

The objectives of this project are to: 1) improve the documentation of all airport ground access 

projects, with an emphasis on those which have occurred since the publication of TCRP Report 

62 in 2000; 2) improve the documentation of changes in airport access strategies since the 

publication of both reports with a review of recent developments in such areas as downtown 

check- in, automation of the check in process, and integration with existing regional rail 

infrastructure; 3) provide airport managers with user-friendly, concise, and accurate 

documentation concerning trends in the area of airport ground access; and 4) support and 

facilitate the dissemination of the latest information relative to airport managers through media 

such as printed reports, and PowerPoint presentations to relevant professional organizations. The 

proposed research will create new updated, timely documentation of the characteristics of ground 

access markets in a manner which builds upon existing products already produced under the 

TCRP. (Airport Cooperative Research – Capacity) 

Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports 

As airports work with airlines to increase efficiency, lower costs, and improve customer service, 

there is considerable interest and activity in transitioning from exclusive-use to common-use 

facilities. In many cases, common-use refers to information technology applications that allow 

airlines to manage their passenger operations at any number of gates. This project broadens the 

concept of common use to include facilities and practices. 

Facilities that can be shared to serve the traveling public can include, but are not limited to, 

lobbies, ticketing, kiosks, baggage systems, hold rooms, gates, loading bridges, aprons, 

preconditioned air and power, remain over night, rental car facilities, and transportation centers. 

Common-use practices include, but are not limited to, providing or expanding common-use 

facilities and disbanding exclusive use facilities, gate utilization monitoring, lease and use 

agreement modifications, and competition plans. The focus of this project is to compile and list 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-3 

of the types of common use facilities, methods, and practices that improve the success of sharing 

facilities to increase efficiency, lower costs, and improve customer service as well as the issues 

that hinder common use. 

The intended audience of this guidance includes airport managers considering transition to 

common use of some facilities. The purpose of this research is to survey airports on their current 

and planned common-use facilities in order to document the advantages and disadvantages of 

common-use systems, procedures that require modification to implement common-use, and the 

participant’s actual experience to date. (Airport Cooperative Research – Capacity) 

Controller Aids for Aircraft on Terminal Air Navigation Routes 

Researchers from the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) completed 

development of two prototype aids that have the potential to help controllers manage traffic in 

the area navigation (RNAV) environment by providing additional information on their radar 

situation displays. The first aid projects an image that conveys the relative position for 

converging traffic that will help controllers early in coordinating merging RNAV arrivals. The 

second aid is an automated visual alert to controllers that provides early warning of aircraft 

deviations from assigned RNAV routing and altitude constraints. 

The first controller aid, termed the Relative Position Indicator (RPI), projects an image (symbol) 

on the radar situation display that conveys the relative position for converging traffic. This 

allows controllers to manage merging traffic as if it were in-trail and to do so farther from the 

expected merge point. Early availability of relative position information enables the controller to 

avoid vectoring and issue subtle control inputs, such as speed control, utilizing the extra distance 

to allow the input to take effect. Approach controllers could use RPI to manage merges within 

their airspace as well as to increase awareness of traffic being worked by other controllers that 

will affect a downstream merge. Traffic Management Coordinators could use RPI to inform 

runway assignment decisions and to better manage airport configuration changes. 

The second controller aid is automation to quickly alert controllers of aircraft deviation from 

assigned RNAV routing. The prototype monitors each aircraft’s position relative to an 

acceptable position region defined around the RNAV centerline. If the aircraft exits this region, 

an alert is displayed in the data block for the aircraft on the controller’s radar situation display. 

Compliance to altitude constraints along the RNAV route are also monitored, with the 

automation issuing an appropriate alert if the aircraft deviates vertically from the RNAV route 

profile. By helping controllers detect deviations earlier, controllers can quickly contact the pilot 

and issue a corrective clearance, reducing the probability of conflicts with or disruptions to 

surrounding traffic. (CAASD) 

Equivalent Visual Operations for the National Air Space 

The integrity of air traffic operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) depends on the 

ability to provide visual separation between airborne aircraft, either by controllers in air traffic 

control (ATC) towers or by aircraft flight crews. Key resources such as airport arrival and 

departure capacity depend to a great degree on this ability to conduct visual operations. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-4 

Operations in the NAS degrade enormously when meteorological conditions do not permit visual 

operations. Technologies such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), 

RNAV and required navigation performance (RNP), and advances in wake turbulence 

technology may enable a recovery of much of this lost capacity if these concepts are harnessed in 

a creative and integrated way. CAASD researchers formulated over a dozen promising concepts 

for equivalent visual operations for the NAS and achieved very promising results for one of them. 

The concepts range from increasing the arrival and departure capacity of single and parallel 

runways in low visibility, to increasing airspace capacity with more closely spaced routes. 

CAASD researchers developed and evaluated an advanced version of a concept for improving 

arrival capacity of single runways in low visibility conditions called IMC CAVS-S (Cockpit 

Displays of Traffic Information (CDTI) Assisted Visual Separation for single runway approaches 

in Instrument Meteorological Conditions). During visual operations to single runways, pilots 

provide their own separation and spacing on final approach to runways, resulting in significantly 

more efficient operations to the airport. Although a concept had been developed in the past for 

enabling pilots to provide CDTI assisted visual separation, concern for potential wake encounters 

had precluded applying that concept in low visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and IMC. 

For this advanced concept CAASD developed prototype cockpit tools to allow flight crews to 

assess and avoid the potential for wake encounters in lower weather conditions. The evaluation, 

utilizing pilots in CAASD’s cockpit simulator, showed that flight crews could use the proposed 

CAVS tools comfortably below visual approach minima, down to ceilings and visibility of 1,000 

feet and 3 nautical miles respectively. The evaluation also indicated that runway arrival capacity 

may be improved significantly for airports like Los Angeles International when its weather 

conditions deteriorate below visual approach minima. This first evaluation demonstrated that 

there is good potential for developing a generalized capability with ADS-B-based CDTI that 

could significantly back-fill the capacity lost in the NAS when controllers and flight crews 

cannot use visual separations. (CAASD) 

Integrated Departure Route Planning 

In daily operations when air traffic demand on the NAS or on specific resources – sectors, routes, 

and fixes – is predicted to exceed capacity, a variety of traffic management initiatives (TMIs), 

such as reroutes, miles-in-trail flow restrictions, and ground delay programs are generated by 

traffic flow management to ensure an expeditious flow of aircraft. This is especially crucial 

when system capacity is reduced by severe weather. In current operations, with limited 

automation support, traffic managers must mentally integrate the traffic, weather, and airspace 

resource information and project that information into the future. This process is difficult and 

time consuming, often leading to inaccurate information. As a result, TMIs are often too large 

scale, too inflexible, and/or not effectively used to respond to dynamically changing weather 

conditions. To maximize traffic throughput while maintaining safety, it is desirable to minimize 

the impact of TMIs on operations and to implement only those initiatives necessary to maintain 

system integrity. 

CAASD researchers jointly with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Lincoln 

Laboratory developed a concept and prototype for integrated departure management decision 

support in convective weather that, for the first time, integrates traffic, weather, and airspace 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-5 

resource information into a common test bed and laboratory prototype, the Integrated Departure 

Route Planner (IDRP). IDRP combines predictions of weather impact along departure routes, 

predictions of congestion at departure fixes and in nearby en route airspace, and an automated 

reroute identification algorithm into a single decision support tool that could help traffic 

managers implement reroutes for departures blocked by weather or traffic constraints. IDRP first 

identifies departure flights whose flight plans cannot be executed due to weather or volume 

constraints, and then searches a set of alternatives acceptable to TFM and airline operations to 

find a feasible reroute. IDRP also provides automated support and information to help decision 

makers evaluate and implement different solutions. It takes into account all significant data such 

as filed flight plans and acceptable alternatives, surface departure queues, predicted convective 

weather and traffic congestion impacts to routes in the terminal area and nearby en route airspace, 

and forecast uncertainty. 

Initial experiments indicate that an integrated departure route planning capability could reduce 

the time needed to coordinate, implement, and revise TMIs and departure management plans as 

weather and traffic situations change dynamically. This could improve significantly system 

performance. It could also reduce the workload associated with determining 4-D (space & time) 

intersections of departure traffic flows, translating those impacts to departure times, and 

determining a suitable alternative departure route for aircraft. (CAASD) 

Air Traffic Control Changes in Applying Wake Separations 

In September 2008, the FAA approved a national ATC order permitting controllers at specific 

airports, having closely spaced parallel runways spaced less than 2500 feet apart, to use a new 

wake mitigation separation procedure. The procedure will allow six to ten more landings on 

those runways when weather conditions otherwise would have required the use of a procedure 

that is equivalent to using just a single runway for landing. The procedure is similar to a 

procedure used in inclement weather for parallel runways separated more than 2500 feet. 

The development and approval of this order is based on the wake turbulence data collection and 

analyses, human in the loop simulations, procedure development, and safety analyses done by 

the Wake Turbulence Research Team (Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, MITRE 

CAASD, wake and weather sensor developers, and FAA). 

 

The order is slated for initial implementation at five Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen)/Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) airports (Lambert – St. Louis International 

Airport – currently authorized via waiver developed in 2007, Cleveland Hopkins Airport, 

Philadelphia International Airport, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, and Boston Logan 

International Airport). (Wake Turbulence) 

NextGen Wake Separation Standards, Processes, and Decision Support Tools 

In January 2008, a feasibility cost/benefit analysis was completed on a potential concept for an 

ATC wake turbulence mitigation decision support tool that would allow more landings to an 

airport’s closely spaced parallel runways when weather conditions at the airport require use of 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-6 

instrument approach procedures. Work continues to develop alternative concepts that might 

yield more benefit to airport operations. 

In July 2008, a joint U.S. and European working group completed an initial analysis of potential 

static wake separation standard sets that could support the increasing number of aircraft designs 

that are being introduced into the world’s air transportation system. The next step is to 

evaluation further more promising (in terms of capacity enhancing and safety) sets to include 

human in the loop simulations of their use. (Wake Turbulence) 

Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures 

FAA expanded the models it uses to determine the operational benefits of the Wake Turbulence 

Mitigation for Departures (WTMD) decision support tool at ten candidate NextGen/OEP airports 

to enable greater departure capacity for closely-spaced parallel runways (parallel runways spaced 

less than 2500 feet apart). Algorithm validation tools were developed to evaluate the reliability 

of the WTMD cross-wind predictions. Data-based wake encounter models, developed to 

evaluate the safety risk associated with the change in operational ATC wake mitigation 

procedures at Lambert St. Louis International Airport, were enhanced for use in evaluating the 

safety risk of using the procedure at other airports with similar runway configurations. 

Additionally, the model was modified to evaluate the safety risk of WTMD-based ATC 

departure procedures. 

The WTMD decision support tool development was a joint research endeavor with the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) developing the concept and building the 

feasibility prototype, MITRE CAASD providing human in the loop simulations of the tool’s use 

and benefit data, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center collecting and analyzing 

thousands of wake tracks of departing aircraft, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory developing the tool’s 

internal cross wind forecast algorithm, and the FAA – both headquarters and field Air Traffic 

Organization personnel – detailing and evaluating the use of the proposed decision support tool. 

(Wake Turbulence) 

Airport Traffic Control Tower Simulation Infrastructure Development 

Although ATC simulators exist, the FAA did not own an ATC tower (ATCT) research simulator. 

This lack of infrastructure severely limited the FAA’s ability to evaluate future concepts such as 

those proposed in NextGen. The FAA human factors researchers defined the requirements for a 

full-scale ATCT simulator, including a set of simulation pilot commands. They used these 

requirements to create a state-of-the-art ATCT research simulator. This simulator will be used 

for the systematic evaluation of NextGen ATCT concepts. 

Numerous ATC simulators have been developed and marketed. However, the vast majority of 

ATC simulators are proprietary products developed for simulation and training purposes rather 

than concept research. The proprietary nature of existing ATC simulators renders them 

inflexible, expensive, and limited in capabilities regarding rapid prototyping and data collection. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-7 

Over the past two years, researchers established basic aircraft surface movement models and 

defined the requirements for a full-scale ATCT simulator, including a set of simulation pilot 

commands. A research team added to existing surface movement capabilities developed in the 

previous years by refining aircraft behavior, bolstering simulation pilot commands, and 

implementing data collection and reduction capabilities. They expanded the realism by creating 

new aircraft models and liveries and by creating the foundation to support a 270-degree out-thewindow view. 

The result of this project is an FAA owned and developed ATCT simulation software platform 

including underlying software and nine large-screen displays that can support a 270-degree outthe-window view. The ATCT simulator provides a high fidelity representation of airport 

operations including aircraft models, simulation pilot interface, and commands. The ATCT 

simulator also includes data collection and reduction applications, and adds a basic Information 

Display System display to the existing suite of ATCT displays. This ATCT simulation 

infrastructure will allow the FAA to research concepts such as the Staffed NextGen Tower, 

digital data communications, and integrated ATCT information displays. (ATC/Technical 

Operations Human Factors) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-8 

Clean and quiet 

A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms 

Airport Particulate Matter Emissions Research 

Domestic airports and the aviation-industry partners that rely on these airports must assure 

compliance with current particulate matter (PM) controls, as called for in existing environmental 

requirements and state implementation plans and in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) as enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, it is 

anticipated that future standards will be more stringent. In February 2003, the U.S. General 

Accounting Office (GAO) released a report (GAO-03-252) titled Aviation and the Environment: 

Strategic Framework Needed to Address Challenges Posed by Aircraft Emissions. In this report, 

the Secretary of Transportation directed the FAA, in consultation with the EPA and NASA, to 

develop a strategic framework for addressing emissions from aviation-related PM sources. In 

developing the framework, known as the PM Roadmap, FAA was directed to coordinate with the 

airline industry, aircraft and engine manufacturers, airports, and the states with airports that were 

in areas of non-attainment of air quality standards. 

A critical foundation to ensure the success of the framework rests on identification of critical 

gaps in existing research on PM emissions at airports. A comprehensive review of existing 

research findings and an evaluation of current research efforts are, therefore, essential. The 

roadmap also will define a prerequisite for airport inventories in the future in which databases 

will be augmented with practical assessments of PM emission source contributions in an airport 

environment. Within the aeronautical and environmental communities, gaps in the 

understanding of quantitative aggregate and local contributions of PM emissions at airport sites 

exist. Specifically, the relative contributions of various sources of PM emissions, such as the 

ambient environment, aircraft gas turbine engine combustion processes, diesel combustion 

processes, and non-combustion releases of PM emissions from other airport equipment and 

sources, is not known. 

The aviation community needs comprehensive information on PM emissions data at airport sites. 

This information will lead to improved emissions and PM databases that will provide a 

benchmark for future measurements, modeling efforts, and estimation of emissions. More 

importantly, this information is needed to respond to pending compliance issues, prioritize future 

investment by the government and private sector, and ensure a sustainable air transportation 

system. An understanding of the amount, types, and sources of PM emissions at airports will 

enable the aviation industry to respond better to more restrictive environmental compliance 

issues in the future. (Airport Cooperative Research – Environment) 

Energy Use at U.S. Airports 

The enormous size and complexity of airport facilities are fertile ground for finding common 

solutions to intricate problems such as the environmental impact and operating expenses from 

unnecessary energy use. Many airports are under pressure to reduce air emissions from ground 

transportation and fossil fuels. As a result, they are constantly seeking ways to grow sustainably 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-9 

within their local communities. To complicate matters, the rapidly escalating energy prices 

continue to be a major part of airport operating expense. Energy is most often the second largest 

operating expense at airports, exceeded only by personnel. Airport facility managers must strive 

to reduce these costs to help lower the bottom line for their airline tenants. 

The good news is that energy is a very controllable operating expense if they use more efficient 

lighting, heating, cooling, people movers, ground transportation, and other airline operations. By 

prudent, energy efficiency investments and optimizing operations, airports can reduce operating 

costs from 10 percent to 30 percent annually. For example, an energy assessment and 

"Continuous Commissioning (CC)®" of the new central rental car facility at Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport in 2005 has resulted in a metered 20 percent reduction in energy use. The 

practical solutions to improve airport efficiency are documented and can be replicated through 

the dissemination of "best practices". 

This project completed a guidebook that provides airport managers, operators, and their 

operations and maintenance contractors with information to improve energy use at our nation’s 

airports. By developing and encouraging the widespread use of energy management "best 

practices," airport managers can significantly reduce operating costs and reduce the impacts on 

environmental compliance while providing a very visible example for communities and others to 

follow. (Airport Cooperative Research – Environment) 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Research 

Increasingly, airports and the FAA are asked by various agencies and communities surrounding 

airports to analyze the health impacts of aircraft and other airport-related sources of air toxics, 

also known as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), in the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and state-level documents. Unlike criteria air pollutants, however, information on the 

emission, transformation, and transport of aircraft and other airport-related HAPs and their health 

impacts is extremely rudimentary. Without an understanding of aircraft HAPs emissions, 

airports are unable to quantify the contribution of aircraft and non-aircraft emissions. As airport 

activity continues to grow, understanding the relationship between HAPs and their impact will 

become increasingly important. 

Several studies have been conducted to understand this relationship better, including the airport 

development program Environmental Impact Statements for Philadelphia International Airport 

and Chicago O'Hare International Airport, and a HAPs-related human health risk assessment at 

Oakland International Airport. Additionally, as a follow-up effort to its 2003 state of science 

report, the FAA is currently assembling a HAPs Emissions Inventory Guidance document to 

establish a nationally consistent methodology for quantifying HAPs from aircraft engines. The 

methodology will be able to incorporate future data on HAPs emissions as they become available. 

However, as emphasized in the Critical Issues of Aviation and the Environment 2005 report 

issued by the Transportation Research Board Committee on Environmental Impacts of Aviation 

(AV030), these studies are only a starting point to understand the impacts of HAPs. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-10 

This project produced a comprehensive prioritized agenda of research needs associated with 

aircraft and other airport-related sources of HAPs. The agenda provides a framework that allows 

the aviation community to perform future research in a coordinated manner. The agenda 

identifies the types of HAPs being emitted, their sources, detection and measurement, and 

possible health and other environmental impacts. It has a schedule, explains how the findings 

would be used by airport operators and the general public, and provides supporting evidence for 

the reasoning behind the agenda priorities. (Airport Cooperative Research – Environment) 

Impact of Airport Pavement Deicing Products on Aircraft and Airfield 

Infrastructure 

Field reports increasingly suggest that the use of pavement deicing products (PDPs), including 

alkali acetate and alkali formate products (such as sodium- and potassium- acetate and formate 

based products), on aprons, runways, and taxiways may result in substantial damage to various 

aircraft and airfield infrastructure. One example is the impact on the carbon brakes of modern 

transport aircraft. Damage may result in reduced brake life and introduces the possibility of 

brake failure during high-speed aborted takeoff with the concomitant risk of fire from hydraulic 

fluid released during such an event. Other examples include reports of cadmium corrosion, 

aluminum corrosion, corrosion in landing gear joints, electrical wire bundle degradation, 

corrosion of runway lighting fixtures, and damage to airfield infrastructure associated with the 

use of PDPs. 

This research assembled information obtained from other related research and updates it to 

include quantities and types of PDPs used over the years. The report contains a matrix 

identifying specific PDPs used and their respective volumes at each surveyed airport. It 

examines results from a literature search and assembles documentation of damage reported from 

the use of PDPs at airports, including reports from the FAA, aircraft brake manufacturers, 

airframe manufacturers, airlines, airports, and PDP manufacturers, along with any information 

on outcomes from reported damage. 

The report examines how airports deice their airfield pavements, what chemicals are commonly 

used, the amounts applied, and the existence and validity of any evidence of associated corrosion 

or degradation of aircraft and airfield infrastructure. These results will help federal authorities 

institute appropriate regulatory requirements and help airport operators and airlines perform 

more efficiently during winter operations. (Airport Cooperative Research – Environment) 

Aircraft Emissions Inventories 

In collaboration with the EPA, the FAA has completed a new speciated hydrocarbon profile for 

aircraft equipped with turbofan, turbojet, and turboprop engines. The new speciated 

hydrocarbon profile identifies 77 individual organic compounds, including 17 known hazardous 

air pollutants. It is based on the multiple measurement data sets generated from three Aircraft 

Particle Emission eXperiments (APEX) field campaigns, which are co-sponsored by NASA, 

FAA, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the EPA. This is the first time that aircraft 

hydrocarbon emissions have been characterized based on repeatable measurements spanning 

multiple commercial aircraft engines from every major manufacturer. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-11 

The FAA and EPA have jointly developed a recommended best practice document that provides 

the technical support information for the new speciated hydrocarbon profile as well as how to 

conduct aircraft emission inventories for individual hydrocarbon species. The EPA has included 

this new profile into their SPECIATE database for use in national emission inventories. 

Likewise, the FAA has incorporated it into its Emissions and Dispersion Model System version 

5.1 for improved accuracy. The profile is also being used to develop guidance for quantifying 

speciated gas phase hydrocarbon emissions to provide consistency in aircraft emission 

inventories assembled for disclosure purposes under NEPA. (Environment and Energy) 

Alternative Fuels for Aviation 

Interest in alternative fuels for commercial aviation has continued to grow. While the price of oil 

has declined since a high of $147 per barrel during the summer of 2008, its volatility and 

expected increase continues to drive the development of alternative fuels. Environmental 

concerns and energy supply security also continue to be critical drivers, and alternative jet fuels 

can significantly contribute to addressing these concerns. 

The FAA and U.S. industry-sponsored Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) 

has become the principal forum to coordinate an international effort to develop, certify, and 

deploy alternative aviation fuels to supplement petroleum-based jet fuel. CAAFI’s participants 

include a cross-section of airlines, manufacturers, airports, fuel producers, researchers, federal 

agencies, and international players. This innovative group of stakeholders continues to 

implement a CAAFI roadmap to explore the use of alternative fuels for commercial aviation. 

The combined efforts of CAAFI stakeholders are rapidly advancing the potential move to 

alternative aviation fuels. 

CAAFI stakeholders lead critical activities to develop new fuel specification and certification 

processes via ASTM International. If certification activities are successful, alternative synthetic 

paraffinic kerosene (SPK) jet fuel produced from coal, natural gas, and biomass via the FischerTropsch (F-T) process may be approved by June of 2009. This generic fuel approval will enable 

the use of SPK fuel from many different producers. Approval of similar fuel approvals for biojet fuels from hydro-treated renewable oils and other advanced processes are expected within a 

few of years. 

In September 2008, the CAAFI Business and Economics Team convened a two-day summit of 

130 representatives of the commercial aviation and alternative fuels development and production 

communities. The meeting strengthened relationships among the airlines and potential 

alternative fuel suppliers, which will significantly advance commercial negotiations critical to 

deployment. It also refined CAAFI’s roadmaps that address technical and approval hurdles for 

alternative jet fuel implementation and presented federal government investment opportunities 

for alternative fuel producers. The CAAFI business meeting demonstrates that the commercial 

aviation sector has the desire to lead a movement toward eco-friendly alternative fuels. 

In coordination with CAAFI, investigators from the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise 

and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) have completed a landmark study of alternative fuels that 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-12 

addresses the technical feasibility, identifies the drivers for adoption, identifies the types of 

infrastructure to support transition, and determines what measures might promote alternative 

fuels. The study concluded that alternative fuels now exist that could reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions and improve local air quality, but at present the ability to produce these fuels is limited 

and the costs of production are high. Some of these potential environmental benefits are possible 

from alternative fuels that are lower in sulfur and aromatics than conventional petroleum fuels. 

In the short term, air quality benefits could be attained through the removal of sulfur from 

conventional petroleum fuels to yield lower particulate matter emissions. 

The study also began to investigate the environmental life-cycle of various fuel options to 

understand the full impact of their production and distribution. Alternative aviation fuels from 

biomass were found to offer substantial life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions reductions relative 

to conventional jet fuels; however, land use changes could potentially offset these gains. For 

alternative aviation fuels, attaining carbon neutral growth will be a challenge without carbon 

capture and sequestration, investments in new plants to process alternative fuels, investments in 

new technologies for higher efficiencies from renewable resources, and minimizing the possible 

impacts on land and water resources that may occur. Further work will focus on refining the lifecycle analysis data to include these land use impacts. Some of these important considerations 

include possible displacement of food crops, carbon capture and sequestration, striking a balance 

between aviation and other transportation modes, and incorporating these results into models that 

will highlight the local, national, and global changes that may occur in their use. 

In December 2007, in collaboration with industry and the U.S. Department of Defense, 

PARTNER investigators conducted a study to quantify changes in particulate matter and 

hazardous air pollutant emissions on a high production commercial aircraft engine using standard 

jet fuel and various blends of alternative fuels. The study also aimed to demonstrate the viability 

of alternative “drop-in” fuels, such as bio-fuel and F-T fuel, for normal use in commercial 

aviation. During the emissions tests, the engine was cycled through a matrix of reproducible 

engine operating conditions. Emissions and steady-state engine data were collected at each 

condition using a sampling probe that was positioned near the engine exhaust nozzle. The test 

cycle was repeated for each fuel-blend and baseline fuel. The measurements indicated that, 

especially for the 100 percent F-T fuel, particulate matter emissions number and mass was 

diminished at all powers relative to baseline fuel. Some significant differences in hydrocarbon 

emissions speciation were also observed for the 100 percent F-T fuel. Differences were less 

pronounced for mixes of alternative fuels with standard jet fuel. 

In July 2008, the Secretary of Transportation announced the award of an FAA grant to the X 

Prize Foundation (www.xprize.org) to develop a prize contest that will spur innovation in 

alternative aviation fuels. Prize contests have a storied history in aviation, inspiring 

achievements and innovations that have advanced the human frontier -- the Orteig prize, for 

example, inspired Charles Lindbergh to cross the Atlantic. So, it is fitting that this tradition be 

continued to advance a new frontier for aviation – environmentally sound, renewable alternative 

fuels. Over the next 14 months, the X Prize Foundation will use experts from the government, 

industry, and academia to develop the aviation renewable fuels prize package and 

implementation plan. The prize package and implementation plan will be used by industry and 

the government to identify prize sponsors and initiate the prize competition. In addition to 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-13 

CAAFI and PARTNER’s activities, the Alternative Aviation Fuels X Prize should also help to 

stimulate private investment in technology, focus public attention, and develop the supply of 

renewable fuel in quantities to serve the commercial aviation sector. (Environment and Energy) 

Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative 

Aviation is an integral part of the global economy and transportation system. Projections 

indicate that the demand for aviation could grow by a factor of 2-3 over the next two decades. 

Although rising and volatile fuel prices are slowing demand at present, expansion of aviation is 

likely to continue and, as in the past, could outpace economic growth. In the absence of 

mitigating actions, increased aviation operations will likely result in higher related emissions and 

associated environmental impacts including those on climate. 

At present, aircraft emissions are a very minor contributor to overall emissions. However, the 

relative magnitude of aircraft emissions is expected to increase due to projected growth in its 

own sector as well as decreasing emissions from non-aviation sources. If not effectively 

managed and mitigated in a timely manner, future environmental impacts will be the principal 

constraint on the capacity and flexibility of NextGen that is being designed and implemented to 

meet the projected aviation growth. One of the NextGen environmental goals is to limit or 

reduce climate impacts of aviation. 

Actions needed to mitigate environmental impacts will likely include technological innovation 

(e.g., engines, aircraft and fuels), operational and market-measures, and regulatory interventions. 

No single action will likely achieve all targeted goals. Mitigation options generally come with 

tradeoffs and interdependencies that must be properly understood before optimally balanced 

cost-beneficial options can be designed and implemented. On the climate front, development of 

the mitigation options requires better scientific understanding and characterization of the nonCO2 climate impacts due to aircraft gaseous and particle emissions as well as the formation of 

contrails and induced cirrus clouds. There is also a need for a suitable metric that can interrelate 

these non-CO2 climate impacts and that can measure aviation CO2 emissions alone. These are 

the areas of the most scientific uncertainties, which must be understood so that the well-informed 

options for decision-making can be developed. 

To meet the NextGen environmental goals, the FAA has developed the Aviation Climate Change 

Research Initiative (ACCRI) with participation from NASA, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, and EPA. These federal agencies are also key contributors to the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. The main objective of ACCRI is to identify and address 

key scientific gaps and uncertainties regarding climate impacts while providing timely scientific 

input to inform optimum mitigation actions and policies. The ACCRI approach is to support 

aviation-specific climate change research that is policy relevant and solution focused and to 

coordinate as well as link its research needs and activities with related national and international 

climate change research efforts. 

ACCRI completed two key initial steps as part of its 4-step structured and sequential approach to: 

1) review of science and analysis capability, and 2) identify gaps and develop recommendations 

for the priority research. Under the first step, ACCRI funded eight national and international 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-14 

groups of research experts to develop eight whitepapers. These were on various aspects of 

aviation climate change to review the state of science, analysis capability, scientific uncertainties 

as well as to identify gaps and develop research priority based on the maximum return of the 

investment on near (up to 18 months), mid (up to 36 months) and long (beyond 36 months) time 

horizons. Under the second step, ACCRI convened an international science meeting that was 

attended by about 100 experts from academia, research institutions, and industry. A report on 

The Way Forward with collective recommendations on the research priority was released. The 

science meeting concluded that ACCRI needs to be a priority driven research program with 

responsibility to deliver realistic outcomes scheduled to match decision-making. The eight 

whitepapers and the ACCRI report can be accessed via the internet at 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/aviation_climate. 

The recommendations for the way forward are already being used to communicate with 

stakeholders as well as national and international research programs to seek their support and to 

develop strategy and planning for near-term and mid- to long- term research activities and 

practical applications. All are being designed to better inform decision-making in a timely 

manner. (Environment and Energy) 

Aviation Environmental Design Tool 

The accuracy of estimating fuel burn, noise, and emissions during low speed portions of flight 

has been greatly enhanced in the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) as a result of an 

agreement between Boeing and FAA to exchange aircraft performance tools. This improved 

modeling capability was used in the analysis of continuous decent arrivals (CDA) and tailored 

arrivals (TAs) at several major U.S. airports, and benchmarked against historical dive-n-drive 

procedures to understand the benefits of reduced fuel burn, noise, and emissions. AEDT was 

used to model CDA and TA implementations as part of the Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to 

Reduced Emissions (AIRE) program and NextGen operational scenarios. 

AEDT was used in support of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Committee 

on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) to begin the policy analyses for setting new 

nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions standards for new certified engines. Researchers integrated 

common modules and databases as well as implemented many concepts of the overall AEDT 

architecture to develop worldwide estimates of fuel burn, emissions, and noise. The modeling 

effort, also known as the “NOx Stringency” analysis, included modeling the global fleet at 

reduced engine NOx levels ranging from zero percent (no stringency) to 20 percent lower 

standards than what exists today for the implementation years of 2012 and 2016. These NOx

stringency scenarios are then modeled for future forecasted years of 2016, 2026, and 2036 to 

investigate the overall NOx emission reduction trends as a result of these policy options. Even 

though ICAO’s focus is on NOx emission standards, AEDT also produced the interdependent 

impacts of noise and fuel burn, unlike any other aviation environmental tool in use today to 

support ICAO’s policy decisions. Demonstration to inform policymakers is the integration of 

AEDT results with the economic analysis capability in the Aviation environmental Portfolio 

Management Tool. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-15 

Development efforts included further integration of AEDT with databases that support the Joint 

Planning and Development Office’s vision for NextGen. This work involved updating AEDT 

modules and databases to link directly with the NASA Airspace Conflict Evaluation Simulator 

(ACES) tool. Full integration of ACES and AEDT will allow for streamlined and consistent 

analysis of aviation environmental issues during the design of NextGen. In addition, AEDT was 

selected as the aviation environmental consequence model by the winning teams of NASA 

research announcements for the design of advanced aircraft concepts deployed in NextGen 

operational scenarios. In this capacity, AEDT will be integrated with other airspace and airport 

planning tools such as FAA’s airspace and airport simulation tool (SIMMOD) and the FAA’s 

Terminal Area Route Generation, Evaluation, and Traffic Simulation (TARGETS). 

(Environment and Energy) 

Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool 

Historically, aviation environmental modeling tools generated either noise or emissions outputs, 

after which the costs to implement a policy were considered against a single environmental 

performance indicator (e.g., NOx emitted). Subsequent advances on common databases and 

inputs have highlighted the need to consider noise, local air quality, fuel burn, and greenhouse 

gas emissions interdependencies and to monetize costs and benefits. The FAA is developing a 

comprehensive suite of software tools that will allow for thorough assessment of the 

environmental effects of aviation. The main goal of the effort is to develop a new capability to 

assess the interdependencies between aviation-related noise and emissions effects, and provide 

comprehensive impact, and cost and benefit analyses of aviation environmental policy options. 

The impact and economic analysis function of this suite of software tools has been given the 

rubric Aviation environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT). 

APMT takes aviation demand and policy scenarios as inputs, and simulates the behavior of 

aviation producers and consumers to evaluate policy costs. Detailed operational modeling of the 

air transportation system within the Aviation Environmental Design Tool provides estimates of 

the emissions inventories and noise exposure. A benefits valuation module within APMT then is 

used to estimate the health and welfare impacts of aviation noise, local air quality, and climate 

effects, using a variety of metrics. These metrics include monetary estimates of the value of 

changes in environmental quality. 

A substantial effort to engage the scientific and stakeholder community in review of APMT 

methods and outputs culminated in acceptance for APMT use in upcoming ICAO/CAEP/8 cost 

effectiveness analyses. The benefits valuation aspects of APMT were used to support the Joint 

Planning and Development Office submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

A study of the high-density airports case was the first practical domestic use of APMT to 

monetize aviation environmental impacts. Technical advances in APMT methodology were 

documented in a graduate thesis on “World Housing Valuation” and a journal article on the 

“Impact of Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum on Aircraft-related Fuel Burn and 

Emissions.” 

2008 also saw the initiation of a collaborative effort with the University of Cambridge, Aviation 

Integrated Modeling (AIM) group. Under the auspices of the PARTNER Center of Excellence, 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-16 

the APMT development team held two workshops with the AIM group to develop research 

initiatives that will benefit both modeling teams. Tangible collaboration and resource sharing 

has become a part of both programs with researchers spending time at both institutions. This 

work has shown that impacts of cruise emissions on air quality are much larger than originally 

thought and must be accounted for in health impact analyses. (Environment and Energy) 

Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise Program 

Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) technologies program is designed to 

target maturation of promising technologies to reduce aircraft environmental impact and energy 

usage. Award of contracts under CLEEN is dependent on approval of FY 2009 funding. 

A market research conference for the proposed CLEEN program was held in May 2008. At the 

conference, the FAA presented information on CLEEN and obtained feedback from potential 

bidders on the program scope. In parallel with the conference, FAA conducted a market survey 

for the CLEEN program. In the survey, the FAA requested information from interested parties 

on capabilities, expected programmatic approach, teaming partners, and potential technology 

development efforts. The FAA is using information obtained from these activities in developing 

the request for proposals for the CLEEN procurement. 

Under the proposed CLEEN program, FAA and industry will cost share, on a 1:1 minimum basis, 

development of CLEEN technologies for civil subsonic jet airplanes to help achieve the NextGen 

goals to increase airspace system capacity by reducing significant aircraft noise and emissions. 

The CLEEN program is also focused on increasing the fuel efficiency and advancing alternative 

fuels for aviation use. The focus of this effort is to: 1) mature previously conceived noise, 

emissions and fuel burn reduction technologies to enable industry to expedite introduction of 

these technologies into current and future aircraft and engines, and 2) assess the benefits and 

advance the development and introduction of alternative “drop in” fuels for aviation, with 

particular focus on renewable options, including blends. (Environment and Energy) 

Desulfurization of Aviation Fuel to Mitigate Environmental Impacts 

Aircraft exhaust emissions contribute to both air quality and climate impacts which could be the 

limiting factor for aviation growth. Therefore, to allow sustain aviation growth, one of the 

environmental goals of the NextGen is to limit or reduce emissions impacts on the environment. 

Generally, there are tradeoffs in emissions and associated environmental impacts when there is 

an attempt to reduce a particular type of ‘direct’ emission. For example, high temperature 

combustion is desirable for maximum thermodynamic efficiency and lowest fuel efficiency (i.e., 

low CO2 emissions). However, NOx emissions could be reduced by controlling combustor 

temperatures and decreasing the residence time during high temperature operations. Emissions 

of CO2 are known to contribute positively to climate impacts whereas NOx emissions potentially 

contribute to both air quality through formation of secondary air pollutants, such as particulate 

matter and ozone, and climate impacts through changes in atmospheric distributions of ozone 

and methane. However, there are no significant tradeoffs with other emissions in reducing 

gaseous emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2). 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-17 

Sulfur is present in the jet fuel as a part of crude oil processing. It is considered to be useful in 

engine lubrication. During fuel combustion, sulfur in the fuel undergoes oxidation process which 

leads to direct emissions of gaseous SO2. While interacting with the background atmosphere and 

with other emissions from aircraft exhaust, gaseous emissions of SO2 ultimately lead to the 

formation of secondary sulfate aerosols which contribute to ambient air quality. A number of 

FAA funded research studies have conclusively demonstrated the contribution of sulfate aerosols 

to the overall change in particulate matter at various spatial scales brought by aircraft emissions. 

Therefore, there is an obvious air quality benefit of desulfurization of aircraft fuel. Sulfate 

aerosols, in general, are known for negative climate impacts (i.e. cooling) and also participate in 

heterogeneous chemistry that could affect ozone distribution and also aid the formation and 

persistence of contrails and induced cirrus clouds – all of which potentially contribute to climate 

change. However, there is no clear indication about the net climate impacts of change in direct 

emissions of SO2. 

Preliminary cost-benefit analysis of aircraft fuel desulfurization using FAA’s APMT has shown 

results of sufficient merit that warrants more detailed and more complete study. It has 

conclusively demonstrated air quality benefits of using ultra low sulfur aircraft fuel. This initial 

study only focused on aircraft emissions within the landing and takeoff (LTO) cycle. The FAA 

has just funded a project to PARTNER to examine the environmental benefits of ultra low sulfur 

aircraft fuel. This project will focus on two scenarios of fuel sulfur content (600 parts per 

million and 15 parts per million worldwide) and will use a number of air quality and chemistryclimate models for simulations and analysis. This study will also examine the relative 

contributions from aircraft emissions within LTO cycle and at cruise altitude to surface air 

quality. Results from air quality and climate impact analyses will be used in FAA’s APMT 

model for cost-benefit analyses. This project is being led by MIT with participation from 

Stanford University, Cambridge University and University of Houston as well as consulting 

support from Harvard University. MIT will work very closely with the Coordinating Research 

Council to develop the cost associated with desulfurization of jet fuel as well as infrastructure 

needed for implementation of ultra low sulfur aircraft fuel. Results from this study are expected 

to be available by the end of summer next year. (Environment and Energy) 

International Aviation Interoperability to Reduce Environment Impacts over the 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans 

Since the launch of the Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions Partnership with 

Europe, FAA has worked closely to: 1) hasten development of operational procedures to reduce 

aviation’s environmental footprint for all phases of flight; 2) accelerate world-wide 

interoperability of environmentally-friendly procedures and standards; 3) capitalize on existing 

technology and best practices; and 4) provide a systematic approach to ensure appropriate 

mitigation actions with short, medium and long-term results. 

Simply put, the FAA and European authorities continue to enhance air traffic management 

interoperability, improve energy efficiency, reduce engine emissions, and lower aircraft noise. 

In fact, FAA has moved swiftly to establish partnerships and execute several system 

demonstrations of oceanic, surface, and terminal/en route system and/or procedures. In May 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-18 

2008, demonstrations of oceanic procedure enhancements with Air Europa proved that rerouting 

and altitude changes offered near-term fuel consumption and emission reduction benefits within 

the current standards of operating procedures. Similarly, two continuous descent arrival 

demonstrations were performed by FAA in joint collaboration with American Airlines at Miami 

International Airport and Delta Airlines at Atlanta International Airport. Significant fuel saving, 

reductions in noise and engine emission were achieved. The environmental benefits ranged from 

savings of 38-50 gallons of jet fuel per flight that equates to a reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

of approximately 500 kg per flight. 

On February 18, 2008, a multi-lateral partnership known as the Asia and South Pacific Initiative 

to Reduce Emissions (ASPIRE) was created in Singapore. The first air navigation service 

providers to sign the ASPIRE joint statement were Airservices Australia, Airways New Zealand, 

and the FAA. Similar to AIRE, the initial partners under ASPIRE are committed to work closely 

with airlines and other stakeholders in the region in order to: 

• accelerate the development and implementation of operational procedures to reduce the 

environmental footprint for all phases of flight on an operation by operation basis, from gate 

to gate; 

• facilitate world-wide interoperability of environmentally friendly procedures and standards; 

• capitalize on existing technology and best practices; 

• develop shared performance metrics to measure improvements in the environmental 

performance of the air transport system; 

• provide a systematic approach to ensure appropriate mitigation actions with short, medium 

and long-term results; and 

• communicate and publicize ASPIRE environmental initiatives, goals, progress and 

performance to the global aviation community, the press and the general public. 

The first flight to participate under ASPIRE was designated “Aspire 1” when departing 19:30, 

Friday 12, September 2008 from Auckland, New Zealand, to San Francisco. This flight brings 

together Air New Zealand, the FAA, and Airways New Zealand to demonstrate the advances 

being made to reduce aviation emissions in the Asia/South Pacific region, through a 

demonstration of the most advanced air navigation services and airline fuel optimization 

initiatives in current operation. (Environment and Energy) 

International Noise Technology Goals 

Future efforts to mitigate aircraft noise are dependent on quieter technologies and operations. 

The FAA is working with the International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries 

(ICCAIA) under the auspices of ICAO/CAEP to establish aircraft noise technology and air 

traffic operational goals in the mid-term (10 years) and the long-term (20 years). 

In September 2008, FAA co-sponsored a workshop and independent expert review in Seattle, 

Washington, dedicated to aircraft noise reduction technology that was a significant step toward 

this goal. Through a detailed and comprehensive review of noise reduction technologies 

currently being developed worldwide, an international panel comprised of experts from Canada, 

France, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, and the U.S., will make recommendations for a 

consensus set of mid-term and long-term noise technology goals. The goal setting process offers 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-19 

multiple benefits. It provides an independent perspective that may be used to help guide 

technology investment decisions, including those of the CLEEN program, provide benchmarks 

against which to chart technological progress, help us envision and plan for aviation’s future 

environmental performance (globally as well as domestically for NextGen), and inform and 

complement the noise standard-setting process. (Environment and Energy) 

National Parks and Air Tour Noise Research 

In June 2008, the FAA Western Pacific Region, the FAA Office of Environment and Energy, and 

Volpe National Transportation System Center signed a memorandum of understanding to pursue 

several research efforts to advance noise impact analyses for the National Parks Air Tour 

Management Plan (ATMP). The program aims to develop a scientifically defensible approach 

for determining significant noise impacts from aviation-related projects in naturally quiet areas. 

The objectives of the program are to: 1) enhance noise modeling fidelity to capture noise 

propagation effects critical for naturally quiet areas; 2) establish noise exposure-response 

relationships for naturally quiet areas; 3) identify noise exposure thresholds to establish 

significant noise impact; and 4) establish analytical procedures specific to determining 

significant noise impact in naturally quiet areas. The program will support implementation of 

the National Park Air Tour Management Act of 2000, which requires the FAA, in cooperation 

with the National Park Service, to develop an ATMP for parks and tribal lands where air tour 

operations occur or are proposed. 

Research is being pursued by four noise projects. The first focuses on the complex noise 

modeling issues associated with parks, modeling method enhancements are sought to better 

capture effects of terrain, ground and meteorology on noise propagation and effects of 

overlapping flights in high altitude. This project will apply a parabolic equation model, deemed 

by consulted experts, to be the most promising approach to simulating the effects of terrain, 

ground and weather on noise propagation. For the second project, a source data collection is 

underway to acquire noise data for several air tour aircraft currently not available in the INM 

aircraft database, as well as to support of helicopter noise modeling and data validation in 

collaboration with manufacturers. Noise measurement testing has been scheduled this year for 

the Bell 407 helicopter, the Schweizer 300C helicopter, and the Piper PA-42 Cheyenne fixedwing propeller aircraft. The third project is developing guidance on characterizing ambient noise 

for diverse National Park settings that will lead to a comprehensive guidance document for noise 

impact analyses in naturally quiet areas such as National Parks. Lastly, the fourth project is to 

map out the next phase of research to establish noise exposure-response relationships applicable 

to National Parks based on a workshop feedback from October 2008 in which leading experts 

participated. (Environment and Energy) 

New Noise Research Program 

Despite our favorable historical record in having substantially reduced the number of people 

exposed to significant noise, airport noise restrictions and public opposition to airport and 

airspace projects continue to rise. Therefore, a robust noise research program is needed to 

realize our NextGen vision of providing a level of environmental protection that allows sustained 

aviation growth. A strategic research framework has thus been developed aimed at: improving 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-20 

public health and welfare near-term and in future growth scenarios; informing NextGen 

decisions with more accurate, comprehensive, and integrated analyses; and garnering greater 

public acceptance of future airport and airspace capacity projects, as well as the operation of 

future unconventional aircraft. To accomplish these goals, the research program must improve 

our understanding and quantification of aviation’s noise impacts as well as develop more costeffective/cost-beneficial mitigation solutions. 

The first half of the FAA strategy focuses on research and development to improve our 

understanding of the airport community noise problem – following the path of the noise from its 

point of emission through its propagation and transmission to the community, and ending with 

the community’s response to the noise. The second half of the research strategy focuses on 

solutions to alleviate the problem, which includes advancing each of the four elements of a 

balanced approach towards community noise mitigation, comprising of noise reduction at the 

source (i.e., the aircraft), land use compatibility planning and management, noise abatement 

operational procedures, and aircraft operational restrictions. The new research strategy will be 

presented to potential research partners and stakeholders who will jointly develop an execution 

strategy. (Environment and Energy) 

Scenarios and the Environmental Design Space Tool 

The Environmental Design Space (EDS) tool estimates source noise, exhaust emissions, 

performance, and economic parameters for aircraft designs under different technological, policy, 

and market scenarios. The model quantifies engine/airplane system design trades in a manner 

that is technically feasible in terms of performance, noise, and emissions. This capability allows 

for assessments of interdependencies between aviation-related noise and emissions effects. 

Design trade spaces will be developed for each of the ICAO passenger classes, ranging from 50 

passengers to 650 passengers. Each vehicle passenger class will have both a current technology 

trade space and a future technology trade space. The current technology trade space allows for 

changes to engine cycle parameters that are bounded by the limits of current certified technology. 

The future technology trade space would produce potential future vehicles defined within trade 

spaces estimated assuming potential future technology with a mid- to long-term development 

focus. 

The EDS development team completed validation of the current technology 300- passenger twinaisle and 150-passenger single-aisle aircraft trade spaces. The 50-passenger aircraft trade space 

is currently being reviewed by the EDS Independent Review Group. In addition, the FAA 

refocused EDS development to future technology trade spaces to enable technology applications 

in support of NextGen analysis. As a result, the EDS fundamental architecture was significantly 

enhanced to streamline the structure of execution and file conventions. The new EDS Version 

3.0 enables the development team to reduce human error and enhance version control of inputs 

and outputs generated. Further enhancements have been made to improve compressor and 

turbine map generation, to include technology factors and vary the aircraft within the trade space 

generation, to develop a fan stratification model to enable proper fan technology modeling, and 

to incorporate low speed aerodynamic surrogates. (Environment and Energy) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-21 

High quality teams and individuals 

The best qualified and trained workforce in the world 

Air Traffic Control Safety Risk Assessment Analysis 

Researchers from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) conducted a study to assess the 

probability that an ATC operational error (OE) will occur based on: 1) exposure to daily 

activities while working on a given shift at a particular time of day, and 2) the amount of time 

spent on position. In the past, most information about OEs was based only on their frequency of 

occurrence under various conditions. Data recently became available that allowed analyses to be 

conducted that take into account the amount of time spent on position during normal operations. 

The probability distribution of an OE occurring based on the number of “sign-ins - sign-outs” 

that occur within ten minute time intervals was computed for six en route centers having the 

largest number of OEs during 2006. The probability of an OE occurring within any given 10 

minute interval ranged from .002 percent (at the 90 min. interval) to .006 percent (at > 120 min. 

interval), resulting in an overall cumulative probability of .05 percent. 

This means that, within the NAS, on average, there is a .05 percent chance that an OE will occur 

during a position change sometime within a given two hour period. This kind of information is 

useful for constructing Bayesian networks to determine the risks associated with controlling air 

traffic and, as such, would be useful for monitoring the effectiveness of automation designed to 

mitigate those risks. However, it should be pointed out that not all risks associated with ATC 

can be empirically derived. If data do not exist, such as in the case of the probability that a 

controller will make decision A, B, or C, then expert judgments must be made. These judgments 

then can be used in conjunction with empirical data to create a more comprehensive ATC safety 

risk assessment, which would then feed into an ATC Safety Management System. 

(ATC/Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Air Traffic Control Selection Instruments: Assessment of Cognitive Aptitude 

CAMI tested 72 FAA Academy ATC classes (1,069 students). The purposes of the test were to: 

1) obtain biographical information about incoming ATC students; 2) obtain information relevant 

to the longitudinal validation of the Air Traffic Selection and Training (AT-SAT) test battery; 

and 3) to assess, in an experimental setting, the effectiveness of new tests that might be used to 

replace AT-SAT subtests when selecting air navigation service providers (ANSPs) for the 

NextGen system. This will help FAA determine if the job of the ANSP will be sufficiently 

different from today’s ATC Specialist to require changes to selection requirements. 

An analysis was conducted to assess validity of AT-SAT in predicting performance verification 

(PV) outcomes. AT-SAT data and PV outcomes were compared for six hundred fifty applicants 

who took AT-SAT as part of the hiring process and completed initial training at the FAA 

Academy. Using logistic regression on a subset, AT-SAT was shown to predict correctly PV 

outcomes for 73.5 percent of the trainees. Thus, the use of AT-SAT as a selection instrument has 

additional support. (ATC/Technical Operations Human Factors) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-22 

Air Traffic Control Specialist Biographical Data and Interview Selection 

Procedures 

CAMI developed a structured interview process for ATC Specialist applicants. Interviews are 

conducted by facility managers after a centralized selection panel has made a tentative job offer. 

The interview is used to make a placement decision, based on past experience, and assess 

candidate suitability for the job. The interview process was accepted by the Air Traffic 

Organization and operational use began in FY 2007. Follow-up will occur in FY 2009 to 

determine that the process is being used properly. 

Researchers developed a biographical inventory called the CAMI Life Experiences 

Questionnaire (CLEQ). It was intended to be used to refer ATC specialist applicants to secondstage aptitude testing using the Air Traffic Selection and Training (AT-SAT) selection battery. 

While the original CLEQ is not being used for that purpose, a shortened, empirically-keyed, 

response-option scored version is currently being developed and will be completed in 2009. The 

CLEQ v2.0 may eventually be added to the AT-SAT testing process. 

Researchers examined applicants’ reactions to the ATC Specialist selection process. Several 

focus groups were held with newly hired controllers during CAMI research testing sessions. 

Issues about the hiring process that were identified by the new controllers were summarized and 

reported as an interim product. (ATC/ Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Color Vision Tests for Air Traffic Control Specialist Applicants 

CAMI researchers developed a new, practical color vision test for selection of air traffic 

controllers to ensure that those selected have adequate color vision to be able to operate the color 

displays used extensively in ATC facilities today. 

The Air Traffic Color Vision Test (ATCOV) was developed in FY 2007, and was validated for 

operational use the following year. ATCOV validation consisted of two studies. The first tested 

81 color vision deficient and 152 color-normal subjects. This study provided information about 

the test’s validity, reliability, and standardization. The validation empirically indicated that, with 

selected cut-off scores, ATCOV exhibits high specificity and sensitivity. Approximately 7 

percent of color vision deficient applicants are expected to pass the test, as they will perform as 

well as 95 percent of the normal population. ATCOV was demonstrated to be highly reliable 

and can be self-administrated or instructor-administrated with minor training of proctors. (ATC/ 

Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Controller Displays for Severe Weather Avoidance 

Adverse weather conditions affect flight operations overall but are especially hazardous to 

general aviation aircraft. The primary weather hazards are icing, convective activity (i.e., 

thunderstorms), and reductions in ceiling/visibility. Some two-thirds of all general aviation 

accidents that occur in IMC are fatal. As a result, air traffic controllers are being asked to take a 

more pronounced role in ensuring that pilots, particularly general aviation pilots, remain clear 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-23 

from hazardous weather conditions. Tactical controllers, however, have only limited information 

available to provide this service. 

Because of this information shortcoming in en route and Terminal Radar Approach Control 

operations, researchers at the William J. Hughes Technical Center developed concepts for how to 

display relevant weather information on air traffic controller workstations. Additionally, they 

developed a working prototype of an automated support tool called AIRWOLF that tracks 

general aviation aircraft and hazardous weather areas. When the automated system detects a 

future conflict with an aircraft and a hazardous weather region, the system alerts the controller 

about the aircraft and the hazard. These weather tools can give air traffic controllers the 

information they need to help general aviation pilots avoid weather hazards. Used together, they 

could help to reduce weather-related general aviation accidents and provide information that 

would enhance cockpit decision-making. (ATC/Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Future En Route Workstation II Simulation 

There are estimates that the demand for air transportation may double or even triple over the next 

twenty years. To achieve this, air navigation service provider efficiency and effectiveness will 

have to double or triple. This project is one in a series of Future En Route Workstation (FEWS) 

simulations aimed at demonstrating that these increases are feasible through the use of 

automation and standardization of operations, procedures, and information. 

The FEWS II simulation compared controller performance, workload, and capacity to safely 

control increasing amounts of air traffic using the three workstations. First, the FAA has added 

automation to the current en route ATC workstation – the Display System Replacement (DSR) – 

that controllers use through existing or auxiliary displays. The En Route Automation 

Modernization (ERAM) workstation under development provides some integration of these 

capabilities. FEWS is based on ERAM but has additional integration of the capabilities as well 

as automation to minimize the amount of “housekeeping” tasks that controllers must perform. 

These modifications are guided by human factors design principles that strive to: limit or 

eliminate the number of disparate windows and lists or makes them optional, provide access to 

information through the fewest number of steps possible, present information to the user when 

and where needed, prevent time sharing of information, maintain consistency across display 

windows, connect information across the display that relates to the same object, place related 

information in close proximity, and use consistent layout formats to support user learning and 

automated human behaviors. In addition, the simulation compared the workstations with and 

without data communications and with staffing of either one or two controllers per sector. 

Twelve Certified Professional Controllers from Level 11 and 12 Air Route Traffic Control 

Centers participated in the simulation. Generic airspace was used that participants from different 

facilities could learn quickly. In the primary experimental design, each participant completed 12 

test scenarios that lasted up to 60 minutes, but the controllers could stop earlier if the traffic level 

exceeded their capacity (approximately 50 aircraft would be in the sector at 50 minutes). The 

simulation was conducted at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center Research, 

Development, and Human Factors Laboratory. The Distributed Environment for Simulation, 

Rapid Engineering, and Experimentation was used to emulate features and functions of the 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-24 

alternative controller workstations; the Target Generation Facility to transmit aircraft information 

from simulation pilot workstations to the controller display; and the Center-Terminal Radar 

Approach Control (TRACON) Automation System to transmit and receive additional system 

data. System and controller performance data was recorded and analyzed, including the number 

of aircraft handled, time and distance in the sector, controller workload, situation awareness, and 

ratings of system features. Controller eye movement data and data entries was measured and 

analyzed for each test condition. 

The FEWS II simulation resulted in fewer data entries and showed a reduction in controller 

workload when data communications was available in a two-person sector but not under the oneperson sector conditions. The results indicate that the FEWS II workstation with a two-person 

sector and data communications available also had a significantly lower number of controller 

deviations. Regression analyses showed that, at the same workload level, controllers could 

handle more aircraft when they worked as a team using data communications instead of voice 

communications only. When controllers worked the one-person sector with the FEWS II 

workstation, they were not able to handle more aircraft with the addition of data communications. 

The results of the simulation were published in a 2008 technical report Future En Route 

Workstation Study (FEWS II): Part I – Automation Integration Research (DOT/FAA/TC-08/14, 

II). (ATC/Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Methods to Assess Applicant Temperament and Emotional Stability 

Based on empirical research, CAMI replaced the 16 Personality Factor (16 PF) test, a 

psychological screening test for ATC Specialist applicants, with the Minnesota Multiphasic 

Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). Such screening is mandated by FAA Order 3930.3A. The 

MMPI-2 was found to be a more sensitive indicator of potential psychopathology than was the 

16PF. Now candidates who are flagged with psychological testing will be offered secondary 

screening. The assessment process has also been moved from a paper-and-pencil task requiring 

two hours to administer and a week to score, to an on-line experience requiring only 35 minutes 

to administer with near-instantaneous scoring. Using the MMPI-2 and the improved secondary 

screening process, the FAA is now more likely to identify applicants with medically 

disqualifying conditions as early in the application process as possible. 

This involved developing plans for administering and scoring the MMPI-2, identifying a set of 

scales and cutoff scores to be used to refer unsuccessful applicants for further testing, developing 

letters to both notify applicants who will be required to undergo additional assessment before 

they can be medically cleared, and informing psychologists about the procedures they should use 

when conducting the second tier testing. Coordination also occurred with FAA headquarters to 

identify their role in the administration and interpretation of MMPI-2 results and to provide 

feedback to applicants who do not pass. 

CAMI personnel also established procedures for collecting test data on personal computers and 

transmitting the results in a secure fashion over the internet. In support of this effort, they: 1) 

worked with ATO Information Technology personnel to define security needs to ensure secure 

administration of the MMPI-2 at every FAA facility; 2) arranged with Pearson Assessments, 

owners of the MMPI-2, to place the software on an FAA server; 3) pilot tested the software with 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-25 

several groups of pseudo-applicants to be sure it worked and ensure the security of the data 

transmission; and 4) established a procedure for applicants to take the test locally, then upload 

the responses so they could be scored at a centralized location. 

Researchers provided assistance to the ATO with efforts to incorporate the MMPI-2 in the PreEmployment Processing Center (PEPC) concept that allowed rapid processing of application 

data from candidate air traffic controllers. The research team traveled to the first PEPC in each 

region, ensuring that MMPI-2 testing was conducted successfully, and interacted with the 

Regional Flight Surgeons to ensure that they understood how to conduct second-tier testing. 

Finally, researchers reviewed the psychological tests submitted by candidates who failed the 

MMPI-2. (ATC/Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Advanced Systems for Air Traffic Workforce Training 

The FAA has a critical need for innovative approaches that will strengthen air traffic controller 

training to reduce the time and resources required to provide ongoing instruction of current 

controllers as well as a strong training program for the thousands of controllers that will be hired 

over the next decade. CAASD researchers made significant progress in helping the FAA 

leverage advanced training technologies to meet the challenge in both the en route and terminal 

domains. 

Utilizing the CAASD developed high-fidelity en route ATC training prototype (known as the 

enroute Trainer), the FAA conducted training sessions with Developmental Controllers at the 

FAA’s Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center to evaluate new training technologies and 

capabilities and their associated benefits, and to define baseline requirements for integrating 

these new en route training capabilities across the NAS. These capabilities included a fully 

automated simulation pilot capability that can be used in place of human simulation pilots for 

many scenarios. Based on the evaluations, functional requirements and specifications for an 

automated simulation pilot capability, including aviation-specific speech recognition algorithms, 

were documented and tech-transferred for use in ERAM. Other capabilities that were evaluated 

included the use of skill enhancement scenarios and recorded live traffic that provided a more 

solid foundation for key skills needed for on-the-job training; the use of “pause and playback” 

during student scenario operation that enabled the instructors to stop scenarios and point out key 

emerging events and discuss different control options; and the use of student performance 

measures to help the instructor assess achievement of key competencies. 

CAASD has also developed a terminal trainer prototype that is designed to demonstrate the use 

and benefits of interactive training technology and intelligent training system design for use in 

the terminal ATC training domain. Phase 1 of the prototype is a stand-alone capability that leads 

students through the Miami TRACON training curriculum using state of the art voice synthesis, 

game technology, simulation, and interactive design. The Phase 1 prototype was reviewed with 

Miami TRACON representatives in September 2008, and received approval for a field 

evaluation by students and instructors at the Miami TRACON. The field evaluation will be used 

to validate these capabilities through use in training actual terminal ATC students. The benefits 

of these capabilities will be assessed in terms of improved training quality and efficiency. 

(CAASD) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-26 

Flight Simulator Fidelity Requirements Research 

Much of initial and recurrent airline pilot training is done using simulators. A great deal of 

interest centers on simulator fidelity requirements for effective training. Human factors research 

focuses on four tasks: 1) examining the effect of existing flight simulator requirements on the 

transfer of skills of pilots between airplane and simulator according to existing knowledge; 2) 

providing original research in cases where existing knowledge is inconclusive; 3) developing 

requirements, knowledge, guidance, and standards for the design, certification, and use of flight 

simulators based on all research findings; and 4) applying and disseminating research results in 

national and international forums. The overall goal is to improve air-transport-pilot training 

world-wide to ensure that training tools are available to face the challenges brought on by the 

shrinking pilot applicant pool, the decreasing experience of applicants, and the increasing 

complexity of the traffic mix and the pilot task with the transition to NextGen. Two important 

considerations are: a) ensuring that flight simulator cueing requirements are sufficient to ensure 

positive transfer of pilot performance and behavior between the simulator and airplane, and b) 

ensuring that cueing requirements do contribute to this transfer. 

A systematic examination of full fight simulator (FFS) requirements and a subsequent empirical 

research program found no operationally relevant benefit from simulator platform motion. 

Researchers also found evidence that other aspects of simulation, such as the lack of realistic 

radio-communications, should be addressed to improve training. Recent activities include 

reviewing relevant literature and examining regulatory and research output, monitoring the 

impact of work accomplished in this program on industry and on other research and regulatory 

activities, and continuing to maintain and update a flight simulator fidelity requirements 

literature database at the Volpe National Transportation System Center. This research is being 

coordinated with ICAO working groups. Research is also focused on evaluation of the Full 

Flight Trainer, a fixed-base trainer with FFS-quality data. Planning, research design, setting up 

of data collection and analysis are underway. Researchers have also started looking at research 

needs for advanced maneuvers training (such as upset recovery) and have helped coordinate the 

work of the many entities exploring this issue. The goal is to examine the effectiveness of 

existing simulators for training and evaluation of advanced maneuvers. 

(Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Mental Model Assessments for Training Design and Assessment 

Research has established that the structure of a pilot’s knowledge may predict his/her 

performance while conducting operations. While valid knowledge structure evaluation tools and 

procedures have been developed (i.e., concept mapping and card sorting), many airlines rely on 

other assessment methods that may only evaluate superficial levels of a pilot’s knowledge. 

Inadequate knowledge evaluation practices may be evidenced by the consistent findings of gaps 

and misunderstandings in pilots’ knowledge of the automation they interact with. So far, 

research has yielded several important results: a software tool to computerize the process of 

knowledge solicitation and assessment using card sorts and concept maps, guidelines for the 

effective use of the tools, and identification of the suitability of simplified assessment methods 

while maintaining the reliability and validity of the method. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-27 

In an effort to encourage the use of knowledge structure assessment methods that can assess and 

diagnose misunderstandings or gaps, researchers at the University of Central Florida developed a 

study protocol that aims to support development of guidelines that will standardize the use of 

knowledge structure evaluation methods. Specifically, human factors researchers are focusing 

on developing guidelines for using knowledge structure assessment methods that facilitate both 

valid and reliable evaluations of the knowledge structures pilots use to interact with an aircraft. 

The study, which began in 2008, addresses the need for knowledge structure assessment 

guidelines by investigating factors that may influence the validity and reliability of concept map 

assessments and the role check pilots play in the assessment process. Factors such as 

experiences with the assessment process and the information being assessed are empirically 

investigated to determine the conditions under which these factors are optimal for producing the 

most valid (i.e., accurate) and reliable (i.e., inter-rater agreement) evaluations. Although this 

study focuses on knowledge structure evaluation, the guidelines produced here can be extended 

to other subjective assessment methods such as simulator observations. 

(Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Research on the Human Factors of Conveying Safety-Critical Information 

A major factor in aviation accident prevention is information gleaned from pilot reports of 

incidents that occur in flight. The Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) was developed to 

provide a means for collecting this information in a voluntary, secure environment. Ultimately, 

information collected from ASAP can provide valuable insight into aspects of flight safety that 

can lead to improvements in training, awareness, and policy. Among the challenges associated 

with this program is ensuring the array of information that can be addressed through ASAP is 

communicated efficiently and accurately. In support of the FAA Voluntary Safety Program 

Office, researchers at the University of Central Florida (UCF) are actively involved with research 

on systems that convey safety critical information, including Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) and 

the ASAP Web Based Application Tool (WBAT) systems. UCF researchers aim to investigate 

safety critical information systems in an effort to optimize efficiency and usability of these types 

of systems. 

This research addresses the need to investigate current information transmission systems within 

the aviation community to improve the flow of safety critical information.A systematic human 

factors analysis of the current WBAT system was conducted in co-operation with researchers 

from UCF and from George Mason University. UCF researchers also established a partnership 

with an airline to obtain realistic data samples from its voluntary programs for data mining and 

analysis studies. By having access to the results from these systematic examinations, FAA will 

be better able to understand the quality, frequency, and type of information transmitted through 

these systems. Further, by applying human factors guidelines and understanding the 

psychometric principles of these programs, the FAA intends to make recommendations on 

current and future information sharing programs. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/ System Integration 

Human Factors) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-28 

Understanding Human Performance in Aviation 

This research supports the re-design of the NOTAM system. NOTAMs provide safety- and 

time-critical information to pilots, dispatchers, and other participants in the NAS. In the past, 

this system relied mostly on a format appropriate for limited bandwidth teletype machines. With 

the introduction of modern telecommunications tools and means, such as the internet and the 

World-Wide Web, the format of NOTAMs, which had many human factors shortcomings, could 

be improved considerably. Graphical depictions of NOTAMs, as well as natural language text, 

are formats that are now technically feasible. The FAA plans to overhaul the NOTAM system 

with the objective of developing a fully digitized NOTAM system. 

The American Institutes for Research (AIR) disseminated reports on NOTAM and Field 

Condition (FICON), along with a previous report from dispatchers regarding NOTAM data, to 

the FAA’s Aeronautical Information Management Group (AIM) group, which is responsible for 

modernizing the NOTAM system. AIR also provided this information to AIM and other 

stakeholders through a series of four Digital NOTAM Working Group meetings held between 

October 2007 and August 2008, and one FAA NOTAM Industry Day meeting. 

In addition to providing input to AIM regarding challenges associated with the use of NOTAM 

and FICON data and recommendations for change, researchers from AIR and the University of 

Central Florida provided AIM with human factors related guidance regarding the digital 

NOTAM data entry system. AIR disseminated FICON information to the Take-Off and Landing 

Performance Assessment Aviation Rule-Making Committee in the form of dispatchers’ 

recommendations for change to Advisory Circular 150/5200-30B entitled, Airport Winter Safety 

and Operations. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Weather-related Training and Testing of General Aviation Pilots 

Weather-related accidents, particularly accidents due to visual flight rules (VFR) flight into IMC, 

are associated with the highest fatality rate within general aviation (GA). Specifically, the 

fatality rate of VFR into IMC accidents is approximately 80 percent compared to roughly 19 

percent for other types of GA accidents. Previous research at the University of Wisconsin 

indicates that accidents related to VFR flight into IMC often involve inexperienced pilots who 

lack the skills to properly plan VFR cross-country flights, effectively assess changes in weather 

during flight, and appropriately evaluate risks of continuing flight into adverse weather or safely 

avoid/exit IMC when it is encountered. These findings point to the need to improve weatherrelated training as well as the manner in which weather-knowledge and decision-making skills 

are tested and evaluated. 

To address this problem, researchers are exploring better ways to train and test weather-related 

decision making among GA pilots. They are developing advanced flight simulation scenarios, 

based on known VFR flight into IMC accident profiles, to train and evaluate the skills of GA 

pilots empirically in applying basic weather knowledge in “real time” during dynamic simulated 

flight. These simulation scenarios will provide an innovative tool for systematically training and 

assessing pilot weather-related decision making skills, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of 

new intervention programs targeted at reducing accidents associated with VFR flight into IMC. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-29 

The results of this project will provide empirical data to inform FAA decision-makers about how 

best to redesign flight training, testing, and currency requirements in an efficacious yet costeffective manner. This project also addresses the goal of the FAA to reduce GA fatalities and the 

need to develop Advanced Simulator Weather Simulations. Accomplishments include: 

• A systematic review and critique of the weather-related material disseminated by the FAA 

and weather-related test questions contained in the FAA private pilot written exam. 

Researchers also examined knowledge deficiencies of pilots on weather-related exam 

questions and the relationship between performance on the written exam and performance on 

the private pilot oral exam. Results were published as a technical report located at 

http://www.humanfactors.illinois.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/TechReport/08-01.pdf 

• The research team completed a study involving a flight simulation protocol which required 

VFR-only pilots to interpret pre-flight weather information for a specific route of flight that 

had been prepared using real-time weather information. Pilots were tasked to make pre-flight 

decisions based on this information, and they were then asked to fly the routes in the flight 

simulator. Data analysis is currently in progress. 

(Flightdeck/Maintenance/Systems Integration Human Factors, Weather Program) 

Cockpit Task Demands 

In conducting research on airliner cockpit demands for the FAA, NASA researchers observed 

pilot training classes and participated as pilots in airline training for new hires. They analyzed 

flight operations manuals, observed actual flight operations from the jump seat, and discussed 

those observations with the crews. The results were used to generate search terms to identify an 

extensive set of reports involving concurrent task demands. The research team published a book 

titled Multitasking in Real World Operations: Myths and Realities. This book is the final report 

of their multi-year ethnographic study of cockpit tasks and crew performance in normal flight 

operations that was conducted in collaboration with two major U.S. air carriers. 

The team found that flight operations manuals, and the training associated with them, portrayed 

cockpit tasks as if they were linear (each task performed in sequence), predictable in timing and 

nature, and under the moment-to-moment control of the crew. Jump seat observations, however, 

revealed cockpit work to be much more dynamic with frequent interruptions, unexpected new 

task demands, and situations requiring tasks to be performed out of the expected sequence. 

Pilots often had to perform more than one task concurrently. The dynamic and concurrent nature 

of task demands was a major source of inadvertent failures to perform intended actions. 

Prototypical situations were identified in which pilots were vulnerable to forgetting to perform 

intended actions, such as when: 1) ongoing tasks are interrupted; 2) tasks must be performed out 

of the normal, practiced sequence; 3) tasks must be deferred; and, 4) multiple tasks must be 

interleaved concurrently. Researchers were able to identify the cognitive demands of these 

prototypical situations and plausible reasons why even the most expert of pilots was vulnerable 

to commit errors. The book provides detailed guidance on countermeasures that individuals and 

organizations can take to reduce vulnerability to error in these common situations. It also 

provides a basis for conducting more realistic cockpit task analyses for advanced qualification 

programs. Although the book’s examples are based on pilot performance, the principles and 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-30 

recommendations are treated in a way that they can be applied to any area of skilled operator 

performance. This research provides measures to improve the design of pilot training and of 

operating procedures, which addresses the FAA objective of improving aviation safety. 

(Flightdeck/ Maintenance/Systems Integration Human Factors) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-31 

Human-centered design 

Aerospace systems that adapt to, compensate for, and augment the performance of the human 

Airport Ground Access Mode Choice Models 

Airport ground access mode choice models form a key analytical component of airport landside 

planning as well as airport system planning. Without an accepted and validated process for 

predicting how airport users will change their access or egress mode in response to changes in 

the airport ground transportation system (e.g., changes in fares, rates or service levels) or the 

introduction of new modes (e.g., extension of a light rail system to the airport), it is difficult to 

determine the economic feasibility of proposed projects to improve airport ground transportation 

or effectively manage the existing airport ground transportation system. 

These models are highly specialized and not well understood by airport managers, planners, and 

consultants. With increasing emphasis on intermodal connections as illustrated by the recent 

Government Accountability Office study on this issue, there is a pressing need for more widely 

accepted and accessible reference material and guidelines. 

This project updated previous efforts to document the state of practice for airport ground access 

and egress mode choice models. It also addressed the issues involved in the development and 

use of such models to improve their understanding and acceptance in airport planning and 

management and provide guidance on their use and development. The research results also serve 

to focus research and development efforts to continue to improve the state of the art for modeling 

airport ground access mode choice. (Airport Cooperative Research – Capacity) 

Air Traffic Control Display Standard – Terminal Color 

The FAA Human Factors Design Standard (HFDS) contains standards that can be used to 

develop user interfaces that are easy to learn, efficient to use, and reduce the likelihood of human 

error. However, the HFDS is not ATC-specific; for example, it does not provide specific color 

values for elements appearing on ATC situation displays, such as data blocks and radar targets. 

The ATC Display Standard - Terminal Color project used human factors standards such as the 

HFDS to develop detailed human factors color standards specific to the terminal ATC primary 

situation display. 

In the case of color on terminal ATC primary situation displays, current programs individually 

choose their colors. The chosen colors do not always conform to human factors best practices 

and are often inconsistent across systems. These issues can decrease the usability of terminal 

systems overall, increase the likelihood of human error, and increase training requirements. In 

addition, resources are spent redundantly when each program develops its own color 

requirements and designs. 

In this project, researchers used a spectrophotometer to measure colors used by current terminal 

ATC primary situation displays as shown on four different monitors. The measurements allowed 

the researchers to compare the current colors to human factors standards. Researchers evaluated 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-32 

the colors on factors such as text readability, the ability of colors to draw attention, how easily 

colors can be identified and named, and how easily two similar colors can be discriminated from 

each other. Where the researchers identified deficiencies with the current colors, they proposed 

alternative colors that better met human factors standards. 

The project culminated in a final report that contains a detailed standard color palette for 

terminal ATC primary situation displays that: 1) follows human factors guidelines and best 

practices, 2) considers the operational, procedural, and environmental factors of ATC, 3) is 

specific with regard to display elements and color values, and 4) provides standards that can be 

directly implemented by system developers. The final report (DOT/FAA/TC-08/15) describes 

each display element (e.g., data block, target, map) and specifies a color for that element, 

expressed in hardware-independent coordinates. To assist programs in implementing the colors, 

the researchers have provided hardware-specific coordinates for several existing monitors. This 

information can be used for the development and acquisition of ATC terminal primary situation 

displays. (ATC/Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Future Terminal Workstation 

NextGen will bring substantial changes to terminal airspace in the 2015 – 2025 timeframe. 

However, it is not known how the NextGen operational concepts, procedures, and technology, 

combined with higher traffic complexity, will affect controller performance, decision-making, or 

workload. It is also not known how the information necessary to support NextGen in the 

terminal domain can be best presented and integrated onto the controller workstation. 

The objective of the Future Terminal Workstation (FTWS) project is to create a prototype 

workstation for the terminal domain that incorporates the technology needed to support NextGen, 

and then use it to conduct human factors research on NextGen operational concepts and 

procedures. The prototype will be designed to follow human factors best practices, keep 

controller workload at manageable levels, and reduce the likelihood for human error. The 

prototype will build on research and designs created for other projects, and lessons learned from 

other systems, domains, and countries. The FTWS prototype and accompanying traffic scenarios 

was created. The prototype and scenarios will serve as the platform for human-in-the-loop 

simulations in FY 2009 through FY 2011. 

Research is directed at developing the FTWS platform using the Distributed Environment for 

Simulation, Rapid Engineering, and Experimentation (DESIREE). FTWS will consist of several 

user interface “skins” that include different display designs and capabilities. One skin will 

reflect the current Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS). The second 

skin will reflect STARS with several important new capabilities added, including Automatic 

Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) and controller-pilot Data Communications 

(DataComm). The third skin will bring advanced user interface capabilities designed by other 

projects in the laboratory. (ATC/Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Human Factors Concept of Operations 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-33 

CAMI initiated a project to develop a human factors-driven concept of operations (ConOps) that 

will provide designers with the knowledge needed to develop a new ATC system capable of 

accommodating greater amounts of air traffic while also maintaining or increasing air traffic 

safety levels above those of today. In support of this effort, researchers conducted two 

independent studies in parallel. Both relied on an updated hierarchical job/task analysis of en 

route ATC. 

The first study reviewed the current Joint Planning and Development Office ConOps, the FAA 

Operational Evolution Partnership solution sets, and studies associated with the ConOps that 

have been performed by MITRE to determine how each ATC function included in the task 

analysis is allocated in NextGen. The second study used knowledge of human factors and 

cognitive psychology literature to identify the relevant issues associated with each function. The 

two matrices that resulted from these studies have been used to identify inconsistencies and 

problem areas and suggest whether human factors research can be conducted to fill in any 

identified gaps. In addition, CAMI personnel conducted a feasibility study to identify a draft set 

of factors/events to include in scenarios against which ConOps solutions can be tested. This will 

show the extent of solution benefits and reveal situations where ConOps solutions need to be 

improved or extended. (ATC/Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Allowable Manual Control Forces in Aircraft Control Systems 

The objective of this effort was to update FAA Regulations 25.143(c) and 23.142(c) with current 

information based on present and future demographics and current and anticipated control-input 

devices to be found in part Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 25 and Part 23 aircraft. 

While the intent was to provide data relating to the maximum forces, both momentary and 

sustained, that could be exerted by the pilot, information/recommendations were also generated 

for minimum forces. Additionally, a recommendation was sought regarding what percentage of 

the population should be accommodated in the setting of maximum-force requirements. 

A survey of the literature was conducted to determine to what extent guidelines and standards 

existed for the application of force to assorted aviation control devices. A number of sources 

were consulted that used reasonably large samples of either military personnel or the civilian 

population. Additionally, empirical data collections were conducted at CAMI and at three 

remote sites to collect force-application data for both pilots and non-pilots with the intent of 

comparing those results with the reference sources. Specialized equipment was designed and 

fabricated for the offsite data collections, with modifications and enhancements being made to 

collect joystick data for the second sample of Part 121 pilots and non-pilots (flight attendants). 

Data from the last sample of CFR Part 121 pilots (both women and men) suggested that not all of 

the female pilots flying Part 121 operations today are likely to meet or exceed the allowable 

values in the CFR. To a lesser degree, some of the male pilots were also unable to reach tabled 

force values on some tasks (e.g., foot force). It should be noted that the lower-percentile values 

appeared to be in agreement with previously obtained data distributions. As such, the older data 

appear to be usable for our purposes. Some of these values, however, may not have a significant 

impact in some systems, particularly in fly-by-wire side-stick aircraft where proportional force 

feedback may not be felt as readily. The values presented in HumanScale 4 (Diffrient et al.) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-34 

appear to suffice for the women’s performance in that they are consistent with the present 

findings. The data obtained during this project should provide a foundation from which data can 

be developed to guide future policy decisions based upon those norms, if the distributions are 

deemed equivalent. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Assessment of Flight Attendant Fatigue 

In 2005, Congress directed CAMI to conduct a preliminary investigation of flight attendant 

schedules and potential vulnerability to fatigue. CAMI collaborated with NASA Ames Research 

Center to produce a report in 2006 that provided evidence that fatigue-related performance 

decrements were likely under the current regulations, and suggested six areas of research that 

would facilitate a more complete understanding of flight attendant fatigue and governmentindustry decision making. Citing the 2006 report recommendations, Congress recently directed 

CAMI to conduct analyses in the six areas: a survey of field operations; field research on the 

effects of fatigue; a validation of models for assessing flight attendant fatigue; a focused study of 

incident reports; a review of international policies and practices; and the potential benefits of 

training. Reports of these efforts are to be submitted to Congress not later than December 31, 

2009. 

Coordination of the survey and field studies is underway with Air Transport Association’s Cabin 

Operations Committee, the Regional Airline Association’s (RAA) In-flight Committee, the 

Coalition of Flight Attendants, and non-unionized airlines for focused assistance in 

accomplishing these recommendations. Additionally, pre-sampling tests of flight attendants and 

subject matter experts (SMEs) are being conducted to evaluate the relevance and quality of both 

the survey and the field study procedures, instructional quality, and to address unforeseen issues. 

The field study will solicit recruitment of 210 volunteer flight attendants who will be 

compensated (paid as SMEs) for participation under a cooperative research agreement. The field 

study is expected to begin in November 2008 and proceed over a five-month period with a draft 

report to follow in April 2009. 

A CAMI Research and Technical Team was formed to coordinate and accomplish the six 

recommendations. To date, the following milestones have been accomplished: 1) provided 

multiple briefings to Regional Airline Association, Air Transport Association, and Coalition of 

Flight Attendants, 2) developed National Flight Attendant Duty/Rest/Fatigue Survey, 3) obtained 

Investment Review Board (IRB) and OMB approval for survey, 4) established cooperative 

agreement for field study, 5) developed National Flight Attendant Duty/Rest/Fatigue Field Study 

protocol, 6) obtained IRB approval for field study, 7) documented FA policy and regulations 

from around the world, and 8) obtained more than 2000 Aviation Safety Reporting System 

incident reports for flight attendants. 

The task will continue in FY 2009 with data collection, analysis, and reporting of all six projects. 

The approach will be to develop technical reports describing the results of each separate project 

before combining relevant aspects into a final report that will be submitted for distribution to 

Congress by December 31, 2009. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/ System Integration Human Factors) 

Aviation Accident/Incident Prevention/Mitigation 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-35 

To address the human component of aviation safety, many in the field have embraced a system 

safety approach. Previous efforts have targeted hazard identification and prioritization using the 

Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). The next step in the system safety 

process is to identify and assess potential interventions. One tool that may prove useful is the 

Human Factors Intervention Matrix (HFIX). HFIX includes five broad areas around which 

interventions can be developed: organizational, human, technology, task, and environment. To 

assess the utility of HFIX, the current research employed HFIX to address VFR flight into IMC. 

Five pilot experts were recruited for the intervention prioritization part of the HFIX process. The 

pilot experts were instructed to rate 136 interventions on a five-point Likert scale on each of four 

dimensions: 1) effectiveness (i.e., What is the likelihood that it will reduce general aviation 

accidents?); 2) cost (i.e., Can the organization afford the intervention?); 3) feasibility (i.e., How 

easy will it be to implement the intervention?); and 4) acceptability (i.e., Will the aviation 

community accept the proposed intervention?). For the effectiveness dimension, the top 

intervention for reducing VFR-IMC was standardizing flight training that covers VFR flight into 

IMC. However, several new interventions surfaced: increasing oversight for equipment and 

training, ensuring that the FAA allocates resources to increase pilot proficiency and awareness, 

and installing weather radar in aircraft. A technical report summarizes the results and links 

previous studies using HFACS with those employing HFIX within a system safety model has 

been submitted for consideration. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Color Vision Requirements for Pilots 

Although the FAA has maintained a color vision standard for pilots for many years, 

manufacturers have continually modified the pilot’s tasks by introducing new technology that 

uses color to alert, inform, direct, and capture attention. During FY 2008, the major objective 

was to document colors used in modern glass cockpits and in the airport environment and to 

determine whether the current color vision screening tests are adequate, given the increased color 

usage inside the cockpit. 

To do this, a Minolta CS-100 colorimeter was used to create color chromaticity. The size of the 

text and type of symbology of color-coded information were recorded along with placement, 

documentation of other colors on the display, target/background combinations, usage, and 

criticality of the information. The colors in use in the cockpit and in the airport environment will 

be used to create a generic work-task to compare performance against currently approved color 

vision screening tests and with new computer-based screening and diagnostic tests. The 

measurements obtained from airport lighting will serve two purposes: to measure the variability 

resulting from longtime exposure to heat, cold, ice, sun, and exposure to the incandescent lamps 

that burn 24 hours per day, seven days per week; and to document the in-service chromaticity 

and the range of that chromaticity resulting from use. 

Data collection forms, database formatting, and chromaticity display graphs have been 

completed and 90 percent of the data collected has been screened and entered into the database. 

Colors were measured in modern glass cockpit displays, including a Boeing 777, an MD-80, and 

several military aircraft. The chromaticity of airport lighting systems, including the Precision 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-36 

Approach Path Indicator (PAPI), Visual Approach Slope Indicator, taxiway, and runway lights, 

were measured at 20 airports. Data gathering will continue and include cockpit simulators, 

airports representing various environmental/climatic zones, additional aircraft manufacturers, 

and general aviation aircraft. According to data collected at London City University as part of an 

FAA grant that compared performance on a PAPI light simulator to one of the FAA’s color 

vision screening tests (i.e., Dvorine Pseudoisochromatic Plate Test), the results show that about 

93 percent of those passing the screening test were able to identify the red and white lights of the 

PAPI lights test correctly. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Electronic Flight Bags 

Volpe Center researchers are updating and finalizing a draft report on electronic flight bag 

(EFB)-related safety events to understand how they impact the overall safety of flight operations. 

Thirty-seven relevant events were gathered for this report from the public online Aviation Safety 

Reporting System (ASRS) database. In addition, two accident reports from the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that call out the EFB as a contributing factor were reviewed. 

Recommendations were provided to the FAA regarding EFB guidance, which was prepared for 

inclusion in the Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS). The revised FAA 

guidance was based on past work done by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to 

develop Notice N8200.98 (October 2007). The guidance is currently undergoing internal FAA 

coordination. 

Results of the review of EFB-related safety events are described separately for the ASRS data 

and NTSB reports. Descriptive statistics for the ASRS events show that the most common 

anomaly to occur was a spatial deviation in heading, altitude, or speed. Underlying EFB issues 

are also ascribed to each of the events. One key issue is related to display configuration of charts, 

which can induce workload and may also cause the pilot to miss important information. A 

second key issue is the introduction of the EFB technology. In ten reports (most of which were 

from corporate or private operators) pilots mentioned that they were new to the EFB and this 

may have been a contributing factor in the safety event. 

Both NTSB reports identified the use of an EFB for calculating landing distance as a 

contributing factor. In the first NTSB report (Runway Overrun and Collision, Southwest Airlines 

Flight 1248, Boeing 737-7H4, N471WN, Chicago Midway International Airport, Chicago, 

Illinois, December 8, 2005), the key issue was that assumptions underlying the performance 

calculations on an EFB must be presented to the crew as clearly as they are shown on paperbased performance tables. In the other NTSB report (Crash During Landing, Federal Express, 

Inc. McDonnell Douglas MD-11, N611FE Newark International Airport Newark, New Jersey, 

July 31, 1997), the key issue was assessment of the adequacy of training and procedures for 

using EFB performance calculations functions. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration 

Human Factors) 

Fatigue Assessment under Ultra Long Range Flight Operations 

In December 2007 and January of 2008, data was collected from 23 pilots and 20 flight 

attendants on 10 New York (JFK) to Bombay, India (BOM) ULR flights. Measures included 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-37 

actigraphy (i.e., that monitors when crewmembers were awake and asleep), Psychomotor 

Vigilance Task (PVT) performance, and subjective logbook entries of sleep ratings, visual 

analogue mood scale (VAS) ratings, Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS) ratings, and ratings of the 

Sustained Operations Assessment Profile (SOAP). 

Four post hoc groupings of participants were formed with flight and cabin crewmembers that 

were scheduled for “better” (aligned with circadian rhythm conducive to sleep) vs. “poorer” (not 

aligned nor conducive to sleep) sleep-time opportunities on the outbound and return segments of 

the trip, and whether those sleep-time opportunities were reversed during the two segments or 

remained the same. Differences in crew operations required separate comparisons; pilots were 

scheduled for two sleep-time opportunities en route, whereas flight attendants were scheduled for 

only one longer sleep-time opportunity; pilots were scheduled for 48 hour layovers versus 24 

hours for the flight attendants. 

All data reduction and formatting has been completed. Analyses of the PVT, SOAP, VAS, and 

Sleep Ratings data have been completed. Specific trip parameters, including block times, 

flight/duty times, and latitude/longitude waypoints, as well as actigraphy and logbook entries of 

sleep have been entered into the Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool (FASTTM). A briefing to 

FAA and Delta Air Lines on all results is scheduled for early October 2008. Results provided 

evidence that the predictions from the modeling tools were generally met and that fatigue and 

alertness levels varied across the operation and were influenced by the quantity and quality of 

sleep attained by crewmembers. These results support a continued use of prediction modeling 

tools in the A332 Operation Specification pre-approval process along with the additional 

requirement for air carriers to acquire similar data to verify that crewmembers are well-rested 

during critical phases of flight. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Flight Symbology 

Researchers at the Volpe National Transportation System Center are working with the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE) International Aerospace Behavioral Engineering Technology 

Committee (SAE G-10) Aeronautical Charting Committee to update an industry document on 

recommendations for charting symbology in order to promote consistency across displays, 

aircraft types, and operations. The Volpe Center is also coordinating research on traffic 

symbology with the RTCA Special Committee (SC) 186, ADS-B CDTI subgroup. 

Data have been collected from approximately 140 pilots without instrument ratings in regard to 

their use of lines and linear patterns. Pilots first sorted several lines and linear patterns based on 

how much they use and recognize them. Then, they tried to name a few specific linear patterns 

that were expected to be relatively well known, even though the patterns were shown in isolation. 

The new data were combined with data from more than 100 instrument-rated pilots collected in 

FY 2007. Results of the study found that pilots use and recognize lines and linear patterns 

differently based on their qualifications (instrument-rated versus not), types of flight operations 

(e.g., air transport, corporate, or private), and typical flight length. Recognition of the linear 

patterns in isolation was a difficult task, although some patterns (e.g., for restricted airspace) 

were more recognizable than others (e.g., for an air routing traffic control center). Results of this 

study were documented in a draft report. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-38 

Another draft technical report from FY 2007, on navigation-aid and airport symbols, lines, and 

linear patterns that are currently in use, was updated with further information from manufacturers. 

Definitions for several line types were also obtained and included in a new appendix for the 

report. A final technical report documenting navigation-aid and airport symbols, lines, and linear 

patterns currently in use was completed and published. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors) 

General Aviation Data Collection 

Though the FAA, airlines, and their employee representatives have undertaken more proactive 

approaches to identify risk through Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) data and 

internal safety reports, GA safety remains driven primarily by accident investigation. This 

project explores whether data could be captured for GA, enabling more proactive approaches to 

risk management. 

FAA provided CAMI personnel with information concerning over 150 events. After reviewing 

the events, CAMI determined that approximately 90 events involved adverse weather encounters 

such as icing, thunderstorm activity, high winds, or some other weather-related activity of 

interest. CAMI contacted approximately 45 Flight Standards District Offices and 125 Aviation 

Safety Inspectors. As a result of these efforts, twenty-one pilots were interviewed regarding their 

experiences during a flight assist, emergency, or weather encounter. 

Circumstances that preceded the pilot events varied from a failure to appreciate and/or 

understand the weather, underlying motivating factors that encouraged the pilot to press-on, and 

relying on incomplete or conflicting weather information. Previous Human Factors Analysis and 

Classification System analyses of weather accidents lacked the richness that these cases provide. 

The majority of pilots were instrument rated, so their reaction to these types of events would be 

different from those who had not previously encountered them. Several sources of weather 

products were mentioned. The synchronicity of these products with real-time weather, reliability, 

and standardization should be addressed. 

Sponsors were provided a mid-year briefing and an annual report that summarized all interviews 

with pilots. An interview protocol was developed that could be used by Flight Standards 

Aviation Safety Inspectors. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors, 

Weather Program) 

Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Database for Aviation 

Community Research 

The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) is a tool for investigating and 

analyzing human error associated with accidents. Previous research has shown that HFACS can 

be reliably used to identify general trends in human factors associated with commercial and GA 

accidents. This project supports development of a larger civil aviation safety program whose 

ultimate goal is to reduce the aviation accident rate through systematic, data-driven investment 

strategies. An online HFACS database will provide access to appropriate FAA officials and 

committees for needed analyses. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-39 

Accident data used in this project were downloaded via records maintained by the NTSB. After 

several hours of training for the online HFACS database, pilot and mechanic subject matter 

experts (SMEs) coded finalized NTSB accident indformation into it. SMEs were randomly 

assigned accidents so that two separate SMEs independently analyzed each accident. After the 

SMEs assigned their initial codes, the two independent codes were compared. Where 

disagreements existed, the corresponding SMEs were instructed to reconcile their differences, 

and the consensus code was analyzed further. 

The HFACS database contains nearly 34,000 U.S. accidents for the period 1990 - 2006 across all 

types of operations. Over 28,500 have been coded for human error as identified by the NTSB. 

More than 25,000 accidents are GA accidents and nearly 1,500 accidents in the database are 

commercial accidents. CAMI personnel have conducted detailed analysis of each of the different 

human error forms (e.g., decision errors, skill-based errors, perceptual errors, violations), and 

ultra-fine grained analysis on selected error forms. 

Discussions were held with the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) 

program office and it has agreed to transition the on-line HFACS database to their network 

server in the future to foster the sharing and centralizing data among the FAA workforce. 

(Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Instrument Procedures 

The goal of the first stage of this instrument procedures design project is for the Volpe National 

Transportation System Center to become familiar with the research issues and various 

implementation perspectives related to RNP/RNAV. In addition, researchers are working to 

generate a plan for research activity in this area in collaboration with the project sponsors. To 

accomplish these goals, the research team attended and participated in forums such as the 

Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance (CNS) Task Force, Pilot-Controller Procedures 

and Systems Integration (PCPSI) working group, and the Aeronautical Charting Forum (ACF). 

Briefings at the CNS Task Force meetings provided a range of information regarding policy and 

technical issues affecting the RNP/RNAV community. The current task of the PCPSI group is to 

document RNP/RNAV lessons-learned by gathering input from experts from industry and 

government who have been involved in implementing RNP/RNAV procedures. The ACF 

Instrument Procedures group consists of charting and aviation experts who meet to document 

and address highly technical and operational issues related to instrument procedures. In addition 

to participating in these formal group discussions, the Volpe Center has initiated informal 

discussions with researchers, charting experts, and airline staff about these issues. 

Through discussions with the FAA, the Volpe Center concluded that research in this area should 

begin with a careful look at the design and charting of departure procedures. These charts are 

typically highly complex and non-standardized, making them especially difficult to use 

accurately. This research area ties in well with activities in the ACF, so the Volpe Center has 

proposed that the ACF create a working subgroup to address this issue. The goal of the subgroup 

will be to flesh out ideas and plans for research to improve the design and usability of departure 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-40 

charts. Progress towards a coordinated plan for this research was documented in a status report. 

(Flightdeck/ Maintenance/Systems Integration Human Factors) 

Native and Foreign Airline Pilots’ International Language Experiences 

There is a lack of baseline data regarding the effect of language differences of airline transport 

pilots (ATP) who fly internationally. Research is needed to identify and address the gaps in 

communications data that may contribute to language issues, communication problems, and 

procedural differences these pilots encounter. Also, as digital voice communications systems 

and their applications emerge, it is important to know if they will present problems for nonnative English speaking pilots. 

A structured interview was developed and administered to small groups of ATP-rated pilots to 

identify language issues that can become barriers to efficient and effective ATC communication. 

The structured interview was divided into nine sections: 1) Background Information, 2) 

General/Pre-Flight Preparation, 3) Word Meaning and Pronunciation, 4) Language Experiences 

in Non-native English Speaking Airspace/Airports, 5) Language Experiences in Native English 

Speaking Airspace/Airports, 6) Non-native English Speaking ATC/Native English speaking Pilot 

Communication, 7) ATC/Pilot Same versus Different Language Interaction, 8) Communication 

Problems, and 9) Technological Interventions. Forty-eight airline transport pilots from 

American, Continental, Delta, and United airlines were interviewed, and twelve pilots from 

Aeroflot, Alitalia, China Air, and LAN Chile airlines were interviewed. 

The pilots’ responses had several major thrusts: cultural differences exert an important but 

negligible influence on international aviation; when English language proficiency is deficient it 

hampers effective communication; and when mixed languages are on frequency, party-line 

communications pose a safety concern and impede situational awareness. In addition, other 

findings include: pronunciation and naming conventions for locations and other identifiers lack a 

uniform pronunciation; three- or five-letter identifiers may not be connected with the 

pronunciation; there is no uniform agreement as to what standard phraseology is or should be; 

and technological advancements such as data link may help solve some of the language 

problems. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Operational Voice Communications between Native and Foreign Airline Pilots 

and Controllers during Oceanic Operations 

There is a shortfall in our understanding of operational communications in the en route 

environment and international voice communications within the NAS. ICAO has mandated an 

English language proficiency requirement, and the FAA lacks baseline data to gauge its effect on 

NAS operations and safety. By updating our communication databases, the FAA will be able to 

measure how the English language proficiency requirements will affect ATC operations and 

safety. Also, as digital voice communications systems and their applications emerge, it is 

important to know which messages may present a problem for non-native English speaking 

pilots. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-41 

Five en route facilities were used to provide at least 10 hours of pilot-controller voice 

communications, with each facility selecting time samples that were representative of peak 

international (i.e., oceanic) air traffic operations and peak traffic periods with the most 

communications-intensive operations. Pilot read back errors and communication problems were 

examined and quantified, and the frequency with which each of the ICAO scales were implicated 

examined. Fifty-one hours of air-ground transmissions were analyzed. Each controller 

transmission was paired with its read back and scored for accuracy. In the first of three reports, 

controller messages were classified according to complexity, message length, and pilot read back 

accuracy. For the second and third reports, aircraft call signs were used to classify transmissions 

by aircraft registry (e.g., United States, foreign) and language (e.g., English, other). English 

language proficiency was examined for pilots in the second report, with communications 

problems in the third report, and controllers and pilots were graded on their level of language 

proficiency using the ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scales. 

For the first report, 93.8 percent of the pilots’ read backs were correct. When an error did occur, 

pilots experienced more difficulty reading back approach control high-complexity messages than 

departure control high-complexity messages or low-complexity messages from either approach 

or departure control. As message length increased, so did the mean number of read back errors, 

but only during the approach segment when pilots experience the most challenging aspects of 

their flights and controller messages are complex and lengthy. For the second report, 

communications were analyzed from 832 aircraft (77 percent U.S., 23 percent foreign) for 4816 

pilot transmissions (80 percent English, 20 percent other). In this analysis, 5.8 percent contained 

problems. When English was the primary language, or pilots flew U.S. aircraft, there were fewer 

communication problems, less time was spent on frequency, and fewer messages were 

transmitted than when pilots flew foreign aircraft or the primary language was not English. 

English language proficiency was a factor for many of the communication problems among 

foreign aircraft. 

Three technical reports were completed: 1) The outcome of ATC message length and complexity 

on en route pilot read back performance; (2) Pilot English language proficiency and the 

prevalence of communication problems at five U.S. air route traffic control centers; and 3) 

United States Airline Transport Pilot International Flight Language Experiences Report 1: 

Background Information, General/Pre-Flight Preparation and General/ATC Procedures. 

(Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Pilot Training and Experience with Transport Category Rudder Control Systems 

Several recent events indicate that rudder control systems may have been involved in a number 

of hazardous situations. System design, human factors, and pilot training are considered 

potential event factors. Therefore, CAMI and the William J. Hughes Technical Center collected 

data on pilot training and experience with transport category rudder control systems. The goal is 

to assess current airplane control characteristics, pilot interfaces, and training so as to better 

understand their relationship to pilot use/misuse of the rudder. 

A survey designed to assess pilot training and experience with flight control and rudder systems 

provided vital information. The survey furthered the FAA’s knowledge of pilot training and 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-42 

experience with transport category rudder control systems. Responses provided information on 

upsets in broad terms and also on specific aspects of pedal/rudder control systems. Results were 

analyzed to identify the primary airplane flown and the country of primary employment as well 

as the items listed above. Most pilots had unusual attitude training with training in the pitch, roll, 

and yaw axes. Pilots reported that they found recurrent simulator training to be effective. 

When asked if more training in transport airplane rudder usage would be beneficial, over half 

responded yes, and when asked if recurrent training in rudder usage would be beneficial, over 

three-quarters responded yes. This information supplements anecdotal information and allows 

further evaluation of the factors that affect rudder use. Information gained from this research 

may be used to develop the following products: improved CFR Part 25 aircraft certification rules, 

policy, and guidance; training guidance; and, responses to NTSB safety recommendations. 

(Flightdeck/ Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Surface Moving Maps 

The Volpe National Transportation System Center conducted three activities regarding the 

implementation and integration of surface moving map displays on the flight deck. First, a list of 

research issues was identified based on a preliminary analysis examining the circumstances 

leading to runway incursions and a glimpse of the state of the industry with respect to surface 

moving map technology. Second, a formal industry review was started to identify what 

information is being depicted and what functions are being implemented. Of particular interest 

are the presentations of ownship, traffic, visual or auditory indications or alerts, and route 

guidance. Manufacturers and research organizations developing surface moving map 

applications have been identified based on participation in a previous industry review, 

presentations at industry meetings, and a web search. Third, the Volpe Center reviewed existing 

guidance for evaluation of the surface moving map application to understand any potential 

limitations in the use of this technology and to identify possible mitigations. Two topics were of 

interest. One was the accuracy specified for depiction of ownship position and the likelihood of 

depicting ownship on an incorrect runway or taxiway. The other was the presentation of runway 

incursion indications and alerts and their effectiveness depending on where they are presented in 

the pilot’s field of view. 

The results of the activities are documented in two draft reports. The first describes causal factors 

contributing to pilot deviations that led to a runway incursion, provides a brief review of current 

surface moving map capabilities, and lists areas where research is needed to facilitate the design 

and approval of surface moving map displays. In particular, there is a need for guidance to 

support the development of runway incursion indications and alerts. Since the surface moving 

map may be presented on installed or portable display systems, the location of any alerts or 

indications in the pilot’s field of view may vary. A literature review is in progress to provide 

information on this issue and an experiment to address issues related to the design of effective 

runway incursion indications and alerts is being designed. 

The second draft report addresses the implications of the allowable tolerance for the depiction of 

ownship position. The Volpe Center documented the likelihood of depicting ownship on an 

incorrect runway or taxiway using information regarding the configuration of runways and 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-43 

taxiways at U.S. airports and the distances between them to determine the potential for error in 

ownship depiction. Characteristics of runway incursions and the results of research to 

understand why pilots get lost are also included. (Flightdeck/ Maintenance/Systems Integration 

Human Factors) 

Synthetic Vision for Primary and Multifunction Flight Displays 

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

from incorporating synthetic vision system features into primary-flight and/or multi-function 

displays. The intent was to: 1) generate data that could be used to formulate appropriate 

certification criteria across a number of platforms on which this graphical imagery may be hosted 

(both aircraft-referenced and pilot-referenced display systems); and 2) provide data that could be 

helpful in assessing levels of operational credit that might be granted for the use of such systems. 

A survey of the literature was conducted to determine to what extent guidelines and standards for 

the design and use of pictorial imaging displays (e.g., synthetic vision, enhanced vision, 

perspective primary flight displays) had been developed, and what data regarding both display 

design and human performance were available that had not already been captured in a guideline 

or a standard. A number of references, documents, and guidelines were found that had direct or 

indirect bearing on the issues involved in synthetic vision systems, enhanced vision systems, and 

perspective primary flight displays. These references were enumerated, and in some cases 

summarized, and forwarded to the sponsor. Findings were also used to assist in the preparation 

of the Minimum Aviation System Performance Specifications for Synthetic Vision Systems in 

the form of a document undergoing final revision and approval in RTCA Special Committee 213 

(Enhanced Vision Systems (EVS), Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS), Synthetic Vision 

Systems (SVS)), of which the CAMI principal investigator is a participating member. 

Significant issues were identified that may be important for implementation of EVS, EFVS, and 

SVS in the NextGen environment, particularly where additional operational credit is sought. 

(Flightdeck/ Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Human Factors Generic Guidance 

The Volpe Center submitted a draft general guidance document to the FAA to help aircraft 

certification specialists identify and resolve common human factors issues in avionics submitted 

for approval and to identify important sources to reference. The document is intended to apply 

to all types of display systems (e.g., EFBs, Global Positioning System (GPS) displays, and 

electronic map displays) used for all types of operations (Part 91, Part 121, Part 125, and Part 

135). 

Topics in the document include: address system hardware, display and organization of 

information elements and features, and design of control devices. A discussion is included on 

the importance of a design philosophy and considerations for assessing workload, managing 

errors, automation, and protecting against and managing system failures. The document has two 

sections. The FAA Requirements and Guidance includes of human factors material excerpted 

from FAA CFRs, Advisory Circulars (ACs), Technical Standard Orders (TSOs), and 

independent documents invoked or referenced by the FAA (e.g., RTCA and SAE publications). 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-44 

Other Recommendations provide additional guidance from design standards, human factors texts, 

research articles, and reports. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-45 

Human protection 

No fatalities, injuries, or adverse health impacts due to aerospace operations 

Aircraft Decontamination System 

Aircraft provide the ideal environment for the spread of infections diseases on a global basis. 

The aviation industry expects that the number of passengers flying to foreign destinations will 

continue to increase. These flights usually involve a large number of people seated together for 

long periods of time. Further, the materials and surfaces of an aircraft cabin are generally porous 

and difficult to clean. Finally, viruses, bacteria, and infections may be unwittingly brought 

onboard and the current decontamination procedures may be inadequate. 

The FAA has sponsored two studies through the Airliner Cabin Environmental Research Center 

of Excellence to assess the feasibility of using a thermal decontamination system developed by 

the AeroClave Company with a vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) system developed by the 

Steris Corporation. Specifically, the studies were to determine if the decontamination systems 

could be operated in an efficient fashion, without requiring bulky vaporizers or other heavy 

equipment within the cabin and if the system was capable of delivering controlled quantities of 

VHP such that sporicidal conditions could be achieved throughout the cabin and kill a full 

spectrum of biological agents. 

Field evaluations have been performed on a McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and the CAMI’s Aircraft 

Environmental Research Facility, a grounded Boeing-747. The thermal decontamination system 

was shown to be capable of reproducing the environmental conditions (temperature and RH) that 

were found in an earlier study to be efficacious as an antiviral process. It was also found to 

provide an effective means of achieving environmental preconditioning for the subsequent use of 

VHP along with aeration after the VHP cycle. 

In addition, successful decontamination was accomplished on a rail car. This decontamination 

technology has potentially multiple applications, such as commercial aircraft, rail cars, buildings, 

commuter trains, ambulances, and air ambulances. In commercial aircraft, materials 

compatibility issues must be fully tested and addressed before using VHP and/or Thermal 

decontamination. VHP and thermal decontamination could affect the continued airworthiness of 

aircraft and aircraft systems. Even though the feasibility studies showed promise for 

decontamination aircraft against biological agents and spores, the FAA is not continuing the 

aircraft decontamination research based on other research priorities. (Aeromedical Research) 

Comprehension of Safety Briefing Card Pictorials and Pictograms 

The presence of fire and smoke is a major cause of passenger and crew fatalities and injuries in 

airplane accidents. The speed and effectiveness of passenger actions often determines the 

probability of survival and have been shown to be highly dependent on the information and 

preparedness passengers have regarding cabin safety and emergency procedures. The safety card 

in aircraft used to provide much of this information, however, differ significantly among airline 

operators. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-46 

The NTSB has called for both standardization and testing for comprehension of briefing cards. 

CAMI Protection and Survival Laboratory scientists designed a study to address these 

recommendations. Among other things, the study gauged the efficacy of current briefing card 

pictorial components and determined the best presentation techniques for safety briefing cards to 

enhance the speed and effectiveness of passenger actions. 

A total of 358 (46 percent) males and 457 females (54 percent) participated in the study. The 

participants’ commercial flight history, expertise in cabin safety, education level, and other 

variables were considered. Preliminary findings show that pictorial comprehension scores 

ranged from 38 percent to 85 percent. Less than half of the comprehension scores exceeded the 

ISO international standard success criterion of 67 percent and only one pictogram score 

exceeded the American National Standards Institute criterion of 85 percent. These scores 

indicate that airline safety cards do not inform passengers of necessary safety information, in part 

because many cards are too crowded or too complex, which masks important parts of the 

presentations. (Aeromedical Research) 

Drug Usage in Pilots Involved in Aviation Accidents Compared With Drug 

Usage in the General Population 

Forensic toxicology researchers at the CAMI continue to make significant advances in the 

analysis of postmortem fluids and tissues following fatal aircraft accidents. Its scientists 

routinely detect and measure drugs, alcohol, toxic gases, and toxic industrial chemicals in the 

remains of accident victims. Recently, CAMI conducted a research study to compare the usage 

of illegal drugs and abused prescription medications in pilots involved in civil aviation accidents 

with that of the general population in the United States. 

The comparisons included abused drugs routinely screened by the FAA, such as marijuana, 

cocaine, methamphetamine, and ecstasy, as well as prescription medications, such as barbiturates, 

benzodiazepines, opiates, and ketamine. Trends in illicit and prescription drug use in pilots of 

civil aviation accidents were found to be comparable to those seen in emergency departments 

and community data from major metropolitan areas collected by the Drug Abuse Warning 

Network and the Community Epidemiology Work Group. 

Drug analysis was conducted on 5,321 pilots who were involved in aviation accidents during the 

examined time period (1990 - 2005). The analysis found 473 occurrences of either illicit drugs 

or commonly abused prescription drugs, accounting for 9 percent of all pilots. Marijuana or its 

metabolite, tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid, was the most common compound detected in 

pilots involved in civil aviation accidents. These compounds were detected approximately twice 

as often as all other drugs in the study. These research findings are critical to the enhancement 

of civil aviation medical certification, accident investigation, education, and drug abatement 

processes. (Aeromedical Research) 

Laser Illumination of Aircraft by Geographic Location 

Incidents involving laser illumination of aircraft in the NAS have raised concerns within the 

aviation community for more than a decade. The principal concern is the visual effect laser 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-47 

illumination may have on flight crew performance during terminal operations, such as landing 

and departure maneuvers, when operational activities are extremely critical. A study conducted 

by researchers at CAMI examined the frequency and rate of aviation-related laser incidents by 

year and location. 

Incident reports of civilian aircraft illuminated by high-intensity lights have been collected from 

various sources and entered into a database. Reported incidents of laser exposure of civilian 

aircraft in the United States for a 3-year period (January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2006) were 

collated and analyzed. A total of 832 incidents during the study period took place within the 

United States in the nine FAA-designated regions. Total laser incident rates per 100,000 flight 

operations ranged from zero in the Alaskan region to 0.86 in the Western Pacific Region. Of the 

202 airports where laser incidents occurred, there were 20 (9.9 percent) that reported 10 or more 

laser incidents during the study period. The majority of airports (52.6 percent) with 10 or more 

laser incidents reported a higher number of incidents in 2005 than in 2006. 

Laser illumination incidents that could compromise aviation safety and threaten flight crew 

vision performance occur with some regularity within the contiguous United States. While the 

study data indicate the Western Pacific Region had a significantly higher prevalence rate than the 

other FAA regions, analysis was complicated by incident clusters that occurred randomly at 

various airports. Actions taken by aviators via notification of air traffic or other authorities, as 

well as action by local air traffic and law enforcement authorities, can minimize this threat to 

aviation safety. (Aeromedical Research) 

Occupant Seat and Restraint Models 

Aircraft manufacturers are under strong pressure to reduce costs and development cycles in a 

highly competitive market. The development of aircraft interiors is driven by customer demands, 

increasingly complex materials, and aviation safety requirements. To address these challenges, 

engineers and scientists have developed state-of-the-art computational tools and processes to 

reduce the amount of physical testing, certification costs, and length of regulatory development 

cycles. 

The FAA requires passenger aircraft to have strong seats designed to increase the survivability of 

passengers and flight crew/attendants in accidents. A 2005 rule, which affects aircraft built after 

October 2009, states that seats must be able to withstand 16 times the force of gravity (16g), 

compared with the 9g standard in effect since 1952. Floors and the tracks on which the seats ride 

also must be able to withstand these forces. The new seats will have to undergo a battery of tests 

to determine their strength, similar to the crash tests that automakers must comply with to meet 

federal safety standards. Also, restraint systems that are integrated into and are as strong as the 

supporting aircraft structure will provide increased occupant survivability. 

In conjunction with industry and academic experts, aerospace medical research engineers at 

CAMI have developed and tested measures of accuracy for dynamic mathematical models. This 

collaborative effort provides aircraft seat manufacturers with the basis for standardization of 

dynamic models to support increased safety and reduced cost of seat testing. (Aeromedical 

Research) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-48 

Aircraft Overrun and Undershoot Analysis 

Recent accidents involving aircraft overruns in Little Rock, AR, Toronto, Ontario, and Chicago, 

IL have focused attention on improving airport runway safety areas (RSAs) in the United States 

and elsewhere. Undershoots are also a factor in the design or improvement of RSAs. However, 

many airports do not have sufficient land to accommodate standard FAA/ICAO recommended 

RSAs, or they face extremely expensive and controversial land acquisition or wetlands filling 

projects to make sufficient land available. 

The recommended alternatives to a standard 1,000-foot RSA in the United States involve either 

applying a runway declared distance restriction, with undesirable limitations on aircraft 

operational payload/range, or installing an Engineering Materials Arresting System with a 

minimum RSA length of 600 feet. Some airports cannot practically comply with either of these 

requirements. Current recommendations on standard RSA length are based on a review of all 

overrun accidents but did not factor in variables, such as the frequency of occurrence and 

severity of short versus long overruns. More comprehensive research, to include additional 

variables related to runway overruns and undershoots, would allow more informed decisions on 

this difficult problem. 

This project collected and analyzed historical data related to both overrun and undershoot 

occurrences in order to assist airport operators in evaluating runway safety areas. The 

information studied includes accident and incident characteristics such as: aircraft type, 

occupancy, exit speed, overrun/undershoot distance, weather, elevation, pavement condition, and 

other characteristics pertinent to the occurrences. (Airport Cooperative Research – Safety) 

Evaluation and Mitigation of Aircraft Slide Evacuation Injuries 

Current technology aircraft evacuation slides may not adequately protect all passengers from 

injury during evacuations. Airport fire and rescue personnel estimate that approximately 10 

percent of evacuees require medical attention for sprains, skin burns, broken bones or other 

injuries resulting from the evacuation. Evacuation slides are susceptible to problems in 

deployment during different situations such as high wind conditions, often resulting in the slides 

becoming rendered useless when folded against the aircraft fuselage and when aircraft are not 

fully upright when slides are deployed, creating varying slope angles of the slides. 

Aircraft in operation today are also of varying ages and aircraft certified over 15 years ago have 

slide and evacuation rate standards that are very different than newer aircraft, which can affect 

injury rates. Other factors that can contribute to injuries include whether the aircraft is on or off 

pavement, the type of clothing worn by passengers, and the differences between single versus 

dual aisle and single level versus double level aircraft. For larger aircraft, there can be a 

discrepancy between the evacuation performance of certification volunteers, who are trained in 

the procedure, and actual evacuees, who often hesitate at the head of the slide, pausing to sit on 

the door sill before entering the slide. This latter phenomenon results in slower evacuations than 

is demonstrated in certification. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-49 

This project identified the challenges associated with the use of slides at airports, focusing on 

causes of injury rates and ways to reduce those rates. This comprehensive report includes: a 

literature review of known incidents where aircraft evacuations via the slides occurred and 

identified causes of known injuries; a survey/interview of airport operators and emergency 

responders involved in those incidents, slide manufacturers and aircraft manufacturers, as 

appropriate; a review of tools relative to aircraft slide evacuations available to first responders; 

and recommended guidance for airport operators and emergency personnel on preparing for 

aircraft slide evacuations that includes best practices for minimizing injury rates. (Airport 

Cooperative Research – Safety) 

Alternative Pavement Grooving Evaluation 

An alternative pavement grooving technique, called trapezoidal grooving, was installed and 

evaluated at two major airports during 2008. This new shaped groove is one quarter or an inch 

deep and tapers from one-half of an inch wide at the top to one-quarter inch wide at the bottom. 

It is designed to resist damage from sweeping, snow plowing, and aircraft traffic. The standard 

groove, which is one quarter inch wide and one quarter inch deep, has historically been 

susceptible to damage, and is typically replaced after just a few years of installation. Two test 

sites at Chicago O’Hare International Airport and Quantico Marine Corp Facility were monitored 

and tested by the FAA throughout 2008. The tests found that the new groove pattern was a great 

improvement, offering significantly quicker water evacuation, resistance to rubber contamination, 

improved durability, and similar friction values to those of the standard groove. (Airport 

Technology Research - Safety) 

Next Generation High Reach Extendable Turret 

Past research done by the FAA Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Research Program 

established the advantages and benefits of ARFF vehicles using High Reach Extendable Turrets 

(HRETs) equipped with penetrating nozzles in aviation fire fighting. Since the introduction of 

HRETs in 1986, approximately 400 of the turrets have been retrofitted into existing ARFF 

vehicles or integrated on new ARFF vehicles. This technology increases passenger survivability, 

protects property, and extinguished fire faster right after an aircraft crash. Since the current 

HRET performance criteria have been in place for over a decade, researchers have begun to 

develop new HRET performance criteria to meet the challenges posed by the new Airbus A380 

and other New Large Aircraft. 

A 65 foot next-generation HRET has been installed on a research vehicle and a series of non-fire 

operational tests completed to evaluate its control functions and operations. The live-fire testing 

of the technology has begun to evaluate the system’s fire fighting performance. The objective of 

testing this new technology is to refine further its performance requirements to meet the 

challenges of the commercial aviation fleets of today and tomorrow. (Airport Technology 

Research - Safety) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-50 

Operation of New Large Aircraft – Second Level Fire Fighting Evaluation 

Currently, two major aircraft manufacturers are developing large commercial aircraft capable of 

carrying over 500 passengers on two levels and 80,000 gallons of fuel. These airplanes meet the 

FAA’s Airport Design Group VI classification. The Airbus A-380 and the Boeing 747-8i, are 

the largest passenger carrying aircraft ever built and are referred to as New Large Aircraft (NLA). 

Scheduled service for the A380 in the United States began in 2008 with the 747-8i to follow in 

2010. Their physical size, both in passenger and fuel carrying capacities, require examination of 

the ARFF service standards and recommended practices to determine their adequacy to combat 

post-crash events. In January 2001, the FAA issued DOT/FAA/AR-0067, Rescue and 

Firefighting Research Program, to cover several ARFF interrelated areas to improve passenger 

survivability in post-crash fires. One of the key areas of that study was the identification of 

firefighting requirements in terms of training, firefighting techniques, and specialized equipment 

related to NLA. It also identified the need for a revised or new methodology to determine 

firefighting agent quantities for NLA type aircraft. Current federal minimum agent requirements 

may not be sufficient to extinguish a major NLA fire. Physically, NLA will be significantly 

greater in fuselage surface area, wingspan, and tail height, and feature full upper passenger deck, 

significantly increased fuel loads, unique tail-located fuel tanks, and greater use of composite 

materials. 

In response to this need for ARFF-related NLA research, the FAA partnered with the U.S. Air 

Force Research Lab at Tyndall Air Force Base, Oklahoma, to construct a mockup of a full-scale 

section of a NLA that enables researchers to conduct large-scale fire evaluations. The mockup 

has two passenger levels, a lower cargo level, three metal evacuation slides, the beginnings of the 

right wing root, and one inboard engine. The entire assembly is positioned inside a 100-foot 

diameter, environmentally-contained fire pit that can be filled with calibrated amounts of jet fuel 

for ignition. In addition, the mockup features three replaceable penetration points where aircraft 

skin piercing equipment can be evaluated. There are also three authentic evacuation slides that 

can be attached to the mockup for non-fire evaluations. The mockup was completed in 2007 and 

underwent baseline testing throughout 2008. With this valuable testing facility completed, the 

FAA has initiated several evaluation programs that will help to find the answers to the questions 

regarding what kinds of tools, strategies, and amount of firefighting agents will be required to 

handle a fire event involving a NLA. (Airport Technology Research - Safety) 

Powered Air Purifying Respirator Feasibility Study 

Safe and efficient movement of air traffic is particularly important to the nation’s air 

transportation system in times of national emergency. In the event of a pandemic flu, the FAA 

will deploy many tools to minimize spread of the disease among its workforce and to maintain 

NAS operations. Respiratory protection through the use of power air purifying respirators 

(PAPRs) is one of the methods that the FAA may use to minimize the spread of disease among 

staff that cannot function remotely. The goal of this study was to assess the feasibility of 

conducting maintainer and ATC-type tasks while wearing respirators. 

Researchers measured characteristics such as the noise level created by the PAPR blower and the 

weight of the equipment. They also evaluated the use of other equipment such as telephones and 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-51 

binoculars. During the experimental evaluation, they measured human performance in part-task 

analyses. The tasks were representative of air traffic controller tasks and technical operations 

maintenance tasks. To assess feasibility, researchers measured the sound levels of the respirators 

and their effect on speech intelligibility, visual acuity and field of view, visual detection, ability 

to perform routine maintenance tasks, and subjective ratings of comfort. 

While the researchers found no differences between the PAPRs in visual acuity or field of view, 

the use of telephones and binoculars while wearing PAPRs ranged from difficult to impossible. 

The most critical problem identified, however, was the difficulty participants experienced in 

communication while wearing respirators. The study found significant increases in errors from 

wearing respirators in the speech intelligibility task with the levels of interference varying from 

one PAPR to another. Determining the impact of PAPRs on the performance of ATC and 

maintainer tasks will help in the development of an effective overall crisis contingency plan. 

(ATC/Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Informed Consent 

To learn more about “informed consent” required by the Commercial Space Launch 

Amendments Act of 2004, the FAA initiated a project to examine the issue of what a commercial 

space flight operator will need to do to satisfy the regulatory requirements of 14 CFR Part 460, 

specifically at § 460.45(a)(1). This section requires a launch operator to inform space flight 

participants of each known hazard and risk that could result in a serious injury, death, disability, 

or total or partial loss of physical and mental function. 

A report was released that provides background on the origin of informed consent, describes its 

place in traditional legal framework, discusses how much information should be given to a space 

flight participant based on past cases, and recommends what a space flight participant should be 

told about the possible effects of space flight on the human body. To accomplish this portion of 

the task, the study gathered information on the possible effects on the human body due to space 

flight. Consideration was given to hazards such as pressure, noise, gravity, temperature, impact, 

atmosphere, and radiation. 

Informed consent is derived from medicine, where doctors must inform patients of any risks or 

alternatives to a treatment. The patient may then choose to accept or reject treatment. The right 

of a patient to informed consent has been an important part of medical malpractice lawsuits for 

over three decades. Some of the principles applied to medicine apply to commercial human 

spaceflight. As in medicine, the space flight participant must receive enough information to 

enable an informed decision. 

It is important to understand that Congress expressly stated that the emerging commercial human 

space flight industry was not to be viewed as highly regulated transportation like the airline 

industry but rather was comparable to adventure travel. Congress even went so far as to compare 

the participants to daredevils, visionaries, and adventurers. Therefore, the report looked at the 

standards of informed consent for commercial recreation or adventure sports operators. As with 

adventure sports, the risks that must be included in any informed consent warnings are those that 

would affect a reasonable person’s decision-making. The greatest emphasis should be placed on 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-52 

the areas with the most frequent or most severe risks. Space flight participants need to be aware, 

however, that the effects of suborbital flight on the human body are not completely known. 

The report summarized the hazards to space flight participants that have been identified by 

research of space flight experience. It recommends three things. 

• The regulation mandates written informed consent. Legally informed consent only provides 

legal protection, that is, defense, from the risks of an activity and not from negligence. There 

is some confusion as to whether any private contract that seeks pre-activity exculpation from 

inherent risks and negligence, which is standard in the adventure world, would be valid. 

Where the appendices (part 440) to the final rule provide exculpatory style documents in 

favor of the government as the permitting agency, there is reason to believe that exculpatory 

documents between a commercial operator and a space flight provider would be allowed. 

• Courts differ as to whether a risk is material or not. A material risk is one in which a 

reasonable operator would provide to a reasonable space flight participant. It is impossible to 

enumerate every single risk. Clarification of how materiality gets satisfied either by what the 

operator believes is material or by what the space flight provider thinks is material should be 

provided. As stated previously, the greatest emphasis should be placed on the areas with the 

most frequent or most severe risks. 

• Collaboration with industry may well be necessary or expedient at this point. Where it has 

been widely publicized that a leading suborbital provider has signed up literally thousands of 

prospective space flight participants and has begun working with them, or at least working 

with some of their “founders,” using this early group to determine or establish materiality 

may well be revealing for industry. 

The report and recommendations are provided as an example only. It is recommended that 

individual operators work with experienced legal counsel for advice tailored to the operator’s 

specific operations. (Commercial Space Transportation) 

Acute Human Exposure Limits for Gaseous Halocarbon Extinguishing Agents 

Effective environmentally-friendly halon replacement agents are available for aircraft hand-held 

extinguishers. However, the use of these gaseous halocarbon hand extinguishers in the confined 

space of an aircraft compartment has raised concerns and stymied their use because they can 

pose cardiotoxic, anesthetic, and hypoxic risks to the occupants of that compartment if excessive 

agent weights are discharged. Yet, it is of the utmost importance that a sufficient number of 

halocarbon extinguishers of the proper rating are available to extinguish any in-flight fire that is 

likely to occur. 

A report Safe Acute Exposure Limits for Gaseous Halocarbon Extinguishing Agents in Ventilated 

Aircraft, DOT/FAA/AR-08/3, was written. It provides a methodology for selecting the 

maximum safe agent weights for halocarbon hand extinguishers of the required fire rating for use 

in aircraft compartments based on compartment volume, certificated cabin pressure altitude, and 

ventilation air change time. 

A kinetic model was also developed that provides a simplified method of using existing human 

physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling results for the inhalation of constant 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-53 

halocarbon concentrations to determine the arterial blood intake in a ventilated compartment 

where the agent concentration is continuously changing. The PBPK data for constant agent 

concentration exposure was used to determine the first order kinetic rate constants for arterial 

blood uptake and elimination. In addition, a separate analysis was developed to provide 

guidance to minimize exposure to low oxygen partial pressures resulting from the discharge of 

these agents into small unpressurized aircraft compartments. 

Arterial concentration histories obtained using first order kinetics provided a good fit to the 

arterial concentration histories obtained by PBPK modeling for simulated human exposures to 

constant concentrations of Halon 1301 and the replacement agents Hydroflourocarbon (HFC)-

227ea and HFC-236fa. Solving the equation for ventilated compartments for these agents 

eliminated the need to rerun costly, complex PBPK modeling programs. A good fit was not 

obtained for the replacement agent Hydrochloroflourocarbon (HCFC)-123, and it was necessary 

for the manufacturer to run the ventilated PBPK model for this agent. The safe agent weight to 

compartment volume guidance for halocarbons developed in this report is the basis for the safeuse guidance for halocarbon extinguishing agents in the proposed updated FAA AC 20-42D 

Hand Fire Extinguishers for use in Aircraft. (Fire Research and Safety) 

Burning Behavior of Cabin Materials 

One of the main obstacles to developing ultra-fire resistant materials that impart passive fire 

protection to transport category airplanes is the lack of understanding of the relationships 

between the bench-scale fire tests used to characterize the material flammability and the 

development of a full-scale fire. 

To address this problem, the FAA has developed a thermal-kinetic numerical model called 

ThermaKin that simulates the pyrolysis and combustion of aircraft cabin materials in fire 

situations quickly and easily using only a personal computer. ThermaKin includes transient 

energy transport, chemical reactions, and mass transport in the calculation of the onedimensional burning rate of an object. To calibrate ThermaKin, the FAA measured the chemical 

and physical properties of several plastics using laboratory (milligram) scale tests and used only 

these properties to calculate the burning rates of the plastics in a standard bench-scale fire test 

(ASTM E 1354). Burning rates were then measured of the same plastics in the bench-scale fire 

test and the results were compared. The comparison between the calculated and measured values 

was excellent, showing that ThermaKin captures the complex and coupled processes of flaming 

combustion without any adjustable parameters. 

ThermaKin is the first step in the development of a general fire simulation methodology for 

aircraft cabins under a broad range of fire conditions. Future research will focus on calibrating 

ThermaKin for charring and composite materials and extending the simulations to 2-dimensions 

(flame spread) and 3-dimensions (fire growth in an aircraft cabin and fuselage burn-through). 

The fire simulation methodology will be calibrated at full-scale and, if successful, will provide a 

tool to assess the impact of ultra-fire resistant materials and material substitutions on the 

likelihood of an in-flight fire and the severity of a post-crash fire, and will be useful for accident 

investigation. A description of the model is contained in FAA Report DOT/FAA/AR-TN08/17, 

Thermo-Kinetic Model of Burning. (Fire Research and Safety) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-54 

Thermal Acoustic Insulation Burnthrough Resistance Certification and 

Installation Guidance Material (AC 25.856A) 

On September 1, 2003, an important FAA fire safety regulation was adopted pertaining to the 

flammability of thermal/acoustic insulation used in transport category aircraft. The new 

regulation established two new flammability test methods that were products of FAA research. 

The first test method measured the resistance of insulation to flame spread from an in-flight fire 

ignition source and was more realistic and severe than the Bunsen burner test method it replaced. 

The second test method was a new requirement that measured the ability of insulation to resist 

penetration, or burnthrough, from a post-crash external fuel fire. 

Although the FAA required compliance with the new burnthrough standard in 4 years, industry 

proposed and was granted a 24-month extension to account for unforeseen test equipment issues 

that had delayed certification testing. It should be noted that thermal/acoustic insulation is 

installed very early in the airplane assembly process, so new installations must be implemented 

well in advance of the actual compliance date, and new designs must be defined well in advance 

of the installation date. The new compliance date is September 2, 2009. 

Although the new burnthrough test method was further developed and refined to maximize its 

repeatability, many non-test details existed with regard to the installation of insulation blankets 

in an aircraft. It is important that a blanket meeting the burnthrough requirement be properly 

installed and attached to the aircraft structure to achieve the full benefit of its fire resistance. A 

highly burnthrough resistant blanket will be of no value in a crash accident if it is easily 

displaced during the fire due to insufficient attachment hardware. To ensure all of these 

additional details were properly addressed, the FAA developed AC 25.856-2. 

To date, numerous thermal/acoustic insulation materials have been successfully tested, and these 

materials can be classified into three basic categories: batting systems, barrier systems, and 

encapsulating systems. The AC describes each of the system types, and an appendix listes 

schematic examples of each. In addition, it focuses on specific installation aspects, highlighting 

key areas that include blanket overlap at frame members, horizontal blanket overlap, penetrations, 

and types of installation hardware. A detailed test methodology for evaluating the burnthrough 

resistance of two horizontally overlapped blankets is also included in the AC. The AC also 

describes the appropriate test methodology for evaluating system performance in case an 

alternative approach is desired, including a description of the test apparatus modifications needed 

to evaluate any unconventional approach. 

An updated AC, was published (AC 25.856-2A) on July 29, 2008. In addition to the schematic 

descriptions detailing the proper installation techniques, a detailed description of the new 

alternative sonic burner is included. The new Next Generation burner was also developed by the 

FAA, and has distinct advantages over the existing electric-motor-driven burner equipment in 

terms of output control and repeatability. Although conceptually simple, the new burner 

equipment requires a fairly robust air compressor as the air source, along with additional heat 

exchangers and monitoring devices, all of which requires a greater level of description. The new 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-55 

AC contains numerous diagrams and schematics to ensure proper set-up and operation of this 

equipment. 

This guidance material is primarily aimed at airframe manufacturers, modifiers, foreign 

regulatory authorities, and FAA type certification engineers and their designees. While these 

guidelines are not mandatory, they are derived from extensive FAA and industry experience in 

determining compliance with the relevant regulations. An electronic version of the burnthrough 

AC, 25.856-2A can be found at http://www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl (Fire Research and Safety) 

Icing Forecasting 

National Transportation Safety Board reports indicate that in-flight icing causes more than 25 

accidents annually, with over half of these resulting in fatalities and destroyed aircraft. This 

equates to $100 million in injuries, fatalities, and aircraft damage per year. To address this 

problem, FAA researchers have developed the Current Icing Product (CIP-Severity) and the 

Forecast Icing Product (FIP-Severity). These products alert users to areas of known and 

forecasted in-flight icing by graphically displaying the probability that icing will occur along 

their planned flight path. FIP-Severity was approved by the joint FAA/National Weather Service 

Aviation Weather Technology Transfer Board for experimental use in FY 2007. User feedback 

obtained during the experimental phase resulted in improvements, including the addition of more 

flight levels to the display providing enhanced flight planning information. 

FIP-Severity will delineate icing conditions, so that aircraft can avoid these areas. A relative 

scale has been calibrated to depict the probability of encountering icing and super-cooled large 

droplet regions, which represent conditions outside the current certification envelopes. These 

areas are depicted as cross-hatched overlays for quick reference. These capabilities will allow 

users to plan more effective routes of flight that will avoid hazardous icing areas. Development 

of FIP-Severity was completed and is expected to be approved for full operational use in FY 

2009. (Weather Program) 

Turbulence 

National Transportation Safety Board data show that turbulence continues to play a factor in 

more than 25 fatalities per year (mostly in the general aviation sector) and data from National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration archives show that pilot reports of severe turbulence 

encounters are more than 4000 per year. To mitigate some of these accidents and incidents, FAA 

researchers have developed the NEXRAD Turbulence Detection Algorithm (NTDA). 

The NTDA provides a new capability to remotely detect in-cloud turbulence using operational 

weather radar data, thereby supplying a valuable new source of information for a planned nationwide rapid update nowcast system that will provide a comprehensive diagnosis of atmospheric 

turbulence hazards from clear air, mountain wave, and thunderstorm sources. 

The NTDA makes use of data from the United States network of operational Doppler weather 

radars to measure in-cloud turbulence. It performs extensive data quality control and uses the 

radial velocity spectrum width to produce estimates of eddy dissipation rate an atmospheric 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-56 

turbulence metric. During FY 2008, the NTDA was deployed on all U.S. NEXRADs as part of 

the Open Radar Build 10 software. This data will be used to produce a 3-D in-cloud turbulence 

map that will be integrated into other turbulence products, including the Graphical Turbulence 

Guidance Nowcast. The NTDA provides a valuable tool for identifying potentially hazardous 

regions of in-cloud turbulence. This improvement will allow users to plan more effective and 

safer routes of flight that will avoid hazardous turbulence areas. (Weather Program) 

Side-Facing Seat Crash Dynamics 

This project was designed to determine the injury exposure of a human sitting in a side-facing 

seat during a crash event. It is intended to address the increased use of side-facing seats in the 

interiors of transport and other category aircraft. The project completed the planned cadaver 

testing and obtained the necessary data to develop neck injury criteria for side facing seats. 

The cadaver testing developed side force information for neck injury, which was not previously 

available. This testing determined the capability of the human neck in tension and moment 

loading from a deceleration during a crash while occupying a side-facing seat. The testing was 

compared to analytical models for the prediction of stresses and strains associated with side 

impact. The testing revealed that the conventional wisdom of using a three point restraint system 

may not provide the expected protection. Additional testing is proposed in areas, not thought 

necessary in the initial test planning, based on this work to complete the stress envelope 

experienced by the human body in side facing seats. The testing has developed a basic 

understanding of the dynamics of side facing seat reactions and provided a basis for analysis of 

side facing seat restraint requirements. 

The information obtained from this testing program will provide the necessary human neck side 

force survival capability to understand the crash condition thresholds for injury while occupying 

a side facing seat. This will be used to establish reference stress values and correlation standards 

for the anthropomorphic test dummy to meet side-facing seat certification requirements. 

(Advanced Materials/Structural Safety) 

Terminal Area Safety 

The area around terminals continues to be the most hazardous area in the NAS. The majority of 

accidents occur in the takeoff and landing phases of flight. While capacity issues have become 

very important, the accelerated introduction of new technology, procedures, and equipment to 

solve the capacity problems must be integrated into the existing operational infrastructure so that 

maximum benefits for both safety and efficiency are realized. Examples of what might be 

involved include aircraft landing performance, terminal area navigation, ATC procedures, 

controlled flight into terrain on approach or landing, closely spaced runway operations, 

communication procedures, and airport lighting and signage. 

MITRE prepared a report Analysis of Advanced Flight Management Systems (FMS), Flight 

Management Computer (FMC) Field Observations Trials, Radius-to-fix Path Terminators for 

FAA. This work was based on a study initiated by the FAA that discussed issues concerning the 

significance of potential impacts introduced by the differences in performance of various 

manufactures’ FMS and their associated FMC on the terminal area navigation operations. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-57 

FAA is also working with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Human Effectiveness Directorate 

to evaluate the protections and safety procedures for intentional and unintentional laser 

illuminations occurring in terminal areas during critical phases of flight operations. The goal of 

the research is to develop procedures and recommended equipment for flight crew and air traffic 

controllers to mitigate the risk associated with undesired laser illuminations. The FAA 

conducted pilot-in-the-loop evaluations on laser safety by using the FAA B-737-800 advanced 

flight simulator equipped with a tracking laser system that realistically mimics a laser flashed at 

an aircraft flight deck from the ground. The study results will support the development of 

recommended practices for pilots regarding laser illuminations. 

In addition, a draft report entitled Laser Illuminations: Pilot Operational Procedures was 

submitted to SAE G-10T, the Laser Safety Subcommittee, for final publication. This report 

offers an overview of the flight hazards associated with laser exposures, and introduces 

recommended practices to pilots who encounter lasers during flight operations. The technical 

data contained in the report will provide guidelines for airlines and pilots with effective 

procedures in response to the visual disruptions associated with low to moderate laser exposures 

that pilots are most likely to encounter during flight operations. A video on information and 

instructional operations for pilots during unauthorized illumination events was also completed. 

Final production of this video will be published by January 2009 to provide reference and 

training materials for airlines and pilots regarding flight/landing operations during laser 

exposures. Finally, under a research agreement with the U.S. Air Force, a study was conducted 

to evaluate various materials for eye protection during laser exposures. Data of the optical 

density measurements responding to different sources of laser illuminations were collected. The 

results will be used in follow-up studies to determine effectiveness of laser eye protections. This 

study will help the aviation industry, including airlines, aircraft manufactures, and pilots develop 

effective procedures to mitigate risks associated with unauthorized laser illuminations. (Aviation 

Safety Risk Analysis/System Safety Management) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-58 

Safe aerospace vehicles 

No accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle design, structure, and subsystems 

Friction Stir Welded Aviation Structures Design Criteria 

The FAA has certified specific designs for friction stir welded (FSW) aviation structures in the 

past few years. With the expanding number of processors and structural applications of the 

process, standardization of the information generated for the process will speed the certification 

process and allow these rapidly expanding applications to attain a high level of safety without 

undo cost or complexity. The FAA has worked to leverage the investment in standardization 

with several industry partners interested in the expansion of the process. The goal is to develop 

both standardized information on design safety criteria and basic joint allowables to give the 

structural design community a guide in the safe and efficient use of FSW in aviation structures. 

The project started with the basics of determining the critical parameters yielding an effective 

structural joint that is reliable and durable. An extensive investigation of the parameters which 

are crucial to the FSW process was conducted. The parameters investigated included feed speed, 

mandrel rotation, inclination of the tool in relationship to the welded structure, and tool geometry. 

This study revealed that many parameters initially thought critical did not change the structural 

performance of the weld. After many experiments it was found that a standard joint 

configuration can be described that is path independent (i.e., processing parameters do not effect 

the outcome). In addition, an in-situ rivet process was also found that can be repeated without 

proprietary processing information. These two developments will be the basis for proceeding 

with standardization efforts. 

This work is the foundation of standardizing the process to develop a joint values that can be 

compared from location to location to understand the manufacturer’s process control; and 

develop preliminary design capabilities that can be used to evaluate the potential of the process 

in new applications. The team has initiated efforts to adopt these methodologies in standard 

practice and material allowable handbooks, such as Metallic Materials Properties Development 

and Standardization. (Advanced Materials/Structural Safety) 

Surface Condition Determination for Reliable Processing for Bonded Structures 

and Repair 

The expanded use of composite materials in structural applications has focused attention on 

repair procedures for those products. The use of bonding for repair of composite structures is 

preferred for maintaining integrity of the parent structure. There are concerns with the use of 

bonded repairs, especially in the aircraft operations environment, due to surface cleanliness 

requirements for bond reliability and durability. The structures are typically contaminated with 

dirt, oils, and greases from the operating environment. These are known to cause severe 

problems with adhesion of the repairs. 

This work has investigated the chemical interaction of the surface and the adhesive materials; 

identified the most probable contaminants; assessed the impact of those contaminants; and 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-59 

identified the possible means of detecting the level of contamination from the repair surface. 

The FAA has been assessing the ability of current and innovative detection equipment to identify 

the specific contaminants and the capability to determine whether the contamination level is 

acceptable to establish a durable bond. 

This project identified the surface contaminants which cause degradation; documented 

technologies which identify the surface contaminants; and evaluated initial equipment able to 

assess surfaces for those contaminates. This work will allow applicants and operators to provide 

repair procedures that incorporate reliable methods for accurate determination of surface 

suitability for durable structural bonds. This will enable the use of more bonded structure in 

future aircraft while providing expected level of safety. (Advanced Materials/Structural Safety) 

Geometry Conversion Tool for Rotorburst Vulnerability Reduction 

Users of the Uncontained Engine Debris Damage assessment Model (UEDDAM) have had 

difficulty converting commercial aircraft geometry into the Fast Shot-Line Generator 

(FASTGEN) format used by the UEDDAM analysis code. Discussions with industry indicated 

that a converter from PATRAN was needed to decrease the time required to build the models for 

commercial users. 

A FASTGEN preference was developed to support this request. The converter preserves the 

geometry and material identification of components and helps users build a vulnerability analysis 

model that can be used for either an infinite energy rotorburst analysis per the current FAA 

Advisory Circular (AC 20-128A), or the multiple fragment Monte-Carlo analysis anticipated for 

future designs. (Aircraft Catastrophic Fire Prevention Research) 

Propulsion Malfunction Research 

The FAA has an ongoing, multi-year effort to study propulsion malfunctions that precipitate 

inappropriate crew response type accidents and incidents. This effort is in response to research 

recommendations from a 1998 Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) report. The Engine 

Damage Related - Propulsion System Malfunctions, study, completed in 2007, directly supports 

the AIA Propulsion Indications Task Team (PITT) that is working to develop recommendations 

for future changes in the Federal Register, Title 14, CFR Part 25.1305. This research provided 

input for the propulsion section of recently published FAA Advisory Circular (AC25-11A). 

The 2008 study developed concepts for information based oil system displays with the intent of 

minimizing crew troubleshooting in the cockpit and tying information to actions and checklists 

for the pilots when required. The study focused on the pilot informational needs and looked at 

the best means of displaying the information. Four concepts were developed and programmed 

into the Boeing 777 CAB simulator. Work is continuing in support of the AIA PITT team with 

the evaluation of the developed information based display concepts that will tie annunciations to 

pilot actions and minimize troubleshooting of propulsion malfunctions in the flight deck. 

(Aircraft Catastrophic Fire Prevention Research) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-60 

Turbine Engine Research 

The FAA is working with the aircraft engine industry to develop an enhanced life management 

process, based on probabilistic damage tolerance principles, to address the threat of material or 

manufacturing anomalies in high-energy rotating components. An integrated team of Southwest 

Research Institute, GE Aviation, Pratt & Whitney, Honeywell, and Rolls-Royce Corporation 

developed a probabilistically-based damage tolerance design and life management code called 

Design Assessment of Reliability with Inspection (DARWIN) to determine the risk of fracture of 

turbine engine rotors containing undetected material anomalies. 

The initial version of DARWIN addressed the subsurface material defect known as hard alpha 

and meets the requirements of a new FAA Advisory Circular on Damage Tolerance for High 

Energy Turbine Rotors (AC33.14-1). In FY 2007, a new version of DARWIN was completed to 

address surface damage in bolt holes and, in the following year; another new version was 

delivered to address surface defects on the turned surfaces of rotor disks. The FAA plans to 

complete new Advisory Circulars based on these new versions of DARWIN. Future versions of 

DARWIN will address surface damage in blade slots as well as advanced zoning capabilities and 

advanced probabilistic methods to treat varying inspection schedules and multiple defects. 

(Aircraft Catastrophic Fire Prevention Research) 

Unleaded Fuels and Fuel System Safety Research 

The EPA exemption of general aviation from the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments regarding the 

use of leaded fuel is still in effect. Recent petitions to the EPA have reignited the call for either a 

ban on leaded aviation fuels or a study on the health effects of leaded aviation fuels. It is likely 

that environmental and cost pressures of using leaded fuels will continue to increase for the 

general aviation community. Extensive testing by the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center 

on an unleaded replacement for the current leaded 100 low-lead (100LL) aviation gasoline 

involved the use of specialty chemicals. Significant engine modifications may be required on the 

high-compression engine legacy fleet to operate on a lower-octane, unleaded fuel, which would 

likely result in changes to engine and aircraft performance and pilot-operating procedures. 

Recent FAA tests confirmed that significant detonation performance differences exist between 

unleaded and leaded fuels of the same octane. The FAA, therefore, needs to continue its 

research on unleaded fuels and to evaluate engine technology given the increasing safety and 

certification concerns with the use of alternative fuels. 

Working in parallel with the Coordinating Research Council, the FAA Propulsion and Fuel 

Systems Team was supplied with 47 separate blends of unleaded fuel containing various 

amounts of aviation alkylate, super alkylate, Toluene, Ethyl-tert-butyl-ether, tert-Butyl benzene, 

and meta-Toluidine. All blends contained 5 percent Isopentane. The blends’ compositions had 

motor octane numbers (MON) ranging from 97.6 to 106.3, and did not meet the current 

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 910 leaded aviation gasoline 

specification. These 47 blends, along with a specially blended, minimum specification 100LL 

and unleaded reference fuels, were detonation-tested in a Lycoming IO540-K engine at the FAA 

William J. Hughes Technical Center. The goal was to address both the individual and 

synergistic compositional effects of the unleaded components on the full-scale engine detonation 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-61 

performance and on the ASTM D 2700 laboratory MON. The MON was correlated to the fullscale engine detonation performance and compared to the detonation performance of the 

specially blended 100LL. 

Four power settings, ranging from takeoff to economy cruise, were evaluated with fuel mixture 

strength varying from 0.600 brake-specific fuel consumption to 50°F lean of peak exhaust gas 

temperature. Results show that the MON of the blends did trend with their detonation 

performance in the IO540-K engine, but equivalent unleaded blend performance of the specially 

blended 100LL required 2.0 greater MON. Nineteen of the 47 blends, all with higher than 102.5 

MON, provided better detonation performance than the specially blended 100LL. Fourteen of 

the blends had higher MONs than the 100LL but performed worse in the full-scale engine. 

(Aircraft Catastrophic Fire Prevention Research) 

Integrated Modular Avionics Research 

The combination of rigorous design and verification assurances has led to safe and reliable 

operation of civil aviation software and digital systems. Historically, in typical federated 

systems, integration was a rather straight forward activity involving compiling, linking, and 

loading the software application onto the target computer system environment. However, 

Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) systems and their ability to integrate several functions with 

shared resources require further guidance. 

The 2008 Handbook for Real-Time Operating Systems and Component Integration 

Considerations in Integrated Modular Avionics Systems (DOT/FAA/AR-07/48) is designed to 

inform the IMA system development role players of their commitments to each other and to the 

operational system. Its purpose is to aid industry and the certification authorities in the earlier 

integration stages of IMA system development. As such, this handbook documents some 

currently known issues, practices, and activities to be considered in the development and 

verification of IMA systems. These activities and practices include a discussion of modeling, the 

use of tools, and other IMA system development topics. 

Information from the handbook is included in several publications: RTCA Special Committee 

SC-200 in the development of RTCA/DO-297 Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) Development 

Guidance and Certification Considerations; and AC20-145, Guidance for Integrated Modular 

Avionics (IMA) that Implement TSO-C153 Authorized Hardware Elements. (Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System Safety) 

Microprocessors Evaluations for Safety-Critical, Real-Time Applications 

Despite their extensive use in the aerospace industry, there is a lack of safe, economical methods 

to evaluate the reliability of microprocessors for safety-critical aerospace applications. The 

purpose of this research is to: investigate microprocessor use in the industry, identify assessment 

criteria for microprocessors, and document safety concerns for microprocessors. It identifies 

methods to evaluate microprocessors for safety-critical applications. Effective criteria for 

determining what is a high-risk versus low-risk microprocessors do not exist. The risk is the risk 

of microprocessor failure in critical applications that may endanger life and property, because of 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-62 

a resulting aircraft accident. If this research is not performed, the ability of the FAA and 

industry to evaluate emerging, highly complex digital hardware and software for use in advanced 

flight controls and avionics systems will be jeopardized, the cost of certification for the FAA and 

industry will increase, and the level of assured safety will be at risk. Certification specialists will 

find it difficult to properly assess proposed aircraft and avionics designs which employ this 

technology in flight essential and flight critical applications. 

 

This research will: develop methods and procedures to permit the safe, economical qualification 

of microprocessor applications with complex, nondeterministic architectures; provide criteria to 

select microprocessors for safety critical aerospace applications that can be proven to be safe; 

and provide technical data for the development of FAA regulations and policy for the design and 

test of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) microprocessor components. 

The 2008 report Microprocessor Evaluations for Safety-Critical, Real-Time Applications: 

Authority for Expenditure No. 43 Phase 2 Report, (DOT/FAA/AR-08/14) includes an in-depth 

analysis of functional test and validation of microprocessors, emerging microprocessor features 

safety issues, system on a chip (SoC) safety issues, and nondeterministic approaches to 

demonstrate safety evidence. The report provides an evaluation of modeling techniques 

proposed as a part of the Microprocessor Approval Framework (MAF), an assessment of the 

feasibility of using third party simulation tools for microprocessor and SoC safety analysis, and 

an evaluation of the applicability of the proposed MAF to COTS microprocessors. The MAF is 

the microprocessor approval framework that provides a procedural framework for new ways to 

evaluate these microprocessors and new ways to provide additional safety risk mitigation 

techniques. 

In addition, a draft report was completed that contains the results of using MAF to assess the 

COTS Freescale MPC7447 microprocessor and the Freescale MPC8540 SoC as well as an 

evaluation of the Buffer Oriented Micro-architectural Validation (BOMV) technique for microarchitectural features of COTS microprocessors. (Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety) 

Qualification of Airborne Electronic Hardware Tools 

This research initiative identified potential safety issues in the assessment and qualification of 

design and verification tools that are used to develop certain airborne electronic hardware (AEH), 

previously called complex electronic hardware (CEH), for the aircraft. The quality of the design 

and verification tool and the assurance provided by the tool are critical for the approval of any 

aircraft system containing this AEH. The AEH covered are custom, micro-coded components or 

devices, such as programmable logic devices, field programmable gate arrays, application 

specific integrated circuits, and similar circuits used as components of programmable electronic 

hardware. Neither the avionics standard RTCA/DO-254, Design Assurance Guidance for 

Airborne Electronic Hardware, nor three Certification Authorities Software Team (CAST) 

papers (CAST-27, 28, and 30) written to clarify portions of RTCA/DO-254, specifically define 

what a design and verification tool for AEH is. 

A 2008 draft report was developed to document the Phase 1 findings and results of the research. 

The research was conducted in several steps including literature search; industry survey; 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-63 

identification of primary aircraft safety; performance and certification concerns; developing plan 

for validating these concerns; conducting experiments with the tools; and evaluating the 

experiments. The report addresses concerns related to approaches used to qualify tools used in 

the design and verification of AEH for airborne applications; service experience or service 

history used in AEH tool qualification; the potential role of the Testing Maturity Model (TMM) 

in tool qualification; and the impact of commercial off-the-shelf AEH on the aircraft system and 

AEH tools. Some of the concerns include ease of using the tool for verification, quality of the 

tool, and the speed with which the tool verifies designs. These concerns could be significant 

problems depending on the manufacturer's use of the tool and the part that the tool plays in its 

use within the development or verification process. Complexities with insuring independence of 

the verification effort, dealing with unused inputs and outputs, and solving timing issues are 

sample results from this research that are high on the list for resolution and review by applicants. 

These findings and results were presented at the 2008 FAA National Software and Airborne 

Electronic Hardware Standardization Conference. 

The TTM provides an additional process to consider for the evaluation of AEH tools. The report 

documents this role through discussion of applicable TMM characteristics in the tool verification 

process. The research looked at the testing and verification process in the areas of testing phase 

definition, integration testing, the management and measurement of testing, and testing 

optimization and detection. The results found that TMM results may need to be reviewed 

independently to confirm that proper procedures were followed and that results adequately verify 

that the requirements have been met. 

This research supports policy and guidance development for aviation systems in a rapidly 

evolving field of technology that exhibits a proliferation of AEH and software tools. 

(Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety) 

Cargo Fire Suppression Effectiveness of a Halon 1301/Nitrogen Enriched Air 

Mixture 

The FAA Halon Replacement Program continues to investigate ways to eliminate or reduce the 

amount of Halon 1301 used in aircraft cargo compartments. In the past, the FAA has tested plain 

water mist, water mist combined with nitrogen, HFC-125, HFC-227, 2-BTP, and FK5-1-12; 

water mist combined with nitrogen was the only fire suppression system able to meet the FAA 

minimum performance standard (MPS) acceptance criteria. Since water mist/nitrogen systems 

are still under development, the FAA Fire Safety Team has been evaluating transitional 

techniques to reduce the use of Halon 1301 onboard the aircraft cargo compartment. One such 

technique is to introduce nitrogen into the cargo compartment, using the aircraft fuel tank’s 

onboard inert gas generation system (OBIGGS) to replace the fire suppression system metering 

phase (second discharge stage) of Halon 1301. There is, therefore, interest in determining the 

effectiveness of a mixture of Halon 1301 (first discharge) and nitrogen from an OBIGGS. 

The experiments were conducted in the High Pressure Vessel Facility at the FAA William J. 

Hughes Technical Center. The facility had a 402.6 ft3

 pressure vessel instrumented with 

thermocouples, pressure transducers, gas analyzers, and a video camera. In the past, the 

exploding aerosol can simulator test requirement in the MPS was the primary determinant of the 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-64 

potential feasibility of a halon replacement agent. Therefore, the FAA aerosol can explosion 

simulator was installed inside the pressure vessel to conduct the tests. It contained a mixture of 

propane, alcohol, and water to simulate the contents of a large commercial aerosol can (i.e., 

hairspray). A wide range of nitrogen (to reduce the oxygen volumetric concentration) and Halon 

1301 mixture concentrations were discharged inside the pressure vessel. After achieving the 

required oxygen and Halon 1301 concentrations, the aerosol can explosion simulator was 

activated to attempt to create an explosion. Temperature, pressure, and gas volumetric 

concentrations were recorded with a 1 Hz and a 1 kHz analog to digital data acquisition systems. 

This research showed that beneficial effects resulted when Halon 1301 and nitrogen were 

combined to inert a closed pressure vessel (compartment) against an explosion from an aerosol 

containing propane, alcohol, and water. Less Halon 1301 was needed to inert a compartment 

having an oxygen-depleted environment. Explosions were prevented when these two gases were 

combined at concentrations that were below their individual inert concentrations. For example, 

an explosion was prevented when the volumetric concentration of Halon 1301 was 1 percent and 

the oxygen concentration was 17 percent. Individually, the required inert concentrations would 

be about 3 percent Halon 1301 and 12 percent oxygen. This means that in a typical aircraft 

cargo compartment fire protection system configuration, with a dual-stage discharge (highrate/low-rate discharge), it may be more feasible to replace one of the two Halon 1301 fire 

bottles because of the availability of a nitrogen generator system. This approach would be 

particularly attractive in an aircraft with an available onboard inert gas generation system to 

prevent fuel tank explosions. The system integration could reduce the amount of Halon 1301 

from the aircraft cargo compartment fire suppression system by 50 percent or more. (Fire 

Research and Safety) 

In-flight Fire Exposure of Aluminum and Composite Fuselage Materials 

Modern civilian transport aircraft are being constructed with increasingly greater portions of the 

aluminum fuselage being replaced with composite materials. The Boeing 787 is a nearly all 

composite aircraft. Composite materials consist of layers of fiber material held together with a 

resin binder. They have many benefits for the aircraft manufacturer in terms of fabrication 

strength and weight savings. The performance of these materials under in-flight and post crash 

fire conditions, however, is essentially unknown. Aircraft have been constructed with aluminum 

skin and structure for decades. The performance of this material when exposed to an in-flight or 

post crash fire is well known. Aluminum is essentially non-flammable, conducts heat very well, 

and has a high thermal radiation coefficient. Aluminum also melts at a relatively low 

temperature. These properties cause the aluminum hull material to behave very differently 

during an in-flight fire versus a post crash fire. During in-flight fire exposure, the aluminum skin 

and structure of the fuselage are cooled by the flow of air around it. This keeps the metal below 

its melting point and preserves the structural integrity of the aircraft. There has never been a 

documented case of hull penetration due to in-flight fire in an aluminum aircraft. 

The FAA William J. Hughes Technical Centers Airflow Induction Facility performed a series of 

tests to determine the relative performance of both aluminum and composite hull materials when 

exposed to an internal fire while in flight. A test fixture was designed to simulate in-flight 

airflow over the test panels. The underside of the fixture was fitted with an enclosed box that 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-65 

housed the heat sources. Two heat sources were used to expose the underside of the test panel, 

an electric heater, and a live fire. The electric source was used to determine the relative heat 

conduction properties of each type of material under ground and in-flight conditions. The live 

fire intensity was sized to expose the test panels to a condition that was severe enough to melt 

through the aluminum panel under ground conditions, but not in-flight. The aluminum and 

composite test panels were exposed to each of these heat sources under airflows that simulated 

both ground and in-flight conditions. The heat transfer and conduction properties were measured 

with both thermocouples and forward-looking infrared cameras. 

The results from these tests show that there is no significant loss in fuselage structural integrity 

during an in-flight fire due to the use of composite construction verses aluminum construction. 

The materials conduct and transmit heat very differently; however, the resistance to burn through 

is similar. The aluminum panels behaved as observed from experience in full scale aircraft fire 

tests. The aluminum transmits heat in a radial direction very effectively. Aluminum is also very 

effective at convective transfer of heat to air, more so in a moving air stream. If sufficient heat is 

applied to overwhelm these characteristics, the panels become plastic and deform when nearing 

the melting temperature of 1,220o

 F. Once this temperature is reached, the metal turns to liquid, 

leaving a hole in the panel. Burn through under our test conditions occurred in 12 - 15 minutes. 

Burn-through is not an issue during in-flight conditions. The air stream is sufficient, even at the 

relatively low 200 mph in these tests, to cool the top surface of the metal and prevent it from 

reaching the melting point. 

This has been demonstrated in real world aircraft fires; burn through occurs on the ground once 

the relative airflow has stopped. Although composite panels do not appear to transmit heat 

effectively in a radial direction, they do transmit heat normal to the surface. The panels are 

effective at preventing burn through, even though the resin is flammable because they have some 

insulating effect. Topside temperatures in the static tests were roughly half of the underside 

temperatures. The fire does damage the exposed face of the panel, burning the resin away and 

exposing the fiber. Once the outer layer of resin is burned away, however, the exposed fiber 

material acts like a fire blocking layer, limiting further damage. Burn through did not occur 

within the time frame of these tests, up to 25 minutes. Airflow over the panel during in-flight 

conditions is very effective at cooling the top surface of the composite material. The top surface 

temperature was lowered by more than 200o

 F in 200 mph airflow. Off gassing from the heated 

composite panel did produce a flammable mixture in the box resulting in a flash fire. Further 

work in this area is needed to determine the magnitude of this hazard and the implications on 

safety. (Fire Research and Safety) 

Low False Alarm Cargo Compartment Fire Detector Prototype 

Cargo compartments on commercial aircraft are required to have fire detectors that will alarm 

within one minute of the start of a fire. The aviation industry currently uses particle sensing 

smoke detectors to comply with this regulation. These sensors readily detect fires but also alarm 

to other airborne particles not associated with fires. The ratio of false alarms from existing 

smoke detectors to the detection of actual cargo fires is on the order of 100 to 1. These false 

alarms lead to unnecessary flight diversions that are both costly and potentially hazardous. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-66 

A test project was completed that developed a series of fire detection alarm algorithms that sense 

not only smoke particles but also other combustion products including heat, ionized particles, 

carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. The algorithms used various combinations of absolute 

values of these combustion products as well as rate of change of the values. The algorithms were 

exposed to a variety of types of fires as well as false alarm sources. One of the alarm algorithms 

was successful in alarming to all of the test fires in less than one minute and displayed complete 

immunity to alarming to any of the false alarm sources. 

This project demonstrated the potential for multi-sensor fire detectors with an appropriate alarm 

algorithm, to reduce dramatically the current rate of false alarms without a loss in detection 

sensitivity. This could lead to a safety improvement by significantly reducing the incidents of 

aircraft diverting from their intended flight paths due to false alarms from cargo compartment 

fire detectors. (Fire Research and Safety) 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Initiated in FY 2007, the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) research program has yielded 

preliminary analysis and support for regulatory certification and oversight. The objective of the 

UAS technology survey is to provide the FAA with a detailed overview of UAS technology 

status in reference to the existing NAS. Following the regulatory framework, the FAA 

conducted the UAS technology survey in five (5) technical areas: airframe; propulsion; see and 

avoid; command, control, and communication; and flight termination. The FAA completed the 

technology survey and associated regulatory gap analyses in the first four technical areas. 

Results are documented and are being published in FAA technical reports. 

As part of the UAS technology survey initiative, the FAA partnered with the U.S. Air Force 

Research Laboratory in a joint research effort to conduct flight tests of new see-and-avoid (SAA) 

technologies. The SAA technology uses electro-optical sensors to provide forward visual queues 

of other aircraft. In conjunction with other on-board sensors, such as Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance-Broadcast and Traffic Collision and Avoidance System, sophisticated image 

analysis and data fusion with thread identification algorithm will command the aircraft flight 

control systems to perform avoidance maneuvers once the system determines a collision threat is 

warranted. The first set of the flight testing was completed and results were published in a joint 

technical report. 

In the development of the UAS safety management system, the research initiative implements 

the FAA Aviation Safety Safety Management System (SMS) Doctrine. The research focuses in 

two of the SMS essential elements safety risk management and safety assurance. The FAA 

completed an initial study of scenario driven system-level hazard analyses of UAS operating in 

the NAS. Based on this study, the FAA began the development of UAS safety risk management 

concept within the regulatory framework. 

As the first step, the FAA completed the initial development of system-level hazard taxonomy 

for UAS – Hazard Classification and Analysis Systems (HCASs). It took a novel approach from 

the FAA regulatory perspective, Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation (14 CFR) Subchapters on 

Aircraft, Airmen, Airspace, Air Traffic and General Operating Rules. The HCAS took a top-
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-67 

down system approach to address potential UAS safety issues in the existing NAS within 

available regulatory standards. The FAA is in the process of publishing a technical report on the 

HCAS development and its taxonomies with representative analyses to demonstrate its potentials. 

(Unmanned Aircraft Systems) 

FAA-Drexel Fellowship 

The FAA-Drexel Fellowship Program is a collaborative effort established in 1998 to promote 

aviation safety within academia and support ongoing research activities within the Airport and 

Aircraft R&D Division. Participating students are an integral part of the program and have the 

opportunity to solve real-world problems that face the aviation industry. The goal of the FAADrexel fellowship program is to promote and train the next-generation engineer addressing 

aircraft safety issues. 

On Oct. 17, 2007, FAA-Drexel Fellow Bao Mosinyi became the second Ph.D. graduate from the 

FAA-Drexel Fellowship program. The research for his dissertation, “Fatigue Damage 

Assessment of High-Usage In-Service Aircraft Fuselage Structure,” deals with multiple-site 

damage (MSD), a critical safety issue of aging airframe structure facing the aviation industry 

today. Dr. Mosinyi’s research involved complicated extended fatigue tests of two fuselage 

panels removed from a retired B727 airplane at the FAA Full-Scale Aircraft Structural Test 

Evaluation and Research facility. This research will provide key information for the aviation 

industry in developing programs to prevent the occurrence of MSD in the aging aircraft fleet. Dr. 

Mosinyi has accepted a position with Airbus North America in Wichita, Kansas. 

The first Ph.D. graduate from the Program accepted a position with Boeing Commercial Aircraft 

Company in Seattle, Washington, in 2006. (Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft) 

Characterization of Fatigue Crack Threshold in High-Cycle Fatigue 

Applications 

Aircraft propeller blades operate in a high-cycle fatigue (HCF) environment, accumulating a 

large number of fatigue cycles in a short period of time. Due to HCF, stable fatigue crack 

growth is of relatively short duration. For practical damage tolerance applications, it is desirable 

to operate propeller blades below the threshold region of fatigue crack growth. Traditional 

damage tolerance analysis uses near-threshold fatigue crack growth data from large cracks 

obtained mostly from compact and middle tension test specimens. However, in the case of 

aircraft propeller blades, the primary concern is the damage tolerance of small surface flaws. 

Therefore, this research program focuses on near-threshold fatigue crack growth of small, 

thumbnail-like, surface flaws in 7075-T7351 aluminum used in aircraft propeller blades. Of 

interest is the effect of compressive residual stresses at the outer surface of the specimens, 

introduced by shot-peening, on the near threshold fatigue crack growth behavior of small surface 

flaws. 

The tests were conducted using dog bone specimens, as shown in Figure 1a, at the Material 

Characterization Laboratory located at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic 

City International Airport, New Jersey. A closed-loop, servo-hydraulic axial test stand with a 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-68 

50-kip maximum capacity was used under load control mode, in accordance with ASTM E 647. 

To simulate the effect of small surface flaws (such as initial manufacturing flaw, in-service 

mechanical damage, and in-service corrosion damage), small 0.015-inch-radius semicircular 

surface flaws were introduced using a relatively new laser-machining technique, Figure 1b. The 

Direct Current Potential Difference method was used to monitor the subsequent fatigue crack 

growth (FCG). Initial and fatigue crack front profiles were measured using a stereomicroscope, 

optical microscope, and scanning electron microscope, at the end of the test. 

The results are summarized in Figure 2 for the as-received 7075-T7351 aluminum specimens 

tested using R-ratios of 0.1 and 0.7. The fatigue precracking and subsequent load-shedding test 

procedures were successfully applied to obtain near-threshold FCG region and the arrest 

threshold stress-intensity factor range for the as-received specimens, Figure 2a. The final shape 

of the fatigue crack profile at the end of the cyclic loading was nearly semicircular, as shown in 

Figure 2b and 2c for R = 0.1 and 0.7, respectively. In general, the fatigue crack front progressed 

concentrically from the initial semicircular laser-machined flaw. 

For the shot-peened 7075-T7351 aluminum specimens, crack initiation from the laser-machined 

flaws was not accomplished during fatigue precracking. Consequently, the shot-peened 

specimens failed outside the gage section during the fatigue tests, Figure 3a. The depth of the 

compressive stress region from the shot peening was greater than the depth of the surface flaw 

and effectively prevented crack initiation, as indicated in Figure 3b. This was further verified 

using the electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) technique, which provided a two-dimensional 

orientation map of the material’s microstructure; i.e., the grain orientation and shape, Figure 3c. 

However, compared to the as-received specimens, the applied load in the shot-peened specimens 

was more than twice as high. This suggests that crack initiation threshold values in the shotpeened specimens would be a least double that of the as-received specimens. 

Results from this study will provide the data that can be used for damage tolerance analyses of 

rotorcraft and aircraft materials. More details can be found in the Proceedings of the 11th Joint 

NASA/FAA/DoD Conference on Aging Aircraft, April 21-24, 2008 

(http://www.aaproceedings.utcdayton.com/proceedings/2008/techpapers/TP891.pdf). 

(Continued Airworthiness/Aging Aircraft) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-69 

Situational awareness 

Common, accurate, and real-time information of 

aerospace operations, events, crises, obstacles, and weather 

Quarantine Facilities for Arriving Air Travelers 

With the possibility of a worldwide outbreak of a new or emerging disease, public health 

authorities have revived disease control concepts, such as quarantine which is the segregation of 

individuals who may have been exposed to an infections disease but who are not yet ill. 

Quarantine historically has focused on ports of entry, which includes airports. The Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has sponsored a series of tabletop exercises at airports 

that identified the need for facilities on airport property to quarantine several hundred people for 

days or even weeks. As a result, the CDC proposed a rule in November 2005 that requires 

airports to identify such facilities as part of their pandemic preparedness. [The National Strategy 

for Pandemic Preparedness Implementation Strategy, May 2006]. 

To date, however, there has been no discussion of: what types of facilities are necessary, whether 

such facilities should be located on airport property, whether other existing facilities could be 

adapted for this purpose or new facilities could serve multiple uses, and who should pay to 

provide and maintain these facilities. There is also a need to develop guidelines on how airports 

can maintain continuity of operations if their employees (maybe up to 30 percent) do not come to 

work because they are either sick or concerned about coming in contact with sick individuals. 

This project developed guidance for airport operators to identify potential quarantine facilities on 

or off their airports and for continuity of airport operations. The guidance has been developed 

based on factors, such as: 1) physical needs of individuals to be quarantined (e.g., beds, 

sanitation, security, food); 2) non-airport resources available to provide basic necessities (e.g., 

Red Cross); 3) structural requirements for such facilities (e.g., square footage, climate control, 

plumbing); 4) transportation from aircraft to facility; 5) potential existing facilities at airports or 

in community, including those identified in other plans (e.g., hurricane shelters, family assistance 

sites); 6) potential for multiple use for new facilities; 7) operational and financial impacts of 

identifying on-airport facilities; and 8) planning guidelines for expected maximum number of 

individuals to be quarantined. (Airport Cooperative Research – Safety) 

Automated Foreign Object Debris Detection System Evaluation 

The presence of foreign objects in the airport environment presents a major hazard to aircraft 

safety. Foreign object debris (FOD) is any substance, debris, or article found on an airport 

surface that could potentially cause damage to an aircraft or vehicle. The presence of FOD can 

be the result of the loss of parts from aircraft, pavement deterioration, wildlife, ice and salt 

accumulation, or construction debris. Identification of FOD at airports requires frequent 

inspection of airport surfaces by airport personnel, or random observation by aircraft pilots 

operating on airport pavement. Usually, these are the only triggers for FOD removal action. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-70 

In 2005, the FAA, in cooperation with the University of Illinois, conducted a preliminary shortterm evaluation of a radar-based FOD detection system at the John F. Kennedy International 

Airport. This millimeter-wave radar system demonstrated the capability to detect objects as 

small as a two-inch bolt on the pavement surface, thereby providing airport personnel with 

timely FOD alerts and specific information on the location of the object. Although the 

preliminary research demonstrated successful FOD detection under many operational and 

environmental conditions it also identified a need to conduct evaluation on a longer-term basis, 

under varying seasonal conditions. 

In 2007, the FAA installed two separate millimeter-wave radar units at the Theodore Francis 

Green State Airport, in Providence, Rhode Island and collected 12 months of operational data, 

including winter operations. By March 2008, the results of this study were included in an interim 

report. 

In addition to the radar system, the FAA identified three more FOD detection technologies that 

demonstrated sufficient maturity. Since each uses a different technology to detect FOD, FAA 

researchers decided to evaluate each one in a separate study. 

In June 2008, the FAA installed another FOD detection technology at Boston Logan 

International Airport that uses both radar and cameras to detect FOD. The FAA installed 2 more 

systems, one with a high powered intelligent vision camera system and one mobile system. 

Evaluation of all three systems will continue into 2009. A comprehensive final report that 

summarizes the all four FOD detection technologies is expected in 2009. (Airport Technology 

Research- Safety) 

Light Emitting Diode Airport Applications 

Light emitting diodes (LEDs) have the potential to provide significant energy savings, reduced 

maintenance, and overall life-cycle cost savings while providing a more reliable visual cue. 

During the initial implementation of LEDs, it was discovered that caused some system 

integration issues. An FAA/industry team was formed in August 2007 to address the issue of a 

common electrical infrastructure for LED lights sources. This infrastructure should include a 

power distribution system that: maximizes efficiency of the LED fixture, reduces total cost of 

ownership, and supports an open architecture. This research will continue into FY 2009. 

Additional LED implementation issues for use at aerodromes were identified through work done 

with the ICAO Aerodrome Panel Visual Aids Working Group. Some of these issues were: 1) 

How will this technology interact if interspersed with standard incandescent lights?, 2) What are 

the impacts of intensity changes with LEDs?, and 3) What is the impact of the reduced heat 

signature on the lens of LED fixtures with respect to lens contamination due to environmental 

conditions? An FAA engineering brief was issued that recommended that: LED and standard 

incandescent lights not be inner mixed, LED fixtures include electronics to mimic the intensity 

curve of incandescent lamps, and Arctic (heater) kits be used for all fixtures. (Airport 

Technology Research - Capacity) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-71 

Wildlife Mitigation 

The FAA’s wildlife hazards mitigation research program consists of three main areas aimed at 

reducing the risks of aircraft encountering wildlife on or near airports. Many of the studies are 

carried out through partnerships with other federal agencies and academic centers of excellence. 

The first area targets techniques for managing wildlife habitats in the vicinity of airports to make 

them less attractive for hazardous species. It also studies methods for controlling hazardous 

wildlife presence on an airport such as the use of pyrotechnics to scatter birds. The second area 

is designed to understand the capabilities of commercial avian detection radar systems to 

determine their applicability at U.S. civil airports. The projects in this area assess the capabilities 

of the radars to detect and track birds in complex airport environments. Work is also conducted 

on developing effective management and distribution of post-processed radar data for end-user 

applications. The third area collects and disseminates strike information through the FAA’s 

National Wildlife Mitigation website. The website provides extensive information on bird 

strikes as a well as an online strike database and tools for reporting a strike. Data management, 

validation, and posting are provided under agreements with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) and Embry Riddle University. The Smithsonian Institution Feather ID Lab provides 

identification of bird strike remains for the FAA. In all three areas, the focus is on obtaining 

accurate and timely information that will lead to the effective management and reduced risks of 

severe and potentially catastrophic wildlife-aircraft strikes. 

FAA expanded its interagency agreement with USDA to characterize bird use of storm water 

detention basins on airports in the Southwest region of the United States. A study was 

completed of alternative varieties of vegetation to identify bird foraging preferences and 

ultimately make airport vegetation less attractive to birds. Another study was initiated to use 

satellite transmitters to track the movements and habits of resident geese populations in 

metropolitan environments near major airports. Results from these studies provide airport 

wildlife biologists, tasked with controlling hazardous wildlife populations and managing habitats 

on the airport, with vital information regarding hazardous species behavior that poses risks to 

operating aircraft. 

In 2006, the FAA established several cooperative agreements with key universities, agencies, 

and airports to develop a National Wildlife Hazard Data Network. The initial vision was to 

develop a national network of radar systems that could provide a near real-time view of 

hazardous bird activity across the country. The end product would be like a national weather 

map. While that long-term objective is still viable, recent lessons learned and advances in 

technology have shifted the approach from a national advisory system to capability validation 

and assessments to determine how particular systems can best be used at airports. Major partners 

in this study are the U.S. Air Force, USDA, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Embry 

Riddle Aeronautical University, and several commercial airports, including Seattle-Tacoma, 

John F. Kennedy (JFK) International, Chicago O’Hare, and Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) 

International as well as avian detection radar vendors. The FAA also serves as a participating 

partner in a complimentary effort being conducted by the U.S. Navy. 

Field studies have continued. A radar system calibration exercise was conducted using remote 

control helicopter and tethered balloons at Seattle Tacoma International airport to verify target 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-72 

acquisition and tuning. A radar system was installed and is operational at Chicago O’Hare 

International Airport to determine the best location on the airport to accomplish the objectives of 

this effort. Additional deployments at Dallas/Fort Worth and John F. Kennedy International 

Airports were initiated this fiscal year. These field studies will provide the basis for developing 

performance specifications and use protocols for avian radar on U.S. civil airports. Ultimately, 

radar is envisioned to be an effective tool for identifying and tracking hazardous species’ activity 

on and near airports. The information can then be used to manage attractive habitat features as 

well as control resident populations of those species. (Airport Technology Research - Capacity) 

Improving Pilots’ Visual Approaches through Perceptual Training 

The visual approach phase of flight poses a major challenge for junior airline pilots. Airlines 

have reported that new hires with low flight hours experience difficulty in “managing visual 

approaches in line operations.” The difficulty can be attributed to the often non-standard nature 

of the approaches and because it is difficult to model the visual and kinesthetic cues for visual 

approaches in today's flight simulators. Human factors researchers are investigating the skills 

pilots need to conduct a visual approach effectively and developing training and performance 

metrics that will improve training and evaluation of pilots on visual approach tasks. Through 

this research program and subsequent training developments, the FAA expects to impact pilot 

training protocol by reducing initial operating experience time and improving visual profiles. 

The current focus is on training perceptual skills using a discrimination task that involves making 

judgments between two static visual approach images that are manipulated with fractional 

changes in glide slope, distance, runway orientation, and runway layout. The goal is to improve 

a pilot’s ability to attend to critical visual cues in the environment for distance estimation. Our 

initial study confirmed that non-critical cues are used when making discriminations from a nonpilot population. These findings confirm that inexperienced pilots use non-critical cues when 

making visual approach distance estimations. The FAA expects to find that through 

discrimination training performance will improve on visual approach tasks. (ATC/Technical 

Operations Human Factors) 

Vision Model to Predict Target Detection and Recognition 

FAA seeks to characterize the ability of unmanned aerial system (UAS) viewing systems to 

support target detection and identification. Existing system evaluation methods require 

expensive and time-consuming subjective experiments. This project seeks to replace subjective 

testing with the Spatial Standard Observer (SSO), a simple model of human detection and 

discrimination. The current goals of the project are to: 1) measure visibility of aircraft at various 

distances and under various viewing conditions using human observers, and 2) compare the 

predictions of the SSO model to the human visibility data. In the experiment, aircraft images 

were created using computer graphics from geometric aircraft models. The aircraft differed in 

type, distance, orientation, and brightness relative to the background sky. Human observers with 

normal visual acuity attempted to detect the aircraft images, and from their performance, a 

measure of the visibility of each aircraft was derived. The completed data set shows profound 

effects of aircraft coloration and size (distance). For example, contrast thresholds ranged from as 

little as 2 percent for the largest targets to over 40 percent for the smallest. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-73 

The SSO is a simple model of visual pattern detection developed by NASA researchers to 

simplify visibility predictions in a broad range of technical applications. Researchers generated 

an SSO visibility prediction for each aircraft image and compared these predictions to the human 

data. This analysis shows that the SSO provides an excellent prediction of contrast detection 

thresholds for aircraft that vary with respect to type, distance, orientation, and contrast. This 

validates the use of the SSO in predictions of aircraft visibility. To our knowledge, this is the 

first effective tool for prediction of aircraft visibility. This tool will simplify calculations of 

effectiveness of unmanned aerial vehicles viewing systems and help to address the UAS “see and 

avoid” problem. (ATC/Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Vision Model to Predict Target Detection and Unmanned Aerial System Ground 

Observer Requirements 

The use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) has been proposed for many civil and military 

applications within the NAS. For UASs to operate within the NAS, flights must comply with 

CFR 91.113, which outlines the “see and avoid” responsibilities for aircraft operators. One way 

to meet the requirements proposed by UAS operators is to employ ground observers to monitor 

traffic, assess collision probability, and provide operators with timely collision avoidance 

information. There is little data, however, on how well UAS operators can perform the tasks 

asked of them. The goals of this research are to: 1) determine the limits (size and distance) of 

observer visual detection and identification for UAS; 2) measure the accuracy of observer 

judgment of relative distance and altitude; 3) quantify the ability of observers to judge collision 

probability; and, 4) provide empirical data with which to test proposed models of detection and 

visibility. 

A test plan was submitted and approved by the FAA. This plan includes several different 

experiments that: directly measure observer detection given uncertain UAS locations, detect 

unmanned aerial vehicles from a known location, provide judgments of distance and altitude, and 

examine collision potential and a means of collecting image data at detection thresholds. A 

protocol for human subject research has been approved. 

Data were collected at a test site in Oregon to work out details and logistics of data collection. 

Image data have been collected at detection threshold and will be shared with researchers in the 

military and NASA who are developing models of detection and visibility. Further data 

collection is planned at the site as well as a site at New Mexico State University. These data will 

supplement those collected in Oregon and provide detection data that includes additional models 

of UAS as well as varied backgrounds on which to measure detection. A final report including 

recommendations for ground observer requirements is due in the fall of 2009. These data and 

the final report will aid in decision making and facilitate integration of UAS operations into the 

NAS. (ATC/Technical Operations Human Factors) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-74 

Application of Sequential Decision-making to Traffic Flow Management 

Convective weather is often a main contributor to en route airspace congestion, system-wide 

delays, and disruption in the NAS. Present-day methods for managing congestion are mostly 

manual, based on uncertain forecasts of weather and traffic demand, and often involve rerouting 

or delaying entire flows of aircraft. CAASD developed a sequential decision-making simulation 

capability, in which traffic and weather forecast prediction uncertainty is quantified and used to 

develop efficient congestion resolution actions. It is based on Monte Carlo simulation of traffic 

and weather outcomes from a specific forecast. Candidate sequential decision strategies are 

evaluated against a range of outcomes to gain insight into the cost implications of alternate 

courses of action. Traffic management decisions can be improved by evaluating the estimated 

distribution of delay cost and other metrics across the Monte Carlo outcomes, and resolution 

actions are targeted at specific flights, rather than flows. 

To understand the effects of weather forecast accuracy on traffic flow management (TFM) 

decision making, a weather-induced airspace congestion scenario was explored using the 

simulation. The effect of three different levels of weather forecast uncertainty was tested. More 

aggressive congestion resolution strategies were found to be required at higher levels of forecast 

uncertainty, resulting in more flight delays, higher variability in outcomes, and degradation in 

NAS user schedule integrity. This is an example of how a trade-off between the costs of 

improved weather forecasting could be evaluated against the benefits of improved TFM decision 

making. 

 

The simulation has several useful applications. First, assuming computational power continues 

to increase, it represents a prototype of a real-time congestion resolution decision-support system. 

Second, it can be used to study the best decision-making strategies found in the simulation, and 

from them to develop heuristics for near-term congestion resolution tools and procedures. By 

analyzing a matrix of interesting congestion problems, rules for effective congestion resolution 

actions and timing can be derived. Third, the simulation is useful for other cost-benefit analyses 

similar to the weather forecasting example above. It allows study of the quantitative relationship 

between new NAS capabilities which improve traffic predictability and the effectiveness of TFM 

decision making. Thus, the simulation is a platform for evaluating the some of the core 

challenges of achieving intelligent TFM as part of the NextGen concept. (CAASD) 

Runway Safety Alerting 

Runway incursions at U.S. towered airports have been a major area of concern for the NAS for 

the past couple decades. Runway incursions have continued to occur and incursion rates have 

remained essentially constant. As consequence, the NTSB recommended the development of a 

ground movement safety system with direct pilot warning capabilities. To address the 

recommendation, the FAA initiated three programs: Runway Status Lights (RWSL), Final 

Approach Runway Occupancy Signals (FAROS), and Low Cost Ground Surveillance (LCGS). 

 

A RWSL system consists of three subsystems: Runway Entrance Lights (RELs), Takeoff Hold 

Lights (THLs), and Runway Intersection Lights (RILs). RELs are undergoing testing at Dallas/ 

Fort Worth International Airport, TX (DFW) and San Diego International Airport, CA. THLs 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-75 

are undergoing testing at DFW. A RWSL system consisting of RELs and THLs is being 

installed at Los Angeles International Airport, CA. RILs will be tested at Boston Logan 

International Airport, MA. The Boston Logan tests will begin during Summer 2009. RELs and 

THLs will also be installed at BOS. 

Flashing of the Precision Approach Path Indicator is the annunciator for FAROS. The first test 

system was installed at Long Beach, CA. Three induction loop segments along Runway 12/30 

constitute the detection subsystem. The PAPI flashes whenever an aircraft or vehicle occupies 

one of the segments. Enhanced FAROS is undergoing testing at DFW. This version of FAROS 

will cause the Precision Approach Path Indicator to flash only when an aircraft or vehicle is on a 

runway and an aircraft on approach to it is within 1.5 nautical miles of the approach threshold. 

The surveillance source of enhanced FAROS at DFW is the Airport Surface Detection System – 

Model X (ASDE-X) and Airport Surface Radar (ASR)-9 

LCGS is a low cost and more limited option to ASDE-X as a ground surveillance system at those 

airports that will not have ASDE-X. Though LCGS does not provide information directly to the 

cockpit, information is provided to the control tower. Two prototype systems have been installed 

and tested at Spokane, WA. Additional systems for testing are slated for installation at Long 

Island, CA; San Jose, CA; Reno, NV; Manchester, NH; and West Palm Beach, FL. 

Researchers at FAA, CAASD, and industry made significant progress on flight deck-based and 

ground-based direct pilot warning solutions for increasing runway safety. CAASD researchers 

developed a laboratory simulation of a flightdeck-based surface conflict awareness and alerting 

capability that is an addition to existing CDTI displays. The capability improves flight crew 

awareness of airport surface traffic and provides alerting of potential surface conflict situations. 

The capability is applicable to all airports, including non-towered ones. A key enabler of this 

capability is the use of ADS-B to “see” surface aircraft on cockpit displays. The CAASD 

research results were a key input to an associated draft RTCA standard and have been 

transitioned to avionics equipment manufacturers that are now developing prototypes for field 

evaluation in 2010. 

CAASD also completed work in support of a RWSL ground-based direct warning capability. As 

a continuation of prior year research, CAASD conducted human-in-the-loop evaluations of three 

possible lighting configurations to be used as the RWSL’s Final Approach Runway Occupancy 

Signal that provides a visual signal to flight crews on final approach that it is unsafe to land due 

to conflicting aircraft on the arrival runway. The lighting configurations were PAPI lights, 

touchdown zone (TDZ) lights, and threshold lights. The PAPI lights were modified to flash, the 

TDZ lights were modified to present a sequenced flashing of red and white, and the threshold 

lights were modified to present a red and white wig-wag flashing pattern. Each of the 

configurations still provided their original guidance information to the flight crews while also 

providing the arrival warning signal. CAASD’s 2008 and prior year research demonstrated that 

a RSWL system would be highly effective. RSWL has been approved for implementation. 

(CAASD) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-76 

Assessment of Weather-Related Training Aids 

Adverse weather continues to be one of the leading causes of general aviation pilot fatalities in 

the United States. However, the actual effectiveness of weather training programs is rarely 

evaluated scientifically. CAMI investigators reviewed two well-known weather training 

programs to assess their impact on weather knowledge and in simulo flight behavior for 50 GA 

pilot volunteers. 

To obtain a baseline estimate of pilot weather knowledge, CAMI first developed a computerized 

knowledge pretest based on weather questions. Pilots were then exposed to either one of two 

weather training videos (the experimental groups) or to a non-weather related video (the control 

group). Their weather knowledge was then retested with an alternate, matched-difficulty form of 

the knowledge test, to measure effect of the training products. Repeated measures analysis of 

variance for posttest-pretest score gains yielded a non-significant pF = .734. This implies that, 

while there was a slight average knowledge gain associated with the training products (about 2.5 

percent), the effect was not large enough to be statistically reliable. In practical terms, this simply 

means that weather is a complex subject to master, and there is no easy solution to adequate 

weather training. 

Additionally, the data allowed estimation of pilot weather knowledge retention. Comparing 

these average weather knowledge scores ((pre + post)/2 = 64.3 percent) to official FAA test 

scores (82.6 percent for these questions, weighted for instrument rating), produced a group wise 

“weather knowledge forgetting quotient” estimate of about 22 percent over the time since pilots 

had taken their original tests [(82.6-64.3)/82.6 = 22 percent]. This has implications for both 

weather training and assessment. Namely, both could be modified to increase pilots’ retention of 

knowledge. 

Pilots next engaged in a simulated flight through weather sufficiently challenging to elicit 

response variation ranging from diversions to alternate airports, to full flight completion. Preflight and flight behaviors were measured, including length and types of preflight weather 

briefing, number of in-flight weather updates requested, total flight time, penetration distance 

into the weather, terrain clearance, and cloud clearance. Briefly, the two experimental groups 

were significantly more hesitant to take off than the controls (pX2 = .034). Controls also displayed 

greater flight duration and, consequently, lower minimum-final-distance-to-destination (KruskalWallis pKW = .007, .005 respectively). However, there were no significant net group differences 

on overall flight safety as measured by terrain clearance and cloud clearance. Again, this simply 

implies that there is no easy solution to adequate weather training. It takes more than a 2-hour 

video to change pilots’ knowledge and behavior significantly. 

Finally, weather knowledge and flight behavior were again assessed after an elapsed time 

interval of approximately three months, to test retention of training. That analysis is pending. 

Final reports will be provided in FY 2009. (Flightdeck/ Maintenance/System Integration Human 

Factors) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-77 

Sensory Deficiencies in the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) are those without a pilot onboard. UAS pilots do not have 

the same amount and types of sensory information available to them as pilots in manned aircraft. 

An assessment is needed on how these sensory deficiencies might affect the safety of UAS 

flights. 

A technical report was written that summarizes research findings. The report includes a 

comparison of manned sensory information to sensory information available to the unmanned 

aircraft pilot, a review of remediations for sensory deficiencies from the current UAS inventory, 

a review of human factors research related to enhancing sensory information available to the 

UAS pilot, and a review of current FAA regulations related to sensory information requirements. 

Analyses demonstrated that pilots of UAS receive less and fewer types of sensory information 

compared to manned aircraft pilots. One consequence is an increased difficulty for UAS pilots to 

recognize and diagnose anomalous flight events that could endanger the safety of the flight. 

Recommendations include the incorporation of multi-sensory alert and warning systems into 

UAS control stations. 

The research proposed for FY 2009 consists of consolidating the analyses and recommendations 

from FY 2008 and incorporating those recommendations in the work of several standards 

working groups. These working groups include the: RTCA Special Committee 203; SAE-G10 

working group on unmanned aircraft system training guidelines; FAA – EUROCONTROL 

Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC), Annex 4, Action Plan 24 Working Group for Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems; and the UAS Program Office Working Group 2 on Control Station Design 

Issues. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Terrain Awareness and Warning System Feasibility for Helicopter Operations 

Due to advances in terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS) technology and increases in 

rotorcraft controlled flight into terrain accident frequency, the NTSB has recommended that 

alerting pilots in rotorcraft operations of their proximity with terrain would be beneficial (NTSB 

Safety Recommendations A-06-19 through -23). Specifically, the NTSB has recommended that: 

all emergency medical system aircraft be equipped with TAWS; the TAWS regulation be 

extended to turbine-powered rotorcraft certificated for six or more passenger seats; and operators 

provide training to ensure the crew can use the system. 

A survey of the literature was conducted to identify relevant guidelines and human performance 

data for research being performed by the University of North Dakota and for document 

preparation of Minimum Aviation System Performance Specifications by RTCA Special 

Committee 212 (SC-212). Additionally, scenarios and protocols were developed for data 

collection on pilot response to terrain alerts and warnings to be conducted during simulator trials 

run with the University. Minimum Operational Performance Standards for helicopter terrain 

awareness and warning systems were completed by RTCA SC-212. Data regarding pilot 

response to terrain alerts and warnings were collected by CAMI personnel, and the results were 

provided to SC-212 during preparation of their document. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-78 

Weather in the Cockpit Baseline and Assessment 

Adverse weather is both a challenge for safe flight operations and a significant limiting factor for 

airspace capacity. In air transport operations, numerous takeoff and landing accidents have 

followed encounters with convective weather and winter precipitation. Predicting and avoiding 

weather and determining when conditions have deteriorated sufficiently to increase risk requires 

a great deal of attention from air transport pilots and airline operation centers. The Joint 

Program and Development Office has articulated a vision for NextGen that expects a greater 

degree of collaboration between pilots and controllers in weather-related decision-making and 

presumes a degree of shared situation awareness beyond current systems. Pilots and controllers 

will need consistent understanding of the weather situation to resolve challenging flight 

conditions collaboratively. 

To support this transition, CAMI: assembled information on weather information requirements 

for the air transport and general aviation cockpit and for airline operations center personnel who 

support air transport operations assessments on weather products; documented the maturity and 

use of these products; and identified gaps between product capabilities and information needs. 

In addition, CAMI is identifying key requirements for integration or connection between cockpit 

and air traffic needs and products. 

Data were extracted from a number of sources (e.g., 1993 National Aviation Weather Users’ 

Forum, previous surveys/interviews of pilots, extant literature) and combined to define the 

categories and specific types of weather information pilots require and how they prioritize them 

by phase of flight. Data preferences and priorities were found to be consistent across pilots 

performing different types of activities and consistent, with minor variations, across levels of 

pilot experience. A phase one report was completed. Results were largely as expected, with 

visibility and ceiling data being ranked highly for initial and terminal phases of flight but with 

icing and convective-activity information data being ranked more highly for cruise. The data 

could be used to prioritize the presentation of cockpit weather information by phase of flight. An 

assessment of weather information use in Airline Operations Centers will continue into next year. 

(Weather Program) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-79 

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 

Airport Economic Impact Methods and Models 

The role of local airports in regional and state economies has substantially changed in the past 

two decades and continues to evolve. Airport operators and managers conduct economic impact 

studies to demonstrate the significance of their airport as a means to persuade policy makers to 

protect airports against adjacent incompatible uses and as rationale to pursue projects and 

business lines that would add vitality to regional interests. 

Air cargo has the fastest growth rate of any freight mode and has gained economic importance 

with the growth of national and global markets and supply chains for manufactured goods. 

General aviation airports that focus on traditional general aviation uses and specialty segments, 

such as air cargo, corporate jets, or aircraft maintenance, have also emerged. Passenger air travel 

has taken on increased importance for education, research and development, technology, and 

tourism clusters. The economic role of larger airports has also changed with the growth of 

international gateways and shifts in passenger and freight hubs. 

Increasingly, these various factors are being addressed by local airport economic impact studies, 

using new tools and methods for economic impact analysis. Many of the newer studies have 

moved far beyond the traditional method that were promulgated 15 years ago, which focused on 

applying multipliers to airport jobs and visitor spending (e.g., 1992 FAA document: Estimating 

the Regional Economic Significance of Airports.). New guidance might be desirable in the future, 

and a first step would be to have a synthesis study document the new issues and tools that 

comprise the state of practice today. (Airport Cooperative Research – Capacity) 

Asphalt Test Sections at the National Airport Pavement Test Facility 

A new series of full-scale traffic tests on asphalt pavements are underway at the FAA’s William 

J. Hughes National Airport Pavement Test Facility. Engineers constructed twelve pavement test 

items within the facilities first 300-feet over low strength subgrade with a California Bearing 

Ratio of approximately three. This series of test are designated Construction Cycle Five (CC5). 

In July 2008, the asphalt concrete test pavement construction was completed, including 

installation of instrumentation. Each test section is approximately 40 feet long by 30 feet wide. 

Traffic testing was started in August 2008 and will continue into 2009 at which time trafficking 

should be completed and the post-traffic materials testing should start. The present tests are 

intended to yield reliable performance data about the effects of aircraft landing gear spacing and 

the effects of the increase in the quality of sub base materials that the FAA can use to update the 

pavement thickness design procedures in its FAARFIELD computer program. The CC5 series of 

tests provides full-scale test data on the performance of asphalt concrete pavements under 

multiple gears loading to verify and/or modify the failure model in FAARFIELD. (Airport 

Technology Research - Capacity) 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-80 

Monitoring and the Use of Checklists 

Flight crew monitoring and use of checklists are essential defenses against threats and errors. 

Both the NTSB 12-year study of accidents attributed to crew error and FAA/NASA research 

reveal that breakdowns in monitoring and execution of checklists have played central roles in 

many, perhaps most, airline accidents. The FAA and industry require data on how monitoring is 

performed and how checklists are typically used on the line. They also require data on the 

factors that impede effective execution of these critical procedures. 

A NASA research team completed 60 jump seat observations of how air carrier crews conduct 

monitoring and execute checklists in normal operations. These observations were conducted in 

six aircraft types at three airlines (two in the United States and one in Canada), one which is a 

major international airline and the other two which are regionals. Preliminary analysis revealed 

that errors in both monitoring and checklist use are diverse in nature and frequent. Only about 

16 percent of these errors are caught. The team has completed a preliminary assessment of the 

cognitive factors underlying vulnerability to these errors, and this will provide a foundation for 

developing countermeasures to reduce vulnerability. These countermeasures, which include 

guidelines, training, design of checklists and operating procedures, and organizational policies 

for reducing crew vulnerability to inadvertent errors of omission, address the FAA goal of 

improving aviation safety. (Flightdeck/ Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Pilot, Designee, and Inspector Perceptions of FAA Services 

A variety of aviation safety functions require feedback from constituents to provide assessments 

of both FAA services and the adequacy of policy and regulation. Some types of feedback are 

further required by statute, such as the Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). 

CAMI surveyed regulated populations (e.g., general aviation - GA pilots) and designees (e.g., 

Aviation Medical Examiners - AMEs) to evaluate satisfaction with FAA services and the 

adequacy of policy and regulation. 

The P-ASEL survey is an annual survey designed to collect data from newly certified GA private 

pilots with an Airplane-Single-Engine-Land Rating. The survey asks pilots about their 

experience with designated pilot examiners (DPEs) and the practical exam. The 2007 survey 

was distributed to 5,026 pilots from July 2007 to January 2008. Responses from 1,475 pilots met 

the criteria for inclusion for a 29 percent response rate. A valid response included respondents 

who had recently been certificated by a DPE and had not failed a previous practical test. Nearly 

all pilots indicated that they obtained a copy of the FAA PTS and used it to review the 

requirements for their practical test (97.8 percent). The majority of pilots indicated that the 

examiner who conducted their practical was prepared and organized to a considerable or great 

extent (96.8 percent). When asked about events evaluated during their exam, 95 percent said 

they were asked about weather information, and 97 percent were asked about basic Visual Flight 

Rules weather minimums. Less than 3 percent of those pilots were asked to repeat either subject 

area during their examination. In response to items on take-offs and landings, nearly one-third of 

the pilots said that they did not demonstrate crosswind takeoffs and/or landings; however, 80 

percent of those pilots were orally evaluated on the maneuvers. The survey results will be used 

by flight standards to improve GA safety. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-81 

The AME survey is a biennial survey designed to collect data from examiners about their 

satisfaction with the aeromedical certification services provided by the FAA. The survey 

complies with the requirements set forth by Executive Order No. 12862, “Setting Customer 

Service Standards,” and GPRA to assess customer satisfaction with services provided by or on 

behalf of federal agencies. The 2008 AME survey was distributed to 3,439 AMEs via e-mail and 

postal mail. The analysis included only those respondents who had served as an AME for at 

least 12 months and conducted an exam for at least one airman during that time (n = 1226). Of 

the AMEs who met the criteria for inclusion, 76 percent completed an online survey. The results 

indicate that more than 89 percent were satisfied or very satisfied with the Aerospace Medical 

Education Division, the Aerospace Medical Certification Division, and the Regional Flight 

Surgeons. In contrast, fewer AMEs (53 percent) reported being satisfied to a considerable or 

great extent with the Aerospace Medical Certification (AMC) Internet Subsystem. 

Approximately 45 percent of AMEs indicated the Office of Aerospace Medicine (OAM) Website 

was useful to a considerable or great extent. Overall, domestic, non-military AMEs reported 

being satisfied with the personnel who provide certification services, but fewer were satisfied 

with the technological tools (e.g., AMC Internet Subsystem) used for medical certification 

applications. Specific areas in need of improvement were identified by AMEs – including the 

standards and guidelines for deferrals, AME training, digital ECG system, AMC Internet 

Subsystem, and the FAA’s OAM website. The survey results will be used by senior managers to: 

1) evaluate the degree of customer satisfaction with aerospace medical certification services, 2) 

identify areas in which improvements in service delivery can be made, and 3) assess change in 

customer satisfaction as a result of those improvements. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors) 

Pilot Procedures and Practices for Automated Flight Decks 

Automation has introduced changes to the nature of aircrew interaction in the cockpit. Although 

designers hoped that these changes would reduce errors, evidence suggests that this has not been 

the case. This leads to the question of how to improve the performance of crews using 

automated cockpit systems. Researchers at or under the direction of George Mason University 

have used a number of approaches to address this question. 

The first approach is to understand training needs and then design training and cockpit 

procedures with automated systems in mind. During FY 2008, information about the design, use, 

and training of automated systems was obtained through interviews and observations conducted 

by researchers from George Mason University and Research Integrations, Inc. at several airplane 

manufacturers, training companies, and airlines. The team with researchers from the University 

of Central Florida (UCF) completed a document summarizing what is known from the last ten 

years of research on automation. George Mason and UCF also leveraged their earlier work on 

conceptually-and exemplar-based training to develop materials for use in training pilots to 

complete a visual approach. Many accidents/incidents are caused by new pilots failing to 

understand how to execute this maneuver; it is not clear what method is needed to reduce 

incidents and improve comprehension. UCF developed materials for their exemplar-based 

training and George Mason began production of materials for the conceptually-based training. 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-82 

Finally, George Mason completed production of a CD containing background reports on 

automation training, background material on why conceptual training is useful, and sample 

conceptual training developed for training automated systems. The CD was circulated to 600 

participants of an FAA-sponsored conference on automation to improve the safety of the flying 

public. 

A second approach is to prevent automation errors at the source by developing new interfaces 

that reduce the requirement for training. This approach requires close collaboration between 

researchers and manufacturers to collect data on current and prototype systems and begin to 

predict how system modifications will affect initial learning and training requirements. The 

strength of this approach lies in the tight coupling of real, applied problems with scientific 

theories, principles, and methods. Coupling airline data with cognitive modeling and other 

analysis techniques allows us to develop better evaluation and training programs. By 

collaborating with manufacturers, training research remains relevant as automated systems 

evolve. This work produced a report, which will be submitted shortly to a journal for publication, 

describing the strengths and weaknesses of different analysis techniques that can be used to 

predict learning and training requirements in the future. 

A third approach is to help prevent errors by developing tools that can be used in the cockpit. 

Researchers at Cognitive and Human Factors, Inc. continued to work with NASA to determine 

the best ways in which to transition from paper to electronic documents on the flight deck. The 

work suggested that it is not sufficient to represent paper documents in an electronic format that 

reproduces the “look and feel” of the original paper document. Rather, it is important to examine 

the ways in which electronic devices and products change interactions in the cockpit and to 

develop electronic flight bag procedures and training that can encourage best practices and 

measurably improve crew performance. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/Systems Integration Human 

Factors) 

NextGen Towers 

The air traffic in the United States is expected to increase significantly over the next several 

decades. Some high-end estimates indicate that by the year 2025 the total passenger 

enplanements may more than double and total aircraft operations may triple in comparison to the 

traffic today. In the next 10-15 years, most U.S. tower facilities will reach the end of their useful 

life. The cost of new tower construction is escalating. The FAA developed the NextGen towers 

(NTs) operational concept (ConOps) to increase capacity and address the predicted growth in 

airport tower operations while still addressing the cost prohibitive nature of replacing ATC 

towers with new towers. 

The NT concept reduces the need for physical infrastructure associated with ATC towers and 

will provide a means to control airport traffic from a ground level location. Two types of 

NextGen towers are considered: 1) staffed NextGen towers (SNTs) in which air navigation 

service provider personnel will provide full air traffic management services from a ground-level 

facility to flights in and out of one or more airports; and 2) automated NextGen towers (ANTs) 

in which a ground-level facility will be fully automated and a limited number of basic air traffic 
2009 NARP Appendix B 

June 22, 2009 

Page B-83 

management (ATM) services (e.g., sequences, clearances and advisories) will be provided 

without any human participation via synthetic voice and/or data link to the aircraft. 

The ConOps develops the NT concept as a first step in the process to determine its operational 

feasibility. It will be used as a foundation for future analyses (e.g., functional, technical, safety) 

and development efforts needed to determine its operational feasibility. The FAA approved a 

research management plan for the first phase of SNT development, Supplemental Operations. 

The plan ensures the collection of all operational, technical, and economic data needed for an 

initial investment decision and includes certification of ASDE-X as a critical component in 

achieving NT. The completed SNT Technology Assessment provides a process to measure and 

evaluate three critical functional areas (surveillance, displays, and communications) enabling 

SNT operations and provided recommendations for alternatives. (Operations Concept Validation) 

2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-i 

APPENDIX C: Partnership Activities 

Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................... C-1 

1. Working with Government ..................................................................... C-1 

1.1 Memoranda of Understanding and Agreement....................................... C-1 

1.2 Interagency Committees ......................................................................... C-4 

2. Working with Government, Industry and Academia.............................. C-4 

2.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRDA)............. C-4 

3. Working with Industry............................................................................ C-7 

3.1 Small Business Innovation Research...................................................... C-7 

3.2 Patents issued through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office............... C-7 

4. Working with Academia......................................................................... C-8 

4.1 Joint University Program (JUP) for Air Transportation Research.......... C-8 

4.2 Aviation Grants....................................................................................... C-8 

4.3 Air Transportation Centers of Excellence (COE)................................. C-10 

4.3.1 COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment (RITE).. C-10 

4.3.2 Joint COE for Advanced Materials (JAMS)......................................... C-11 

4.3.3 COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction 

(PARTNER).......................................................................................... C-13 

4.3.4 COE for General Aviation Research (CGAR)...................................... C-15 

4.3.5 COE for Airport Technology (CEAT).................................................. C-16 

List of Tables

Table C.1 – Active MOU/MOA/IAs, FY 2008 ...............................................................C-1 

Table C.2 – Active FAA Cooperative R&D Agreements, FY 2008 ...............................C-4 

Table C.3 – Patents Issued for DOT/FAA.......................................................................C-7 

Table C.4 – FAA Research Grants Originating in FY 2008............................................C-9 

Table C.5 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to COE for Research in the Intermodal 

Transport Environment (RITE).................................................................C-11 

Table C.6 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to the Joint COE in Advanced Materials 

(JAMS)......................................................................................................C-11 

Table C.7 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to the COE Partnership for Air 

Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) .................C-14 

Table C8– Grants Awarded in 2008 to COE for General Aviation Research 

(CGAR).....................................................................................................C-15 

Table C.9 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to COE for Airport Technology (CEAT)...........C-16 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-ii 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-1 

Introduction 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) enhances and expands its research and development 

(R&D) capabilities by partnering 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. The Agency uses 

the following partnership mechanisms to achieve its goals. 

1. Working with Government 

1.1 Memoranda of Understanding and Agreement 

FAA researchers collaborate with their colleagues in government through memoranda of 

understanding/agreement (MOU/MOA) and other mechanisms, such as interagency agreements 

(IAs). 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 a series of 

intra-governmental agreements. The FAA also works closely with the Department of Defense 

(DOD), especially in the environmental area. Table C.1 provides details of the agreements in 

place in fiscal year (FY) 2008. 

Table C.1 – Active MOU, MOAs, and IAs, FY 2008 

MOU, MOAs, and IAs 

Agreement 

Type Subject Objective 

FAA/NASA 

MOU 

A Partnership to Achieve 

Goals in Aviation and Space 

Transportation 

Partnering in the pursuit of complementary goals in 

aviation and space transportation, including safety, 

airspace system efficiency, environmental 

compatibility, international leadership, and others. 

FAA/NASA 

MOA 

Support of FAA R&D Field 

Offices at NASA Research 

Centers 

Continuing operation and support of the FAA Field 

Offices established at NASA Centers. 

FAA/NASA 

MOA 

Air Traffic Management 

Research and Technology 

Development 

Supporting the NASA Aviation Systems Capacity 

Program and FAA Air Traffic Management with 

respect to conducting research, development, and 

technology transfer to FAA. 

FAA/NASA 

MOA 

Impact of Aviation Air 

Emissions on Climate and 

Global Atmospheric 

Composition 

Establishing programs and plans to determine aviation 

emissions that have the potential to impact global 

atmospheric composition, stratospheric ozone and 

climate. 

FAA/NASA 

MOA 

Aeronautical Safety and 

Human Factors 

Establishing a strategic partnership with respect to the 

conduct of human factors research in commercial air 

transportation, general aviation, vertical flight, aviation 

maintenance, flight technologies and procedures, air 

traffic control/airway facilities, and bioaeronautics. 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-2 

Table C.1 – Active MOU, MOAs, and IAs, FY 2008 (continued) 

MOU, MOAs, and IAs 

Agreement 

Type Subject Objective 

FAA/NASA 

MOA 

Aviation Safety Reporting 

System (ASRS) 

Describing the basic relationship between the FAA’s 

Aviation Safety Reporting Program and the NASA 

ASRS, and outlining the roles and responsibilities of 

each agency. 

FAA/DOD 

MOA 

Collaboration on Research and 

Development to Measure and 

Mitigate the Environmental 

Impacts of Aircraft Noise and 

Aviation Air Emissions 

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. 

FAA/NASA 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Wake Turbulence and 

Associated Reduced 

Separation Research. 

DTFAWA-07-X-80026 

Building upon and expanding 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. 

FAA/NASA 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Airborne Weather RADAR 

with Turbulence Detection 

Capability 

DTFAWA-07-X-00007 

Establishing a cooperative procedure to develop 

minimum performance standards for airborne 

turbulence detection systems. 

FAA/NASA 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Performance Data Analysis 

and Reporting System 

(PDARS) 

DTFAWA-07-X-00033 

To enable continued collaboration in research and 

development efforts by NASA and the FAA on the 

utilization and enhancement of the Performance Data 

Analysis and Reporting System. 

FAA/NASA 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Research for Aviation 

Communications/ 

Navigation/Surveillance/ 

Information Systems 

DTFAWA-08-X-80021 

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. 

FAA/NASA 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Human Factors Research 

DTFAWA-08-X-80023 

FAA HFRE and NASA Ames will collaborate on 

human factors research that support the FAA’s goals of 

greater capacity and increased safety. 

FAA/NASA 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Research and Technology 

Development 

DTFAWA-08-X-80031 

This agreement 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). 

FAA/NASA 

Interagency 

Agreements 

Support of the FAA R&TD 

NASA Langley Field Team 

DTFAWA-08-X-00009 

Support of the FAA R&TD 

NASA Ames Field Team 

DTFAWA-08-X-80011 

Continuing operation and support of the FAA Field 

Offices established at NASA Centers and 

accomplishment of cooperative projects. 

FAA/NASA 

Interagency 

Agreement 

P-STAR Radar Systems 

DTFACT-08-X-00005 

Establish 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. 

FAA/DOD 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Rotorcraft Health Usage 

Monitoring System (HUMS) 

DTFACT-06-X-00008 

Engineering support for the FAA rotorcraft structural 

integrity research program. 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-3 

Table C.1 – Active MOU, MOAs, and IAs, FY 2008 (continued) 

MOU, MOAs, and IAs 

Agreement 

Type Subject Objective 

FAA/DOD 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Damage Tolerance 

Methodologies in Rotorcraft 

Structures and Dynamic 

components. 

DTFACT-06-X-00001 

Enhance collaboration between FAA and U.S. Army 

Research, Development, and Engineering Command to 

support FAA rulemaking and the implementation of 

damage tolerance (DT) methodology in the design and 

certification of rotorcraft and dynamic components. 

FAA/DOD 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Rotorcraft Health Usage 

Monitoring System (HUMS) 

DTFACT-07-X-00008 

Support FAA research efforts in HUMS operational 

development, commercial HUMS validation, and 

HUMS Advisory Circular compliance validation and 

demonstration. 

FAA/NASA 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Develop methods to define 

helicopter vibration thresholds 

IA # SAA3-872 

Support validation and demonstration of HUMS 

operation requirement, technologies, and processes to 

collect and substantiate structural usage data for 

maintenance credits. 

FAA/DOD 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Support substantiation of FAA 

Advisory Circular AC 29-2C 

Section MG-15 Airworthiness 

Approval of HUMS 

DTFACT-08-X-00002 

Obtain technical information related to HUMS AC 

compliance and validation – flight testing, operational 

HUMS development, and commercial HUMS 

validation. 

FAA/DOD 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure 

Prevention Program 

DTFACT-06-X-00005 

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; 5. Engine and Other Aircraft System 

Impending Failure Diagnostics Research 

FAA/NASA 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Software Enhancement, 

Standardization and Material 

Database Generation for 

Damage Tolerance Analysis 

DTFACT-08-X-00004 

Establish a cooperative procedure to enhance the 

NASA Crack Growth Program (NASGRO) software 

and generate material database for damage tolerance 

analysis. 

FAA/DOE 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Continued Airworthiness 

Assurance 

DTFACT-07-X-00005 

Provide access to DOE/Sandia National Laboratory’s 

independent test and evaluation capabilities for 

nondestructive inspection systems; structural integrity 

maintenance & information systems; and aging nonstructural systems. 

FAA/NASA 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Characterization of High IceWater Content Environments. 

DTFACT-08-X-00007 

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. 

FAA/NSF 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Ground Deicing/Anti-icing 

Program. 

DTFACT-07-X-00002 

Technical participation with and financial support for 

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on 

ground icing research. 

FAA/DOD 

Interagency 

Agreement 

Flight Deck Illumination by 

Unauthorized Lasers 

DTFACT-05-X-00011 

Evaluate laser eye protection during human-in-the-loop 

simulation studies; develop database models to enhance 

airmen training; develop and evaluate procedures for 

flight crew awareness and recovery action. 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-4 

1.2 Interagency Committees 

In addition to MOUs, the FAA partners 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 public forums in different geographic regions with the intent to align noise abatement 

research with local public concerns. 

2. Working with Government, Industry and Academia 

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 

United States technology base and maximize the return on federal R&D investments. 

2.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRDA) 

These agreements allow the FAA 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 2008, the FAA established 6 new CRDAs, 

bringing the present total of active agreements to 30. Details of the CRDAs active in FY 2008 

are shown in Table C.2.1. 

Table C.2 – Active FAA Cooperative R&D Agreements, FY 2008 

Cooperative R&D Agreements 

CRDA 

Number FAA Program Subject Recipient Organization 

Award 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

1993-A-0043 Weather Development of advanced 

weather information systems 

with graphical display products 

WSI Corporation 

McLean, VA 

9/13/93 9/13/08 

1994-A-0065 Airport 

Technology 

Testing of a soft ground 

arresting system developed to 

safely stop aircraft that overrun 

the available length of runway 

DATRON 

Engineered 

Systems Division, 

Aston, PA 

09/07/94 09/07/10 

1996-A-0097 Airport 

Technology 

Development of the National 

Airport Pavement Test Machine 

The Boeing 

Company Seattle, 

WA 

07/29/96 07/29/11 

2001-A-0164 Airport 

Technology 

Utilize statistical analysis for 

determining airplane contact 

risks of varying span airplanes 

on taxiways of varying 

separation 

The Boeing 

Company, Seattle, 

WA 

04/05/02 04/05/11 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-5 

Table C.2 – Active FAA Cooperative R&D Agreements, FY 2008 (continued) 

Cooperative R&D Agreements 

CRDA 

Number FAA Program Subject Recipient Organization 

Award 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

2002-A-0171 Capacity and Air 

Traffic 

Management 

Technology 

Develop modeling and 

simulation tools to assist with 

implementation of capacity 

enhancing capabilities for the 

National Airspace System 

The Boeing 

Company, 

McLean, VA 

07/17/02 07/17/12 

2003-A-0181 Communications, 

Navigation, and 

Surveillance 

Controller Pilot Data-Link 

Communication Builds 1 

and 1A 

SITA Information 

Networking 

Computing, B.V. 

Vienna, VA 

09/25/03 09/25/08 

2004-A-0189 Office of 

Innovations and 

Solution 

Video security system to 

enhance aviation security 

Research 

Incorporated 

Fairfax, VA 

01/27/04 01/27/08 

2004-A-0199 Air Traffic 

Organization 

Research on the success of the 

radical organizational change at 

the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Traffic Organization 

University of 

Maryland at 

College Park 

College Park, MD 

05/13/04 05/13/09 

2005-A-0203 Air Traffic 

Management 

Efficiency of the air traffic 

controller operator working 

position 

Frequentis, USA 

Rockville, MD 

04/14/05 04/14/09 

2005-A-0206 Advanced Traffic 

Management 

Systems 

Evaluation of the Surface 

Management System 

Capabilities and Improvements 

FedEx Express 

Memphis, TN 

05/24/05 05/24/08 

2005-A-0208 Air Traffic Models 

and Evaluation 

Tools 

Utilize state-of-the-art 

technologies and the initial 

development of the Aviation 

Integrated Reasoning Modeling 

Matrix to develop a system that 

will support the current and 

future needs of the FAA 

Optimal Systems, 

Monroeville, NJ 

06/08/05 06/08/08 

2005-A-0209 Information 

Resource 

Management 

Electronic submission of 

confidential financial disclosure 

forms 

HRWorX, LLC, 

Herndon, VA 

08/25/05 08/25/09 

2005-A-0213 Air Traffic Models 

and Evaluation 

Tools 

Machine-graded aviation 

English test for pilots for 

measuring levels of English 

language proficiency 

Ordinate 

Corporation, 

Menlo Park, CA 

01/17/06 01/17/11 

2006-A-0216 Air Traffic Models 

and Evaluation 

Tools 

Development and improvement 

of a graphical user interface for 

the display of recorded air 

traffic data 

Rowan University, 

Glassboro, NJ 

07/25/06 07/25/09 

2006-A-0219 Human Factors Air traffic controller cognitive 

modeling 

Drexel University, 

Philadelphia, PA 

2/20/07 2/20/10 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-6 

Table C.2 – Active FAA Cooperative R&D Agreements, FY 2008 (continued) 

Cooperative R&D Agreements 

CRDA 

Number FAA Program Subject Recipient Organization 

Award 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

2006-A-0220 Communications, 

Navigation, and 

Surveillance 

Utilize ADS-B technology to 

facilitate procedures improving 

aircraft arrival rates and 

situational awareness in the air 

and on the airport surface while 

reducing fuel consumption and 

noise generation. 

Aviation 

Communications & 

Surveillance 

Systems, Phoenix, 

AZ 

09/21/06 09/21/08 

2006-A-0221 Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital 

System Safety 

Testing to document the shape, 

location, and aerodynamic 

effects of propeller icing. 

Hartzell Propeller, 

Inc., Piqua OH 

05/12/06 02/12/08 

2006-A-0222 Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital 

System Safety 

Testing to document the shape, 

location, and aerodynamic 

effects of propeller icing. 

MT-Propeller 

USA, Inc., 

DeLand, FL 

05/23/06 02/23/08 

2006-A-0223 Weather/ 

Surveillance 

Airport surface surveillance RVision LLC, 

Sand Diego, CA 

12/13/06 04/13/09 

2006-A-0227 Simulation Voice recognition and response 

system 

UFA Inc., 

Gaithersburg, MD 

12/13/06 12/13/08 

2007-A-0231 Aeromedical 

Research 

Comparison of optical vision 

screeners currently used by 

Aviation Medical Examiners 

Titmus Optical, 

Inc., Chester, VA 

7/18/07 7/18/08 

2007-A-0232 Aeromedical 

Research 

Comparison of optic vision 

testers used by Aviation 

Medical Examiners 

Stero Optical, 

Chicago, IL 

7/12/07 7/12/08 

2007-A-0233 Communications/ 

Surveillance 

Flight testing for ADS-B 

separation standards 

CNS Aviation, 

Vienna, VA 

7/18/07 7/18/09 

2007-A-0235 NextGen Provide guidance for NetCentric standards and protocols 

that may be incorporated by the 

NextGen Program 

Network Centric 

Operations 

Industry 

Consortium, 

Newport Beach, 

VA 

9/21/07 9/21/09 

2007-A-0236 Continued 

Airworthiness 

Composite repair of aircraft 

structures 

The Boeing 

Company, 

Huntington Beach, 

CA 

10/30/07 10/30/10 

2008-A-0240 Airport Safety 

Technology 

Aircraft braking performance Snow Aviation 

International, Inc., 

Columbus, OH 

11/14/07 11/14/08 

2008-A-0245 Unmanned Aircraft Unmanned aircraft system 

research 

New Mexico State 

University, Las 

Cruces, NM 

2/19/08 2/19/10 

2008-A-0247 Propulsion and 

Fuel Systems 

Full scale engine evaluation and 

analyses of aviation fuel 

Swift Enterprises, 

West Lafayette, IN 

6/30/08 6/30/09 

2008-A-0249 Technical 

Strategies and 

Integration 

Aviation-related research in 

support of DoD rapid responsethird generation activities 

HiTec Systems, 

Inc., Egg Harbor 

Township, NJ 

8/5/08 4/5/14 

2008-A-0250 Fire Safety Wind tunnel research in 

aerodynamics 

Absegami High 

School, Galloway 

Township, NJ 

9/17/08 3/17/10 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-7 

3. Working with Industry 

3.1 Small Business Innovation Research 

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 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. A Phase II contract is awarded based on the results of Phase I, which is the 

actual research phase. Contractors are encouraged to pursue other than SBIR funding sources for 

Phase III and to attract venture capitalists to commercialize the innovation. 

3.2 Patents issued through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

Inventors are encouraged 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 the FAA inventors are 

available for commercial licensing with royalty payments being shared with the inventor and the 

agency. Legislation allows for 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 C.3 provides a list of the current U.S. patents issued to the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, FAA. 

Two (2) 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.” 

One (1) licensing agreement is in effect for the software product that automates the annual 

process of collecting and reviewing the Office of Government-wide Ethics Financial Disclosure 

Form. 

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 is granted 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. 

Table C.3 – Patents Issued for DOT/FAA 

Patents Issued 

Patent No. Date 

of Patent Title Description 

6,899,540 5/31/05 Threat image projection system A means for training and testing baggage 

screening machine operators. 

6,812,834 11/02/04 Reference sample for generating 

smoky atmosphere 

A reference sample for testing fire detectors and 

a method for testing using the reference samples. 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-8 

Table C.3 – Patents Issued for DOT/FAA 

Patents Issued 

Patent No. Date 

of Patent Title Description 

6,470,730 10/29/02 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. 

6,467,950 10/22/02 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. 

6,464,391 10/15/02 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. 

6,116,049 09/12/00 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. 

5,981,290 11/09/99 Micro-scale Combustion 

Calorimeter 

A calorimeter for measuring flammability 

parameters of materials using only milligram 

sample quantities. 

4. Working with Academia 

4.1 Joint University Program (JUP) for Air Transportation Research 

This cooperative research partnership among three universities (Ohio University, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology, and Princeton) 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 expertise in industry, academia, and 

government. 

4.2 Aviation Grants 

The FAA awards research grants to qualifying colleges, universities, and legally incorporated 

nonprofit research institutions. The evaluation criteria for grant proposals include the potential 

application of research results to the FAA's long-term goals for civil aviation technology. Table 

C.4 is a list of the FAA research grants initiated in FY 2008. The FAA awarded $7,522,741.32 

in new grants in FY 2008. It also awarded an additional $10,092,178.00 to grants that originated 

in prior fiscal years for a total of $17,614,919.32 in grant awards in FY 2008. 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-9 

Table C.4 – FAA Research Grants Initiated in FY 2008 

Research Grants 

FAA R&D Program Grant Number 

and Title 

Recipient 

Institution 

Award and 

Completion 

Dates 

Award 

Amount 

Aging Aircraft/ 

Continued 

Airworthiness 

2008-G-001 Self 

Repairing Electrical 

Wiring Techniques 

University of 

Dayton 

Research 

Institute 

4/23/2008 

4/30/2009 

$200,000.00 

Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research 

008-G-002 

Development of UAS 

System Hazard 

Descriptions and 

Methodologies for Safety 

Risk Uncertainty 

Modeling 

Rutgers, the 

State University 

of New Jersey 

7/1/2008 

8/31/2009 

$461,954.00 

Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research 

2008-G-004 

The Role of Cognitive 

radios in Remote 

Operations of UAS 

The Regents of 

the University 

of Colorado 

7/14/2008 

7/14/2010 

$189,062.00 

Aging Aircraft/ 

Continued 

Airworthiness 

2008-G-005 

Evaluation of a 21st 

Century AMT Program 

Delaware 

Technical & 

Community 

College 

7/15/2008 

12/14/2010 

$328,000.00 

Flightdeck/ 

Maintenance/ System 

Integration Human 

Factors 

2008- G-006 

Flight Attendant Work/ 

Rest Patterns, Alertness & 

Performance Assessment 

Institutes for 

Behavior 

Resources, Inc. 

7/15/2008 

8/14/2009 

$498,111.32 

Satellite Navigation 

Program 

2008-G-007 

Maximizing Aviation 

Benefits from Satellite 

Navigation 

Board of 

Trustees of 

Leland Stanford 

Junior 

University 

7/18/2008 

7/17/2009 

$1,832,719.00 

Aging Aircraft/ 

Continued 

Airworthiness 

2008-G-008 

Aging Aircraft Research 

Infrastructure of the 

National Institute for 

Aviation Research 

Wichita State 

University 

7/31/2008 

1/31/2010 

$340,000.00 

Propulsion and Fuel 

Systems 

2008-G-009 

The Evaluation of Cold 

Dwell Fatigue in Ti-6242 

The Ohio State 

University 

7/31/2008 

7/30/2009 

$490,000.00 

Flightdeck/ 

Maintenance/ System 

Integration Human 

Factors 

2008-G-010 

Improving Human 

Performance in Aviation 

American 

Institute for 

Research 

9/26/2008 

9/25/2009 

$416,778.00 

Aging 

Aircraft/Continued 

Airworthiness 

2008-G-012 

Aging Aircraft Education 

and Training 

Wichita State 

University 

9/2/2008 

9/1/2010 

$296,000.00 

Aging 

Aircraft/Continued 

Airworthiness 

2008-G-013 

Demographic Study of 

General Aviation Fleet – 

Part II 

Wichita State 

University 

9/1/2008 

4/30/2009 

$50,000.00 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-10 

Table C.4 – FAA Research Grants Originating in FY 2008 

Research Grants 

FAA R&D Program Grant Number 

and Title 

Recipient 

Institution 

Award and 

Completion 

Dates 

Award 

Amount 

Aviation Safety 

Research 

2008-G-014 

Center for Aviation 

Safety Research 

Saint Louis 

University 

9/12/2008 

11/11/2011 

$2,250,000.00 

Aging 

Aircraft/Continued 

Airworthiness 

2008-G-015 

Flight Loads Analysis of 

Business Jets 

Wichita State 

University 

9/16/2008 

1/15/2010 

$70,035.00 

Aging 

Aircraft/Continued 

Airworthiness 

2008-G-016 

Operational Loads 

Monitoring of Heavy 

Aerial Tankers 

Wichita State 

University 

9/16/2008 

1/15/2010 

$100,082.00 

Total awarded in FY 2008: $7,522,741.32 

4.3 Air Transportation Centers of Excellence (COE) 

The FAA sponsors five centers of excellence (COEs) established through cooperative 

agreements with academic institutions throughout the United States. Through these long-term 

collaborative, cost-sharing efforts, government and university teams leverage their resources 

with industry affiliates to advance aviation technology. COE university partners, industry 

affiliates, and state and local governments provide matching funds to augment FAA research 

efforts. The five COEs are: 

• COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment (RITE) 

• Joint COE for Advanced Materials (JAMS) 

• Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction (PARTNER) 

• COE for General Aviation Research (CGAR) 

• COE for Airport Technology (CEAT) 

The pages that follow provide a brief description of each of the five centers with a table that 

identifies the grants awarded in FY 2008 for each COE. 

4.3.1 COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment (RITE) 

Established in 2004, the Center of Excellence for Airliner Cabin Environment conducted 

research on cabin air quality and chemical and biological threats. As a result of the Phase I 

evaluation, in 2008 the COE expanded its research activities to include the intermodal transport 

environment. Harvard University and Purdue University are the technical leads for the newly 

named COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment (RITE). Auburn University 

serves as the administrative lead. Other member universities include: Boise State University, 

Kansas State University, the University of California–Berkeley, and the University of Medicine 

and Dentistry of New Jersey. For additional information, see: http://www.acer-coe.org/. 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-11 

Table C.5 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport 

Environment (RITE) 

RITE Awards 

Title Recipient University Amount FAA POC University 

POC 

Modeling of Exposure to 

Pesticides in Aircraft Cabins in 

Support of the ASHRAE Project 

University of Medicine 

and Dentistry of New 

Jersey 

$50,000 C. Ruehle S. Isukapalli 

Ozone and By-Products 

Determination in Passenger 

Cabins in Support of ASHRAE 

Project 

University of Medicine 

and Dentistry of New 

Jersey 

$50,000 C. Ruehle C. Weisel 

In-Flight Project, Task 4 Kansas State University $40,000 C. Ruehle B. Jones 

Pesticide Study: Collection of 

Field Studies and Model 

Evaluation 

University of Medicine 

and Dentistry of New 

Jersey 

$75,000 C. Ruehle C. Weisel 

Air Contamination Measurement 

Methods 

Kansas State University $75,000 C. Ruehle B. Jones 

Onboard Measurements Harvard University $180,000 C. Ruehle/ 

J. Watson 

J. Spengler 

Effects of Partial Pressure on 

Airline Passengers 

Harvard University $72,962 C. Ruehle/ 

J. Watson 

J. Spengler 

 Total awarded in FY 2008: $542,962 

4.3.2 Joint COE for Advanced Materials (JAMS) 

 

Established in 2003, the Joint COE for Advanced Materials (JAMS) 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. JAMS is lead by 

University of Washington and Wichita State University. The other member universities include 

Edmonds Community College, Northwestern University, Oregon State University, Purdue 

University, University of California–Los Angeles, University of Delaware, Florida International 

University, University of Utah, Tuskegee University, and Washington State University. For 

additional information, see http://www.jams-coe.org/. 

Table C.6 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to the Joint COE in Advanced Materials (JAMS) 

JAMS 

Title Recipient University Amount FAA POC University 

POC 

Damage Tolerance and 

Durability of Fiber-Metal 

Laminates for Aircraft Structures 

University of CaliforniaLos Angeles $75,000 C. Davies T. Hahn 

Course Development, 

Maintenance of Composite 

Aircraft Structures 

Edmonds Community 

College 

$153,481 C. Davies C. Schaeffer 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-12 

Table C.6 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to the Joint COE in Advanced Materials (JAMS) 

(continued) 

JAMS 

Title Recipient University Amount FAA POC University 

POC 

Production Control Effect on 

Composite Material Quality and 

Stability 

Wichita State University $125,000 C. Davies J. Tomblin 

Development and Safety 

Management of Composite 

Certification Guidance 

Wichita State University $20,000 C. Davies J. Tomblin 

Impact Damage Formation on 

Composite Aircraft Structures 

University of CaliforniaLos Angeles $20,000 C. Davies T. Hahn 

Damage Tolerance Testing and 

Analysis Protocols for Full-Scale 

Composite Airframe Structures 

Under Repeated Loading 

Wichita State University $300,000 C. Davies J. Tomblin 

Development and Safety 

Management of Composite 

Certification Guidance 

Wichita State University $150,000 C. Davies J. Tomblin 

Environmental Factor Influence 

on Composite Design and 

Certification 

Wichita State University $275,000 L. Pham J. Tomblin 

Effect of CACRC Depot Repairs 

on Composite Airframe 

Structures 

Wichita State University $235,000 L. Pham J. Tomblin 

Aging of Composite Aircraft 

Structures 

Wichita State University $275,000 C. Davies J. Tomblin 

Effect of Repair Procedures 

Applied to Composite Airframe 

Structures 

Wichita State University $225,000 L. Pham J. Tomblin 

Administration of the Center of 

Excellence for Composites and 

Advanced Materials (CECAM) 

at Wichita State University 

Wichita State University $75,000 C. Davies J. Tomblin 

Certification by Analysis Wichita State University $150,000 A. 

Abamowitz 

G. Olivares 

Crashworthiness of Composites 

– Materials Dynamic Properties 

Wichita State University $100,000 A. 

Abamowitz 

G. Olivares 

Administration of the FAA 

Center of Excellence on 

Advanced Materials in Transport 

Aircraft Structures (AMTAS) 

University of Washington $74,458 C. Davies M. Tuttle 

Standardization of Analytical 

and Experimental Methods for 

Crashworthiness Energy 

Absorption of Composite 

Materials 

University of Washington $70,000 A. 

Abamowitz 

P. Feraboli 

Statistical Analysis Program for 

Generating Material Allowables 

Wichita State University $100,722 A. 

Abamowitz 

S. 

Keshavanaraya

na 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-13 

Table C.6 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to the Joint COE in Advanced Materials (JAMS) 

(continued) 

JAMS 

Title Recipient University Amount FAA POC University 

POC 

Certification of Discontinuous 

Composite Material Forms for 

Aircraft Structures 

University of Washington $100,000 C. Davies M. Tuttle 

VARTM Variability and 

Substantiation 

University of Delaware $65,000 C. Davies D. Heider 

Development of ReliabilityBased Damage Tolerant 

Structural Design Methodology 

University of Washington $100,000 C. Davies K. Lin 

Combined Global/Local 

Variability and Uncertainty in 

Integrated Aeroservoelacticity of 

Composite Aircraft 

University of Washington $125,000 C. Davies E. Livne 

Damage Tolerance and 

Durability of Adhesively Bonded 

Composite Structures 

Purdue University $70,000 C. Davies T. Siegmund 

Development and Evaluation of 

Fracture Mechanics Test 

Methods for Sandwich 

Composites 

University of Utah $75,647 C. Davies D. Adams 

Structural Health Monitoring of 

Adhesively-Bonded Composites 

Northwestern University $75,000 C. Davies S. 

Krishnaswamy 

Advanced Materials & 

Manufacturing Training 

Innovation Center (AMMTIC) 

Edmonds Community 

College 

$463,000 C. Davies J. Mosier 

Damage Tolerance and 

Durability of Fiber-Metal 

Laminates for Aircraft Structures 

University of CaliforniaLos Angeles $75,000 C. Davies T. Hahn 

Impact Damage Formation on 

Composite Aircraft Structures 

University of CaliforniaLos Angeles $125,000 C. Davies T. Hahn 

Total awarded in FY 2008: $3,697,308 

4.3.3 COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction 

(PARTNER) 

Selected by the Administrator in 2003, the COE Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and 

Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) is co-sponsored by NASA and Transport Canada with FAA 

and led by Massachusetts Institute of Technology. PARTNER 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. Other member universities include: 

Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, Stanford University, University of MissouriRolla, University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill and Georgia Institute of Technology. For 

additional information, see http://www.partner.aero/. 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-14 

Table C.7 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to the COE Partnership for Air Transportation Noise 

and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) 

PARTNER 

Title Recipient University Amount FAA POC University 

POC 

PM and HAPs Emissions 

Characterization for a Gas 

Turbine Engine Using a Bio Fuel 

- Probe Stand Interface 

Missouri University of 

Science and Technology 

$20,000 C. Ma P. Whitefield 

Program Management for 

Aircraft Noise and Aviation 

Emissions Mitigation Center of 

Excellence 

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

$385,000 L. Maurice I. Waitz 

Environmental Design Space 

Tool Development 

Georgia Institute of 

Technology 

$1,000,000 J. DiPardo D. Mavris 

Sonic Boom Mitigation Purdue University $60,000 L. Fisher P. Davies 

Outreach (formerly Noise Quest) Pennsylvania State 

University 

$100,000 L. Fisher A. Atchley 

Source Emission and 

Propagation 

Pennsylvania State 

University 

$100,000 B. Hua A. Atchley 

PM and HAPs Measurement 

Methodologies Development and 

Planning for Test Cell 

Measurements 

Missouri University of 

Science and Technology 

$128,000 C. Ma P. Whitefield 

Health Effects of Aircraft Noise Purdue University $15,000 M. Marsan P. Davies 

Implementation of Enhanced 

Network Restructuring 

Algorithms and Scenarios for 

Improved ATO Forecasts 

Purdue University $75,000 J. Post D. 

DeLaurentis 

Opportunities for Reducing 

Surface Emissions Through 

Airport Surface Movement 

Optimization 

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

$150,000 N. Brown J. Hansman 

Investigation of Air Quality 

Impacts of Aviation Emissions 

Using CMAQ Analysis for 

NextGen 

University of North 

Carolina-Chapel Hill 

$299,998 M. Gupta Arunachalam 

Health Impacts of AviationRelated Air Pollutants Harvard University $230,000 M. Gupta Levy 

Noise Exposure Response - 

Sleep Disturbance 

Purdue University $100,000 L. Fisher P. Davies 

Noise Exposure Response: 

Annoyance 

Pennsylvania State 

University 

$90,000 M. Marsan V. Sparrow 

Noise Exposure Response – 

Annoyance 

Purdue University $115,000 M. Marsan P. Davies 

Transmission of Low Frequency 

Noise through Double-Pane 

Windows 

Purdue University $100,000 B. He K. Ming 

Studying the Effects of Aircraft 

Exhaust on Global and Regional 

Climate 

Stanford University $240,000 M. Gupta S. Lele 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-15 

Table C.7 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to the COE Partnership for Air Transportation Noise 

and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) (continued) 

PARTNER 

Title Recipient University Amount FAA POC University 

POC 

Environmental Cost-Benefit 

Analysis of Ultra Low Sulfur Jet 

Fuels: Project 27 

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

$235,000 M. Gupta I. Waitz 

Studying the Effects of Ultra 

Low Sulfur Jet Fuel on Climate 

and Air Quality 

Stanford University $65,000 M. Gupta M. Jacobson 

Program Management for 

Aircraft Noise and Aviation 

Emissions Mitigation Center of 

Excellence 

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

$10,000 L. Maurice I. Waitz 

CDA Implementation in Lowthrough High Density Traffic Georgia Institute of 

Technology 

$120,000 S. Liu J-P Clarke 

Atlantic Interoperability 

Initiative to Reduce Emission 

(AIRE) CDA 

Georgia Institute of 

Technology 

$250,000 S. Liu/C. 

Buntin 

J-P Clarke 

Environmental Design Space 

Tool Development 

Georgia Institute of 

Technology 

$100,000 J. DiPardo D. Mavris 

Environmental Cost-Benefit 

Analysis of Alternative Jet Fuels 

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

$30,000 W. Gillette I. Waitz 

Total awarded in FY 2008: $4,017,998 

4.3.4 COE for General Aviation Research (CGAR) 

Established in 2001, the COE for General Aviation Research (CGAR) conducts safety-related 

R&D with application to non-commercial aviation. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 

serves as the lead member for CGAR. Core university members include Wichita State 

University, University of North Dakota, and University of Alaska–Fairbanks and Anchorage. 

For additional information, see http://www.cgar.org/. 

Table C8– Grants Awarded in 2008 to COE for General Aviation Research (CGAR) 

CGAR 

Title Recipient University Amount FAA POC University 

POC 

Operational Usage Information 

for a General Aviation Propeller 

Wichita State University $49,650 C. Nguyen K. Rokhaz 

Development of a 3-Dimensional 

Radar Based Airspace 

Monitoring and Surveillance 

Instrument 

University of Alaska $118,364 J. Zvanya G. Walker 

Remote Airfield Lighting 

Systems 

Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University 

$79,965 D. Gallagher Grant 

2-Day Workshop in Support of 

the FAA’s ADS-B 

Implementation Program Office 

Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University 

$44,287 S. Williams S. Hampton 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-16 

Table C8– Grants Awarded in 2008 to COE for General Aviation Research (CGAR) 

(continued) 

CGAR 

Title Recipient University Amount FAA POC University 

POC 

Operational Loads Monitoring of 

Agricultural Aircraft 

University of North 

Dakota 

$50,000 J. Newcomb D. Marshall 

Remote Airport Lighting 

Systems III 

University of Alaska $79,999 D. Gallagher M. Inman 

Year Eight, Management & 

Administrative Support- General 

Aviation Center of Excellence 

Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University 

$165,855 P. Sparacino S. Hampton 

Development of an Aviation 

Weather Database Highlighting 

Weather Encounters (Phase I) 

Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University 

$36,908 R. Stevens M. Bazargan 

Development of UAS 

Operational Data Collection 

Concept 

University of North 

Dakota 

$100,000 X. Lee D. Marshall 

2-Day Workshop in Support of 

the FAA’s ADS-B 

Implementation Program Office 

Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University 

$146,651 S. Williams S. Hampton 

Friction Study University of North 

Dakota 

$174,914 R. King T. Zeidik 

UAS Emergency Flight 

Recovery and Termination: 

Technology Survey and 

Regulatory Gap Analysis 

Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University 

$91,117 X. Lee T. Wilson 

Total awarded in FY 2008: $1,137,710 

4.3.5 COE for Airport Technology (CEAT) 

Established in 1995, the Center of Excellence for Airport Pavement Research initially focused 

primarily on pavement issues. The center expanded its scope to include R&D on wildlife hazard 

mitigation, lighting, and related topics and changed its name to the Center of Excellence for 

Airport Technology. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign remains the lead 

university. Other member universities include Northwestern University, Georgia Institute of 

Technology and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. For further information, see 

http://www.ceat.uiuc.edu/. 

Table C.9 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to COE for Airport Technology (CEAT) 

CEAT 

Title Recipient University Amount FAA POC University 

POC 

Metrics and Measurement 

Procedures of LED Lighting 

Systems 

Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute 

$150,000 D. Gallagher N. Narendran 

Deployment and Evaluation of 

Avian Radars – DFW 

University of Illinois – 

Urbana-Champaign 

$250,607 R. King E. Herricks 
2009 NARP Appendix C 

June 22, 2009 

C-17 

Table C.9 – Grants Awarded in 2008 to COE for Airport Technology (CEAT) (continued) 

CEAT 

Title Recipient University Amount FAA POC University 

POC 

Work Program FY 2008 for 

FAA Center of Excellence for 

Airport Technology (CEAT) 

University of Illinois - 

Urbana-Champaign 

$75,000 D. Brill D. Lange 

GIS Wildlife Hazard Program 

for the FAA Center of 

Excellence for Airport 

Technology (CEAT) 

University of Illinois - 

Urbana-Champaign 

$435,448 R. King E. Herricks 

FOD Program for the FAA 

Center of Excellence for Airport 

Technology 

University of Illinois - 

Urbana-Champaign 

$351,531 J. Patterson E. Herricks 

Deployment of Avian Radars at 

SEA and JFK 

University of Illinois - 

Urbana-Champaign 

$620,452 R. King E. Herricks 

Management of Deployed Avian 

Radars (SEA, NASWI, ORD, 

JFK and DFW) 

University of Illinois - 

Urbana-Champaign 

$748,122 R. King E. Herricks 

Chromaticity Boundary for 

Aviation White Light 

Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute 

$100,000 D. Gallagher N. Narendran 

Investigations of DC and AC 

LEDs for Airport Runway and 

Taxiway Lighting Systems 

Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute 

$150,000 D. Gallagher N. Narendran 

Deployment and Evaluation of 

Expanded Avian Radar Systems 

– DFW 

University of Illinois - 

Urbana-Champaign 

$299,809 R. King E. Herricks 

Work Program FY 2009 for 

FAA Center of Excellence for 

Airport Technology (CEAT) 

University of Illinois - 

Urbana-Champaign 

$300,000 D. Brill D. Lange 

CEAT Asphalt and Concrete 

Materials 

University of Illinois - 

Urbana-Champaign 

$75,000 D. Brill D. Lange 

Total awarded in FY 2008: $3,555,969 

2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-i 

APPENDIX D: Research, Engineering and Development 

Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................. D-1 

1. FAA Response to REDAC R&D Guidance for Fiscal Year 2010...................................... D-2 

Subcommittee on Airports ...................................................................................................... D-2 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy ........................................................................... D-3 

Subcommittee on NAS Operations......................................................................................... D-5 

Subcommittee on Human Factors........................................................................................... D-6 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety............................................................................................ D-8 

2. FAA Response to REDAC Recommendations on Fiscal Year 2010 R&D Budget. ........ D-10 

Subcommittee on Human Factors......................................................................................... D-12 

Subcommittee on Airports .................................................................................................... D-13 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety.......................................................................................... D-14 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy ......................................................................... D-18 

NAS Operations Subcommittee............................................................................................ D-20 

3. FAA Response to REDAC Report of the Weather-ATM Integration Working Group.... D-25 

Overarching Recommendations............................................................................................ D-25 

Weather – Air Traffic Management Integration ................................................................... D-27 

Near Term: IOC 2010 ....................................................................................................... D-27 

Mid Term IOC 2015 ......................................................................................................... D-31 

IOC Post 2015................................................................................................................... D-35 

Human Factors Considerations for Integrated Tools............................................................ D-36 

Implications on Air Navigation Service Providers ............................................................... D-38 

Implications on Airline and Flight Operation Centers.......................................................... D-39 

Implications on FAA and NextGen Enterprise Architecture................................................ D-39 

Implications on FAA Aviation Weather Research Program................................................. D-40 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-ii 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-1 

Introduction 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) values the ongoing involvement of the Research, 

Engineering and Development Advisory Committee in reviewing its current and planned 

research and development programs. The FAA has established a formal process for the agency 

to reply to Committee recommendations. This document summarizes fiscal year 2008 

Committee recommendations with the FAA responses as follows: 

1. FAA Response to REDAC R&D Guidance for Fiscal Year 2010. 

2. FAA Response to REDAC Recommendations on Fiscal Year 2010 R&D Budget. 

3. FAA Response to REDAC Report of the Weather-ATM Integration Working Group. 

In fiscal year 2009, the FAA expects to receive the Committee’s recommendations on the FAA’s 

planned research and development investments for fiscal year 2011, including detailed 

recommendations from the standing subcommittees. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-2 

1. FAA Response to REDAC R&D Guidance for Fiscal Year 2010. 

Dr. John Hansman (Committee Chair) submitted REDAC’s R&D guidance for FY 2010 to the 

Administrator on November 7, 2007. The agency provided the following response to the 

recommendations. 

Subcommittee on Airports

Recommendation: Continued close cooperation between the FAA Technical Center and the 

Airports Cooperative Research Program (ACRP). 

FAA Response: We agree that this is an important issue. The Deputy Associate Administrator 

for Airports, Catherine M. Lang, is the FAA member of the ACRP Board of Governors. She 

and the staff of the Airports Safety and Standards Office review each of the ACRP submitted 

topics. During this review and ACRP scoring process, they identify any topics that duplicate 

ongoing FAA research or topics that should more appropriately be conducted by the FAA instead 

of ACRP. FAA also assigns an FAA liaison to each ACRP project technical panel. 

Recommendation: That the highest of priorities be placed on testing with the new large aircraft 

fire mock-up at Tyndall AFB in Panama City, FL, so as to gain a clearer understanding of the 

quantity of fire fighting agent that will be needed to successfully deal with such events should 

they occur. Note should be taken that commercial operations by the Airbus A380 in the United 

States will commence within months. 

FAA Response: We agree and the testing is underway. 

Recommendation: Among the many projects that the Technical Center is carrying out, the 

Subcommittee especially supported the proposed research tasking on: 

 a) Foreign Object Damage (FOD) detection radar, 

 b) The development of light emitting diode technology for airport lighting (cooperative 

effort with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), 

 c) The study of Engineered Material Arresting System material behavior due to 

prolonged exposure to freeze / thaw cycles, 

 d) Continued development of the capabilities of the pavement test facility to mimic 

complex wheel arrangements, and 

 e) Expedited design and construction of a laboratory to support the pavement research. 

FAA Response: We agree and appreciate the Subcommittee’s support of these important 

projects. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-3 

Recommendation: Among the topics that the Airport Subcommittee would like to see added to 

the research that is already in progress are: 

 a) A consideration for the Airport Technology Branch to possibly take on the most 

promising of the pending projects of the Innovative Pavement Research Foundation (IPRF) and 

the Airfield Asphalt Pavement Technology Program (AAPTP) should there be no funding 

approved in upcoming legislation for these programs, 

 b) The FAA should initiate a study of the affects of runway de-icing fluids on surface 

friction, and 

 c) The FAA should consider starting a research project on the design of the location of 

exit taxiways, as a possible means to reduce runway occupancy times. 

FAA Response: We agree. A review is underway of these issues to determine which projects 

are high priorities, can be funded, and should be included in the Airport Technology Research 

program. 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy

The subcommittee identified the following specific issues to bring to the attention of the 

Administrator. 

Issue 1: The subcommittee feels that developing solutions (technology/fuels, operations) to 

limit or mitigate environmental impacts is critical to the future of the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen). The maturing of technologies will have the greatest impact 

on future environmental advances and is therefore the most critical component. 

Recommendation: For environmental solutions to become viable, sufficient additional 

resources will be required. The FY09 budget as proposed in the NARP is the minimum 

investment required from the agency. 

FAA Response: We agree that environmental issues are a constraint on growth, and we are 

seeking various strategies to mitigate these issues. We will carefully consider investments as we 

finalize the Fiscal Year 2008 budget and start building our Fiscal Year 2010 submission. 

Issue 2: The OEP briefing was critical since it ties research to implementation. Research in a 

vacuum does not solve problems; therefore, tying research to operational implementation is 

absolutely essential. 

Recommendation: Developing a robust R&D plan for enabling the OEP transformation is 

critical. It is also important that environmental concerns be identified as a major priority along 

with capacity, efficiency, safety, and security. 

FAA Response: We agree that addressing environmental concerns is critical to enabling the 

OEP transformation. I have asked my staff to highlight environmental concerns and their 

influence on capacity. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-4 

Issue 3: The subcommittee felt that the Office of Environment and Energy needs to reevaluate 

its strategic priorities. 

Members view NextGen efforts as equal in importance, if not more so, than efforts focused on 

the International Civil Aviation Organization Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

(ICAO/CAEP). While members felt that both activities are important and must be supported, 

emphasis should be driven by the change in importance of NextGen. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the Office of Environment and Energy 

consider the following priorities in its future efforts: 

• #1 Applied Solutions such as technology development, alternative fuels, operational 

improvements, and maturation of the CLEEN program should be the top priority. 

• #2 Modeling should focus on NextGen as the #1 priority; although, continued work on 

CAEP remains critical. 

• #3 Research on understanding the various elements of aviation environmental 

challenges (climate, local air quality, noise, and water quality) continues to be critical, 

with climate and water quality identified as the areas that need to be accelerated. 

• #4 Research to support regulatory work must continue, but the subcommittee felt that 

the other priorities listed above are more important. 

Continuing to mature Centers of Excellence (COEs) and the CLEEN consortium are business 

priorities, not program priorities, but clearly need to continue. 

FAA Response: The Office of Environment and Energy will consider the research priorities 

outlined by the Environment and Energy REDAC subcommittee and come up with a plan to 

address your recommendations. We will share this plan with the subcommittee at the next 

meeting on February 20-21, 2008, in Savannah, Georgia. 

Issue 4: The National Airspace System (NAS) enabled by NextGen will have a number of new 

aircraft and systems. It is critical to determine the environmental impacts of these new aircraft 

and systems. Research to determine these impacts should be part of the NextGen R&D plan. 

Recommendation: Ensure that determining the environmental impacts of new aircraft and 

systems (including developing appropriate analytical tools) is considered in building the FY10 

FAA R&D budget. 

FAA Response: We have to ensure we are ready to address environmental concerns associated 

with new aircraft and systems. The staff will consider this recommendation as it builds the 

Fiscal Year 2010 research and development budget. 

Issue 5: The scope of the environment and energy program has grown to meet needs. Budget 

requests should include resources for additional personnel to address developing issues (while 

keeping to the principle of maintaining a lean organization). 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-5 

Recommendation: Ensure that resources for additional personnel are part of future budget 

requests. FAA also needs a robust recruiting strategy to attract qualified personnel to execute the 

NextGen R&D efforts. 

FAA Response: Our NextGen R&D strategy does account for additional positions to execute 

the efforts. Attracting qualified personnel is critical. We are augmenting our outreach activities 

and working with our Centers of Excellence to identify and recruit suitable candidates to help us 

tackle the challenges of NextGen. 

Issue 6: The committee was supportive of the CLEEN implementation briefing. 

Recommendation: FAA and NASA should start working the details of CLEEN, even if 

establishing the program is reauthorization/appropriations dependent. The subcommittee should 

be briefed on progress/status at Feb 2008 meeting. 

FAA Response: The staff is working closely with NASA to identify a strategy to implement 

CLEEN, despite the uncertainty regarding reauthorization. They will brief progress to the 

subcommittee at the February 2008 meeting. 

Subcommittee on NAS Operations

Findings:

NASA’s foundational research in ATM automation technologies is addressing long-term issues 

in automation, but it is not clear that the FAA is tracking it or assessing its connection to their 

needs. NASA’s human factors work should be addressing foundational issues in humanautomation interaction or air-ground roles and responsibilities in the context of FAA NextGen 

design, and that connection was not clear from the briefings. 

The final version of the JPDO R&D Plan needs to identify priorities in research, responsible 

parties for conducting the research, and estimated resources and timeframes (the committee saw 

only working drafts of the document which were lacking these important details). 

Review of FAA’s ATM and Next-Gen related research by the NASOPS subcommittee has 

continued to be confusing by virtue of incomplete or obscure financial and research information, 

and providing recommendations based on the level of detail that has been presented is difficult. 

Recommendation: The FAA and NASA signed a new MOU (Feb 2006) that stipulated the 

formation of an Executive Research Steering Committee to coordinate research and development 

activities between the two agencies, but this has not been implemented. It is recommended that 

the FAA and NASA do so. 

FAA Response: Consideration is being given to establishing such a joint advisory committee. 

However, instead of a review committee per se, a recent proposal by the JPDO may be adapted 

to satisfy the intent of this recommendation. The JPDO has proposed forming FAA-NASA 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-6 

research transition teams. Actions have started both within the FAA and NASA to establish 

several teams to include the areas of Traffic Management Adviser applications, Surface 

Management, Dynamic Airspace Configuration, and Multi-Sector Planner. There will be a joint 

FAA-NASA coordinating committee that will advise and follow the activities of the respective 

research transition teams. The REDAC, in the appropriate subcommittees, could review this 

approach and then review progress once these teams are established 

Recommendation: The FAA and NASA, through their roles in JPDO, should assure that the 

JPDO R&D plan, as coordinated through the OMB, will serve as an actionable de-facto guide to 

their respective research initiatives for NextGen. If the FAA wishes REDAC to weigh in on the 

JPDO research requirements, a formal means of review with adequate time for review and JPDO 

feedback should be instituted. 

FAA Response: REDAC reviews the FAA NextGen research plans as part of the regular 

REDAC business. Any review of the JPDO R&D Plan, which contains elements of the FAA 

research plans, is done according to the JPDO process for this. The JPDO R&D Plan provides a 

high-level mapping of research needs for operational improvements with FAA NextGen 

implementation budget line items, as well as the R&D budget line items in the RED and ATOCap appropriations. In addition, for the FY09 budget request, a more detailed mapping to 

specific research programs is being performed for inclusion in the 2008 National Aviation 

Research Plan (NARP). REDAC could comment on alignment of the FAA research with 

JPDO’s plan and gain insight with respect to gaps or misalignments in either the JPDO or FAA 

research planning documents. 

 

Recommendation: FAA should continue to find ways to report on research related to NextGen 

in ways that are consistent with understanding both the research and the budget associated with 

it. Recent efforts to relate the work to the OEP solution sets appears to be a step in the right 

direction. Adopting a common format for reporting on research projects (similar to what had 

been used by the REDAC in previous years) would aid in project evaluation. 

 

FAA Response: The new Implementation and Integration Office within ATO Operations 

Planning is filling positions for Solution Set Coordinators. These Solution Set coordinators are 

being asked to brief the appropriate REDAC subcommittees about the R&D plans within their 

respective solution sets. A common format suggested by the REDAC will be entertained by the 

FAA for such purposes. 

Subcommittee on Human Factors

Finding: The committee finds that Human Factors research and human-system integration is 

well aligned into the ATO-P processes and supportive of the JPDO research program, as well as 

the Operational Evolution Partnership. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee urges that the Human Factors Research and Engineering 

Group maintains its centrality in human-system integration research and attend to cross-cutting 

research issues in the ATO-P organization. Overall, the organizational structure, along with 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-7 

current and anticipated budgetary increases, bodes well for the appropriate level of concern for 

human-system integration. 

FAA Response: We agree with the Subcommittee recommendation. The Human Factors 

Research and Engineering Group is working with ATO-P Group managers and other NextGen 

managers to define an integrated investment plan for NextGen and ensure human-system 

integration research is addressed. 

Finding: There is a convergence of conditions that the subcommittee feels provides the Human 

Factors Research and Engineering Group with an opportunity to redefine itself at a national level 

within the Human Factors research community. The new organizational structures in ATO, the 

significant proposed increase in budget, and the likely increase in the breadth of demand for 

applied human factors research, given changes in NASA’s roles and responsibilities in applied 

Human Factors research, remind the subcommittee of the opportunities and motivation provided 

for the National Plan for Aviation Human Factors. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends revisiting and updating a national Human 

Factors research plan with the FAA taking the lead in applied aeronautical Human Factors 

research to address and define current gaps in support of JPDO research requirements. 

FAA Response: The FAA is asserting leadership in applied aviation Human Factors research 

and engineering while working with stakeholders to address evolving JPDO research 

requirements. The FAA Human Factors Research & Engineering Group is currently developing 

a NextGen research investment strategy and implementation plan for FAA investments. This 

activity is a critical first step towards developing a national plan for aviation human factors and 

is wholly dependent on the magnitude of NextGen funding beginning in FY09. We are working 

directly with NASA and other research organizations in government and industry to identify 

current research gaps and define the FAA human factors investment plan. After this initial first 

step is complete, the FAA will explore extending the FAA human factors plan into a national 

human factors research strategy. 

Finding: The committee did not feel it was in a position to make a comparison, or gap analysis, 

between NASA’s response to JPDO Next Generation research requirements in Human Factors 

and that work being performed by the FAA. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that an interagency programmatic exchange 

be undertaken with respect to applied aeronautical Human Factors and that the Human Factors 

Research and Engineering Group take the lead in this effort. 

FAA Response: The Human Factors Research and Engineering Group has already established 

working relationships with NASA centers and program offices and initiated technical 

interchange meetings at Ames and Langley research centers. We are working together with 

NASA program and technical leads to ensure that applied human factors research strategies are 

aligned and complimentary. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-8 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA ensure that the OEP 

R&D planning timelines and the AVS R&D planning timelines are consistent. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the recommendation. The FAA R,E&D requirements 

prioritization process for the Safety portfolio is aligned with OEP planning timelines beginning 

for planning cycle FY2010 (which is currently in process). The Spring 2008 REDAC meeting 

and the REDAC subcommittee reviews have been scheduled to accommodate review of 2010 

R,E&D requirements prior to providing inputs to the OEP review and planning process. Also, 

the AVS R&D planning timelines are consistent and aligned with the OEP R&D planning 

timelines. The FAA will continue efforts to improve awareness of OEP plans by all FAA 

personnel supporting the Safety R,E&D requirements process. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA modify its safety R&D 

portfolio development process to clearly identify the linkage between NextGen/OEP planning 

activities, planning documents and any identified R&D needs, and their incorporation into the 

detailed AVS planning activities and the resulting R&D portfolio. The roles and engagement of 

AVS focal points supporting NextGen/OEP planning should be clearly articulated. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with this recommendation. The AVS R,E&D Requirements 

Prioritization Process does align with NextGen plans for the planning cycle for FY2010 (which 

is currently in process). An emphasis on NextGen has been included in the AVS Strategic 

Guidance for the FY2010 R,E&D requirements. The FAA will continue efforts to improve 

awareness of NextGen plans by all FAA personnel supporting the Safety R,E&D requirements 

process. 

AVS and ATO-P will review its interfaces with activities in all OEP domains and the solutions 

sets and implement appropriate steps to address OEP planning in the AVS R,E&D prioritization 

process. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA begin to realign the 

thrust of its activities in critical research areas that will be necessary for NextGen/OEP 

implementation and certification of advanced technologies as soon as practicable, including 

FY 2008 and FY 2009 activities. In advance of detailed NextGen/OEP R&D requirements, 

preparatory research should be conducted as expeditiously as possible in areas such as advanced 

software digital systems, complex systems integration, human factors/automation, enabling 

enhanced crew situational awareness, and assessing potential air crew or air traffic controller 

responsibility changes, etc. 

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes the importance of aligning its research activities in critical 

areas needed for NextGen/OEP implementation as soon as possible. It is essential to identify 

AVS NextGen R,E&D requirements necessary to implement all key NextGen technologies 

safely and efficiently. AVS and ATO-P will work with the appropriate JPDO Working Groups, 

including Aircraft Concepts, Environment, Safety, and Weather, to ensure that applicable 

NextGen requirements are appropriately addressed in AVS R,E&D requirements portfolio. 

Though there are projects funded in FY 2008 and 2009 that support the areas identified in this 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-9 

recommendation, the FAA will continue to review these requirements for better alignment with 

the NextGen/OEP plans. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA make every effort to 

assure that F&E funding is available to sustain critical R&D capabilities, that the R&D 

community knows how to access F&E funding, and that needed equipment upgrades are 

obtained in a timely manner. 

FAA Response: The FAA is conducting an assessment of the safety research facilities and will 

continue to examine future R,E&D facility requirements. This will include an examination of 

work performed to support routine certification and operations needs versus work to support 

R,E&D. It may be possible to support routine certification and operations work with funds in the 

Operations or the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) appropriations, and we will continue to 

explore both avenues. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA ensure that critical 

R&D facilities, such as its fire test facilities, are identified as national assets and that they are 

included in the National Aeronautics R&D facilities plan to protect their long-term vitality. 

FAA Response: The National Science and Technology Council is developing a National 

Aeronautics Research and Development Plan. This plan will address national research, 

development, test, and evaluation infrastructure guidelines. The FAA has a representative 

participating in this group. As the plan develops, the FAA will ensure that all critical FAA R&D 

facilities, such as the Fire Test Labs, are appropriately considered and identified. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA develop clear program 

linkage between its environmental alternative fuels initiative and its safety-related fuels program 

to ensure any potential safety-related implications are identified and addressed. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the recommendation and will ensure that AVS, AEE, 

and ATO-P coordinate appropriately. Potential safety issues and implementation of environment 

and energy driven operational changes will be addressed accordingly. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee notes the positive impact of close FAA-NASA 

collaboration on ASIAS, where a joint FAA-NASA roadmap was developed and implemented 

for research development and transition from NASA to FAA and then the private sector. The 

subcommittee believes other program areas will benefit from the development of similar FAANASA collaborative roadmaps. Therefore, the subcommittee recommends that, at a minimum, 

the FAA and NASA pursue joint roadmaps related to weather in the cockpit and icing R&D. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the recommendation. Preliminary discussions between 

the FAA and NASA are already underway to develop joint roadmaps for weather in the cockpit 

and icing R,E&D. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-10 

2. FAA Response to REDAC Recommendations on Fiscal Year 2010 R&D Budget. 

Dr. John Hansman (Committee Chair) submitted REDAC’s recommendations to the fiscal year 

2010 R&D budget to the Administrator on March 26, 2008. The agency provided the following 

response to the recommendations. 

Recommendation - NextGen Requirements Flow Down: Research efforts to support Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) are hampered by the lack of clear requirements 

flow down sufficient to define the research requirements and priorities. The Joint Planning and 

Development Office (JPDO) Integrated Work Plan (IWP) V 0.2 is unfocused, unprioritized and 

does not clearly define key research questions or development goals. 

FAA Response: We agree that Version 0.2 of the IWP does not provide a focused and 

prioritized list of clearly defined research questions or development goals. That is not the role of 

the JPDO or the intent of the IWP. The IWP describes the results needed to reach NextGen. It is 

up to the Federal and industry partners responsible for specific NextGen elements to define the 

activities to reach those results. These activities include developing research requirements and 

building a research portfolio to support NextGen. A REDAC workshop was held July 29-31 to 

explain the source of the NextGen research and development requirements and how these 

requirements are incorporated in the various research programs. 

Recommendation - New Standards for New System Capabilities: A critical component of 

system modernization will be the development and approval of new standards and operating 

procedures which reflect the capabilities of the NextGen infrastructure. This has been 

highlighted by the REDAC focused study on Separation Standards and is emerging as an issue in 

ADS-B transition. In addition there appear to be near-term opportunities to improve system 

capability such as reduced separation standards for ILS/RNAV and RNAV/RNAV paths to 

adjacent and nearby airports (e.g., LGA and JFK). In order to be most effective this will require 

an integrated approach to connect R&D with standards development. This effort should include 

Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) and Air Traffic Organization (ATO) and should not be 

constrained by organizational barriers. 

FAA Response: We agree that cross-organizational collaboration is essential to development 

and approval of new standards and operating procedures to take advantage of NextGen 

capabilities. FAA is working across the lines of business to assess separation standard 

methodology. In ADS-B, Aircraft Certification (AIR) is responsible for certification of the 

airborne sensor, and Flight Standards (AFS) is responsible for assessment of the substitution of 

the sensor for radar, which is followed by a determination of whether ADS-B can be assessed on 

the basis of comparative safety. ATO is responsible for proposal of the standard (e.g., 5 nautical 

miles in the Gulf of Mexico). All organizations have worked together to advance the application 

of new separation standards. 

Similarly, Closely Spaced Parallel Operation (CSPO) is co-led by AFS and ATO-Operations 

Planning. AIR and Aviation Safety Analytical Services (ASA) have also been involved from the 

beginning. The work involves new separation standards down to 700 feet in Instrument 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-11 

Meteorological Conditions. The Office of Airports also has intense interest in new technology 

and procedures that will lead to reduced runway separation standards. A key requirement of 

NextGen is increased capacity at existing airports that cannot acquire additional land because of 

their location or community encroachment. Construction of new airports and runways is often a 

ten-year process, which makes it essential to find early solutions for reducing separation 

standards. In addition, reduced runway separation, in some cases, may shrink the noise envelope 

for new runways thereby reducing the number of people impacted. ASA is reviewing the 

blunder assumptions. AIR is assessing mid-term NextGen technology for use in parallel 

stabilized approaches, with aircraft-aircraft blunder protection. ATO is also applying past wake 

vortex work along with current wake research efforts to affect changes in current separation 

standards to increase capacity. ATO is first focusing on dependent operations to Closely Spaced 

Parallel Runways (CSPRs) and then adding independent operations as the more complex issues 

(blunder, etc.) for independent operations are addressed. 

The JPDO Aircraft Equipage Standing Committee is identifying standards requirements for 

aircraft operational capabilities to support NextGen, including trajectory based operations and 

CSPO. The Avionics Roadmap under development by the committee includes a standards gap 

analysis identifying specific standards needs for new aircraft operational capabilities. This 

builds on earlier work from the ATO Operations Planning Chief System Engineer for AirGround Integration. 

Recommendation - Weather Information: Weather is a key factor influencing both the safety 

of flight and the performance of the NAS. The rapid growth of information distribution channels 

and weather products creates a dynamic environment for weather information in the cockpits and 

air traffic control (ATC) facilities. The Agency should encourage weather products which 

support pilot, controllers, and dispatchers while avoiding any adverse impacts. The REDAC 

supports a vigorous FAA weather research program with nodes in AVS focused on flight safety 

and in ATO focused on operational efficiency. 

FAA Response: We agree. Weather is a key factor affecting both aviation safety and 

efficiency. To address this problem more effectively, the Operations Planning Service Unit 

created an Aviation Weather Office to perform research and development in support of FAA 

weather requirements. The Aviation Weather Office is managing weather research projects that 

support AVS and ATO sponsors. Weather Research is focused on providing improved weather 

nowcasts and forecasts and ensuring that all aspects of ground to air, air to air, and air to ground 

common weather situational awareness are addressed. The research supports increased safety 

and capacity goals. The FAA agrees that the primary focus for AVS is flight safety, and the 

primary focus for ATO is operational efficiency. ATO and AVS will continue to collaborate in 

the development of requirements and integration of research that effectively addresses flight 

safety and operational efficiency. 

Recommendation - High Confidence Software Development Strategy: There is an increasing 

reliance on software-based system for high criticality applications both in aircraft systems and in 

ATC systems. The current software development and maintenance processes are cumbersome, 

expensive, and incomplete. The FAA is not unique in this regard as other Federal agencies and 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-12 

industries struggle with issues of software criticality. The REDAC suggests that this be a 

priority area both for FAA internal development and for inter-agency coordination. 

FAA Response: We agree with the assessment of the REDAC on the importance of a softwarebased system both in aircraft systems and in Air Traffic Management (ATM) systems. We also 

agree that the development of a strategy across the appropriate Government agencies is 

important and will work with the appropriate agencies to develop a Government R&D strategy 

for high confidence software development and ensure high-level internal support for the resulting 

strategy. ATO will work with AVS to identify the critical challenges associated with Software 

and Digital Systems (SDS) development and maintenance and develop standards and guidance to 

help mitigate these issues. 

Subcommittee on Human Factors

The subcommittee offers the following recommendations. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to develop a clear road map of NextGen Human Factors 

challenges which elaborates and prioritizes required human factors research per solution set. 

These research requirements should be linked with current and planned HFRE efforts as well as 

priorities for workforce training and design. Gaps and opportunities for research progress and 

impact on FAA mid-term capabilities should be identified with cost and schedule projections. 

FAA Response: We agree with the REDAC general observation, as well as the 

recommendation that NextGen research requirements need to be prioritized to facilitate the 

development of research plans, and the JPDO is doing this. We have established the FAA 

NextGen Human Factors Advisory Team, co-chaired by the ATO Operations Planning, Human 

Factors Research and Engineering (HFRE) Group Manager (AJP-61) and the AVS Chief 

Scientific and Technical Advisor for Flight Deck Human Factors (AIR-100). The purpose of the 

team is to identify human factors research, engineering, regulatory and operational issues, and 

requirements across organizations affecting implementation of NextGen air and ground 

capabilities. The team is coordinating with other ATO, AVS, and JPDO working groups, 

providing a forum to support development of NextGen Human Factors research plans. 

Recommendations from the team will be considered by Research Engineering and Development 

Executive Board (REB) and the various Program Planning Teams to ensure that Human Factors 

R&D requirements are captured and allocated appropriately. 

Recommendation: Increased hiring of experienced research managers is urgently needed to 

meet NextGen planning and execution challenges. Current management shortfalls are limiting 

the ability of the HFRE group to staff key planning and development meetings with NextGen 

partners. 

FAA Response: Human Factors Research and Engineering (HFRE) Group has been actively 

engaged in recruiting and hiring and will continue to do so. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-13 

Recommendation: Increased hiring of experienced human factors research and engineering 

staff at the FAA Tech Center is urgently needed to address emerging, critical research challenges 

in air-ground integration. There is a specific need to acquire research expertise in flight deck 

human factors to complement the outstanding existing competency in NextGen air traffic 

management human factors. 

FAA Response: We will pursue a strong air-ground integration capability and look to augment 

our air traffic management human factors competencies flight deck expertise. We will explore 

other air-ground resources, e.g., at CAMI and NASA, as part of an overall strategy for 

addressing this recommendation. 

Recommendation: In order to effectively address Human Factors issues within the timetable 

for NEXGEN, the FAA needs to augment and leverage aggressively available Human Factors 

knowledge, resources, and facilities across different sectors of the aviation Human Factors 

research community. 

FAA Response: Leveraging external expertise and facilities is a key target of the HFRE Group, 

but this part of the planning has been hindered because of the staffing shortfall. The HFRE 

Group has made progress in this area through the HF Advisory Team where National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) participates, NASA Ames and Langley site visits 

and discussions with human factors researchers, interactions with scientists at several 

Department of Defense (DOD) facilities, interactions with MITRE researchers, market surveys 

to support NextGen human factors research, and participation in FAA/EUROCONTROL 

Cooperative R&D Action Plan 15 on safety and human factors. 

Recommendation: Increased emphasis must be placed on computational modeling and 

simulation as part of formal analytic methods for NextGen systems design and evaluation. 

FAA Response: We intend to use validated computational modeling and simulation as part of 

formal analytic methods for NextGen systems design and evaluation included in our NextGen 

human factors air-ground integration research plan when feasible and appropriate. 

Computational modeling is not suitable to all areas of human factors evaluation and there are 

times when there is no substitute for human-in-the-loop test and evaluation. 

Subcommittee on Airports

Recommendation: The Technical Center should continue research on Foreign Object Debris 

(FOD) radar to accelerate development of performance standards for utilization of this new 

technology on airports. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with this recommendation. Current FOD radar testing has 

yielded promising results using various novel technologies. Two engineers, one within the 

Airport Engineering Division and another in the Airport Technology R&D Branch, with a 

researcher from the Center of Excellence in Airport Technology (CEAT), have the task of 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-14 

producing a FOD radar advisory circular. Guidance is expected to be published in Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2009. 

Recommendation: The ongoing fire research on the double-deck mockup of a new large 

aircraft at Tyndall Air Force Base should continue as a high priority. It is important that this 

research develop answers to questions if changes to the quantity requirements of fire fighting 

agent are needed for airports receiving new large aircraft service such as the A-380. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with this recommendation. We place a high priority on the 

fire testing underway and will keep it on schedule. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee strongly supports the FY 2010 initiative to start 

development of a visual aid test bed facility. This will significantly increase the ability of the 

Technical Center to easily configure and install prototype lighting systems for testing and 

evaluation. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with this recommendation. Advances in higher performance 

and cost-efficient lighting technologies necessitate that we continue our research and 

development efforts in this field. We anticipate starting work on the visual aid test bed facility in 

FY 2010. 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety

Overview: Process-specific Recommendations 

Note recommendations 1 and 1a are made jointly by the Aircraft Safety and NAS Ops 

Subcommittees. 

Recommendation 1: The FAA should ensure that clear, detailed requirements for all NextGen 

R&D are defined and that a transparent and effective means is provided for their flow-down to 

R&D program planning and execution. The Subcommittees offer assistance to the FAA in 

developing and implementing this process. 

a. Subcommittees recommend that the FAA immediately jumpstart this requirements 

generation process by prioritizing needs based on NextGen programmatic risk, starting 

with the 183 research issues listed in the NextGen Concept of Operations (ConOps), and 

focusing FAA research at addressing the most critical issues. 

FAA Response: The FAA is providing input to the JPDO Integrated Work Plan Version 1.0. In 

addition, the FAA is finalizing Version 2.0 of the NextGen Implementation Plan, which is 

focused on the development and implementation of the near- and mid-term NextGen capabilities 

necessary to support the long-term goals of NextGen. With these capabilities clearly identified, 

the FAA will define the detailed requirements for NextGen R&D and will facilitate their 

flowdown to R&D program planning and execution activities. The FAA held a workshop for the 

REDAC in July to explain the source of the NextGen research and development requirements 

and how these requirements are incorporated in the various research programs. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-15 

Recommendation 2: The FAA and NASA should jointly develop clear and actionable 

integrated roadmaps spanning all NextGen-required safety R&D and other safety-related R&D. 

The roadmaps should identify timelines, deliverables, and decision and transition points for the 

R&D’s insertion into infrastructure or regulatory products. Absent a more mature description of 

research needs, the Safety Subcommittee suggests that the 183 research issues from the ConOps 

be used as the basis for launching the NextGen-related roadmap process. 

FAA Response: We agree. The FAA will work with NASA to develop joint R&D roadmaps 

wherever practicable. In fact, development of roadmaps is already underway in the areas of 

icing and weather-in-the-cockpit R&D. 

Recommendation 3a: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA update the TCRG 

planning process to improve communications & transparency with stakeholders. 

FAA Response: We agree with the recommendation on improving communication and 

transparency. The FAA concurs that improvements to the communication and transparency in 

AVS R&D prioritization process, including the TCRG activities, should be made wherever 

possible. At the end of each planning cycle, a lessons-learned review is conducted. Comments 

similar to the SAS recommendation were received and are being reviewed. Greater 

communication and more active feedback to, and between, stakeholders will be instituted to 

ensure greater transparency. 

It is assumed that this recommendation (3a) and all subparts (3b – 3f), are meant to refer to the 

AVS R&D Requirements Process, as the TCRG planning processes are only a subset of the 

overall AVS R&D Requirements Process. Furthermore, the recommendation, with all subparts, 

is more broadly applicable to all the FAA RE&D planning processes, as are the responses, and 

will be used by the Research Executive Board to improve the processes. 

Recommendation 3b: Expand the planning process to ensure the process extends beyond the 

AVS boundaries and into other key organizations such as ATO. The process should recognize 

the full slate of safety-related R&D being considered and ensure maximum synergy is developed 

in response to requirements. 

FAA Response: We agree that R&D planning across FAA organizations would be beneficial. 

However, such an expansion would be more appropriately carried out under the auspices of the 

Research Executive Board (REB), which has representation from all FAA lines of business. The 

REB has the representation and authority to address this issue across the FAA, to examine 

research portfolios and ensure synergies between R&D programs are exercised to the greatest 

extent. 

Recommendation 3c: Monitor the performance of program elements to agreed-upon timelines 

and product delivery expectations, including well-defined success criteria. Multi-year funding 

profiles should be developed and used to ensure programs that are performing well towards their 

defined success criteria remain on track. However, programs that are not achieving the 

necessary results should be modified, redirected, or terminated. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-16 

FAA Response: We agree. Several new initiatives are underway or being planned to address 

performance monitoring. 

• The Research Executive Board has sponsored the development of a Performance 

Measurement Database that will track progress of annual R&D program goals, 

objectives, and accomplishments; 

• The NextGen Integration and Implementation Office is developing a portfolio 

management process and database to track the performance of the NextGen efforts; and 

• The AVS R&D Requirements Process is taking steps to implement performance 

monitoring. Proposed research requirements will include elements such as project 

milestones, performance metrics, and phased exit criteria. 

A comprehensive revision of the AVS R&D Requirements Process is planned for FY 2012. This 

revision will address the issue of multi-year funding and will implement further steps for 

considering prior progress and performance in the process. 

Recommendation 3d: Ensure top-level NextGen requirements are clearly flowed into the 

process and that well-integrated programs are developed to address them. 

FAA Response: We agree. We will continue to work within the NextGen Implementation and 

Integration development process to develop well integrated NextGen R&D programs. 

Recommendation 3e: Identify key priority safety themes based on data and clearly articulated 

emerging issues/areas that cut across TCRGs and other FAA organizations. Develop integrated 

programs constructed to make significant impact on these critical areas. Possible areas for focus 

include: advanced software and digital systems integration, reducing general aviation accidents 

related to inadvertent flight into IMC conditions, improving runway safety, or identification and 

assessment of emerging risks. These areas are notional, however. The FAA should conduct a 

thorough review to determine the actual listing of critical areas based on current data and an 

understanding of emerging issues and areas. 

FAA Response: We agree and will conduct a thorough review to identify the critical areas 

based on current data and an understanding of emerging issues and areas. We suggest this as a 

task for a REDAC working group or for a subset of the Aircraft Safety Subcommittee. AVS will 

work with ATO Operations Planning, Research and Technology Development (R&TD) to 

establish such a study group. 

Recommendation 3f: Identify key core competencies and capabilities needed for the FAA 

research organization. The FAA should ensure that a means is developed to advance these key 

core competencies and capabilities beyond the current state-of-the art. Absent a more effective 

means, the FAA should consider dedicating a percentage of the overall R&D budget in this area. 

FAA Response: We agree that identifying core competences is an important issue; one that 

should be addressed at a level that deals with all research programs and organizations at the 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-17 

FAA. We plan to task an independent group such as the REDAC to define what a core 

competency is and develop recommendations on how to develop and maintain core 

competencies. Part of the tasking for this independent group will include looking both in the 

near- and long-term, as well at what resources might be needed to maintain and advance the core 

competencies. 

Program-specific Recommendations 

Recommendation 4: The safety subcommittee recommends that the FAA immediately identify 

clear customers and associated requirements for the weather-related safety R&D and ensure that 

its program is fully aligned to these needs. Immediate adjustments should be made as necessary 

to the 2008–2010 weather program to ensure the program is fully aligned to customer-driven 

requirements and success metrics, and that actions are taken to implement its products into use. 

FAA Response: We agree. Requirements for FY 2009 and beyond will be fully reviewed. 

All requirements will be linked to a sponsor need or removed from the portfolio. In addition, 

performance goals and suitable and verifiable metrics for measuring accomplishment of the goals 

for each requirement will be established. To ensure timely product implementation, the Aviation 

Weather Office will complete a process for the development and approval of weather products 

and their continued configuration management. This process shall be developed with the 

participation of all associated FAA lines of business. For example, for products intended to be 

airborne, or used for flight planning, this process will address AVS certification, operational, and 

oversight requirements. 

Software and Digital Systems 

Recommendation 5: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the complex software and 

digital systems integration area should be significantly elevated in priority and identified as a key 

safety theme. The subcommittee recommends that a comprehensive and integrated program 

should be developed and appropriate resources allocated to springboard the FAA to a leading 

position in complex software and digital system safety. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that software and digital systems is an increasingly critical 

area in aerospace systems requiring specialized expertise and carefully planned R&D. The 

Aircraft Safety R&D program, working with the JPDO Aircraft Equipage Standing Committee, 

will identify the key software and digital systems issues, current and anticipated in the future. 

Beginning immediately, the FAA will develop a comprehensive program plan, with a focus on 

the needed R&D, which will help position the FAA as a leader for complex software and digital 

systems safety. 

Fatigue and Lifing-related Proposals 

Recommendation 6: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the RS-10-04 and SIM-10-02 

program elements be terminated and the resources for these efforts be allocated to other efforts. 

The Safety Subcommittee further recommends that the FAA certification organization determine 

if guidance material is required for the restricted category rotorcraft community and the fixed-
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-18 

wing general aviation community on acceptable means of compliance related to these issues. If 

so, the FAA should issue this guidance to the respective communities to enable them to perform 

the required work. 

FAA Response: The FAA notes the concerns of the Aircraft Safety Subcommittee that the FAA 

may be performing research that should be conducted by the rotorcraft and general aviation 

communities. The Aircraft Certification Service will conduct an evaluation of each requirement 

that fully addresses the Subcommittee’s concerns. The projects may be rescoped as a result of 

the aircraft certification evaluation. 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy

The subcommittee identified the following specific issues as matters to bring to the attention of 

the Administrator. 

Issue 1: The subcommittee noted that the Fiscal Year 2010 budget very clearly reflects the shifts 

in priorities recommended by the subcommittee to support NextGen. The program is well 

balanced and the right priorities and projects proposed. 

Recommendation: For solutions to become viable, the subcommittee recommends that the 

environmental research budget grow to the levels suggested in the NARP ($35M in RE&D, 

$20M in ATO-Cap) by 2011. 

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that we must address environmental constraints to enable 

NextGen. We will make every attempt to grow our budget to the levels outlined in the 2008 

National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) in 2010 and beyond, while considering other Agency 

and national priorities. 

Issue 2: The committee feels strongly that procurement competition is crucial to ensure 

excellence. Members feel that the Center of Excellence (COE) process – which was 

competitively selected – has proven to be a successful way to perform quality research and 

should continue. 

Recommendation: The committee recommends that, as the resources grow, the FAA ensure 

that performers are competitively selected. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that competition improves the quality of research. The 

Continuous Low Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) Program and other new environmental 

initiatives are being competitively procured. 

Issue 3: The subcommittee noted the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions 

Reduction (PARTNER) COE had made substantial progress addressing environmental issues 

since its inception about four years ago. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-19 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA continue supporting research 

through PARTNER at a robust level. 

FAA Response: The PARTNER COE has made substantial contributions to our efforts to 

understand and mitigate aviation’s environmental impacts. Our plans are to continue supporting 

the Center at similar levels or possibly higher than we have the last few years. 

Issue 4: The committee noted that there are many areas of noise research that need to be 

reviewed/assessed to address emerging topics and establish the research requirements to deal 

with these issues 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends the FAA put together a draft of a 

comprehensive integrated noise research plan and brief to the subcommittee in August. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that noise issues need to be continually reviewed and 

assessed, as noted in the recently released Government Accountability Office (GAO) study. 

FAA staff is working on a comprehensive noise research plan. The draft plan was briefed to the 

subcommittee in August to ensure we consider your views in the final product. 

Issue 5: The subcommittee commended the Commercial Alternative Aviation Fuels Initiative 

(CAAFI) process and noted the tremendous progress made in alternative fuels, particularly 

qualification and assessing environmental impacts. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends the FAA continue to carefully consider the 

life cycle emissions/environmental impact of alternative fuels. 

FAA Response: We agree that alternative fuels environmental impacts must be addressed over 

the whole “well to wake” life cycle. All of our alternative aviation fuels studies have included 

and will continue to include life-cycle assessments. We are also working with the Air Force 

Research Laboratory to tailor life-cycle emissions models to aviation applications. 

Issue 6: The committee noted the climate aspects of the Aviation Environmental Portfolio 

Management Tool (APMT) are very reliant on emerging science. It is important that developers 

continue to incorporate the latest science and improvements that could be made as appropriate. 

It will be important to not treat APMT as a black box, with a need to be well aware of existing 

uncertainties and gaps in any uses of the tool. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to ensure the latest scientific advice and sound uncertainty 

analyses are incorporated into APMT. The subcommittee asked for a briefing on the peer review 

to date of APMT and plans to continually improve the fundamental science of APMT. The 

subcommittee also asked for a briefing on how uncertainties are treated. 

FAA Response: We strive to always include the latest scientific insight into our models. The 

APMT development effort includes careful uncertainty assessments. FAA staff briefed these 

efforts to the subcommittee at the August 2008 meeting. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-20 

NAS Operations Subcommittee

The subcommittee offers the following overall comments. 

With respect to the R&D Program in the OEP to support NextGen, the subcommittee agrees that 

facilitating NextGen should be a major focus of the R&D program. However, how this 

facilitation is being done was not clear because the R&D program elements were not clearly 

mapped to NextGen relevance. The linkage between the research being planned and the actual 

research requirements (from either the OEP or the JPDO’s Integrated Work Plan (version 1)) was 

not clearly defined. In addition, the NextGen system analysis is not yet detailed enough to allow 

a quantitative evaluation of the R&D efforts. Therefore, the subcommittee thinks that the FAA 

cannot realistically assess R&D project relevance. From the information presented to the 

subcommittee, it seems that additional investment is required in analytical tools to evaluate the 

system design properly. Some policy decisions need to be made for NextGen progress to be 

made. For example, the decision about how much responsibility the air vehicle pilot will have 

for separation is pivotal in determining future research directions and final concepts. 

The research and development plans were presented to the subcommittee for each OEP solution 

set. The following are specific comments for each one presented: 

Recommendation:

Solution Set: Initiate Trajectory Based Operations 

• The research content and funding appear appropriate for the shorter-term goals described, 

but the relevance to NextGen is limited to high altitude airspace. 

• The Weather aspects of the described efforts are not integral to the air traffic management 

R&D effort, and this must be corrected. 

FAA Response: Tactical Trajectory Management (TTM) is an identified step in NextGen and 

included in the FY 2009 budget request under the Collaborative Air Traffic Management 

(CATM) solution set. The FAA will determine weather information required for embedded 

decision making in flow related operations. In the CATM, major activities will include defining 

approaches to truly integrating weather into strategic flow decision support tools. If funded, the 

FAA will identify weather information required for embedded decision-making in flow related 

operations and will include defining approaches to truly integrating weather into strategic flow 

decision support tools. The FAA is also working with industry through the Collaborative 

Decision Making community’s Future Concept Team (FCT) on weather integration into decision 

support tools for air traffic management. Currently the CDM, FCT workgroup developed limited 

decision support tools for a Human-In-The-Loop test in July 2008 that provided an interim 

solution and facilitate the integration of weather into CATM and TTM. Within the FAA 

Aviation Weather Office (AWO), a project has been established specifically to bring about 

integration of weather information into ATM tools. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-21 

Recommendation:

Solution Set: Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports 

• The research content and funding appear adequate for the shorter term goals described, 

although some near-term gaps were noted: 

− FAA should pursue reduced separation standards for ILS/RNAV and 

RNAV/RNAV paths to adjacent and nearby airports, e.g., La Guardia and JFK. 

− Weather parameters for CAVS need to be defined to maximize operator benefits. 

Solution Set: Increased Flexibility in Terminal Environment 

• There appears to be overlap and interdependencies between solution sets that is not 

explicitly stated and could be overlooked. For example, 

• Enhanced Tower data link (NR7 for TBO) and Surface Management (NR2 for 

High Density Airports) 

• Pre-departure clearance in TBO and Pre-departure clearance in CATM 

• The project to provide surface surveillance data to aircraft, ANSPs and Safety systems is 

very important 

• Wake Project achieved early successes 

− Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures 

− St Louis Closely-Spaced Parallel Runway Waiver Proposal 

Solution Set: Improve Collaborative ATM 

• The research content and funding appear adequate for the shorter term goals described 

Solution Set: Reduce Weather Impact 

• (1) Weather ATM Integration research 

− Current CAASD effort should be accelerated for early field trials (2009) 

− It is unclear if air traffic managers developers are participating in decision-making 

tools 

− No evidence was presented of assessing required weather information 

requirements in terms of levels of system capability 

FAA Response: In response to the recommendations regarding Weather ATM Integration 

Research, The Reduce Weather Impact program will start in FY 2009. The Aviation Weather 

Office (AWO) has already begun discussions with MITRE/CAASD to incorporate their ongoing 

activities into the program. 

The FAA is working with industry through the CDM community’s FCT, which includes air 

traffic managers, on weather integration into decision support teams for air traffic management. 

Currently the CDM, FCT workgroup developed limited decision support tools for a Human-InThe-Loop test in July 2008. Within the FAA AWO, a project has been established specifically to 

bring about integration of weather information into ATM tools. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-22 

The FAA, in cooperation with the JPDO and participating agencies, recently completed a 

Functional Analysis of the Single Authoritative Source (SAS) for ATM. The FAA is conducting 

Aviation Weather Requirements work to address NextGen system capability needs. Several new 

starts, including Reduce Weather Impacts will begin to integrate requirements into several 

NextGen system capabilities (e.g., CATM). 

Recommendation: Legacy Aviation Weather Research Program (AWRP) efforts need to be 

reevaluated and reprioritized in a way to make them closer to NextGen needs and weather-ATM 

integration 

FAA Response: In response to the recommendation regarding Aviation Weather Research 

Efforts, an April 2008 AWRP program management review was held to more tightly couple the 

program to customer-driven requirements, especially for weather-ATM integration. 

Recommendation:

• New Initiatives appear good: 

− NNEW 4D Data Cube using NEO technology, to serve as the backbone of 

NextGen weather data 

− Weather to the Cockpit to reduce accidents; weather node 

• Weather – ATM Integration needs models of how flight crews react to weather in flight 

− Collaboration with Safety Subcommittee Recommended 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that collaboration with the Aircraft Safety Subcommittee is a 

necessary step toward addressing the full range of equipment and operational issues relating to 

an aircraft-centric program such as Weather Technology in the Cockpit. The FAA is addressing 

the needed research in the Weather Technology in the Cockpit Program by ensuring the program 

addresses all aspects of the ground to air, air to air, and air to ground common situational 

awareness and weather integration system needs. Examples of Human Factors planned research 

under the FY 2009 budget submission include development of methods for cooperative use of 

weather information among pilots, controllers, AOCs/FOCs, and Air Traffic Operation Centers 

to enhance weather-related safety and efficiency decisions, and conducting an air-ground 

integration simulation regarding improved weather products at the controller workstation and in 

the cockpit to enhance safety and capacity in the NAS. 

The NAS Ops Subcommittee offers the following recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The FAA should review their R&D programs for the items listed below 

that the subcommittee perceived as R&D Gaps. For those items that the FAA agrees are gaps, 

resolve how the gap will be addressed. The gap could be schedule based or resource based. In 

other words, the FAA may have some work being done in these areas, but it may not be of 

sufficient levels to meet the NextGen goals in a timely and complete fashion. 

• The Subcommittee is concerned by apparent lack of the following research: 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-23 

− Probabilistic traffic flow management: Research that explores weather forecasts 

that both incorporate probabilistic outcomes and the anticipated impact on flows 

FAA Response: The FAA’s Aviation Weather Research Program is developing probabilistic 

forecasts as part of the development of the 4-D Weather Data Cube concept. In the FY 2009 

budget submission, plans for weather impact forecasts are included as part of the weather 

integration into ATM NextGen Collaborative Air Traffic Management. The FAA is working 

with industry through the CDM community’s FCT on weather integration into decision support 

tools for air traffic management. Under those auspices, METRON Aviation Inc. and 

MITRE/CAASD are both working on parts of a probabilistic flow management tool. 

Recommendation 1 (Continued):

• UAS Impact on air traffic management: Research that explores the impact on controller 

workload, air traffic safety, flow efficiency and capacity, and potential new air traffic 

management procedures associated with more routine operation of UAS in controlled 

airspace; 

• Operational requirements: Research that identifies all the activities and development 

needed to obtain approvals for the required NextGen policies, procedures, operations, or 

implementation of technology; 

• Equipage: Research that defines what system performance can be accomplished at 

various levels of equipage and equipage mixture, and what are the barriers; and 

• Policy: Research that informs policy changes necessary to achieve NextGen goals 

 (e.g., equipage, first-come-first-served, and avionics) 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the identification of the perceived research gaps. The 

FAA agrees to review the R&D programs for the gaps listed. If the FAA agrees that such gaps 

exist, plans to resolve the gap will be developed, which could include adding additional items to 

the research plan, adjusting schedules, or other forms of mitigation to lessen the impact of the 

gap. These reviews will be conducted according to the OEP Process. Results of these reviews 

will be used in the budget formulation and adjustment phases for FY 2009 and FY 2010. 

The NAS Operations and the Aircraft Safety Subcommittees jointly offer the following 

recommendations: 

Recommendation: The FAA should ensure that clear, detailed requirements for all NextGen 

R&D are defined and that a transparent and effective means is provided for their flow-down to 

R&D program planning and execution. The Subcommittees offer assistance to the FAA in 

developing and implementing this process. 

FAA Response: A workshop for the REDAC was conducted at the end of July 2008 to explain 

the source of the NextGen R&D requirements and how these requirements are being 

incorporated in the various research programs. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittees recommend that the FAA immediately jumpstart this 

requirements generation process by prioritizing needs, based on NextGen programmatic risk, 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-24 

perhaps starting with a review of the 167 research issues listed in the NextGen Concept of 

Operations (ConOps), and focusing FAA research at addressing the most critical issues. 

FAA Response: Whether or not any additional requirements should be generated and by what 

process was determined at the July workshop. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-25 

3. FAA Response to REDAC Report of the Weather-ATM Integration Working 

Group. 

Dr. John Hansman (Committee Chair) submitted REDAC’s report of the Weather – ATM 

Working Group to the Administrator on October 4, 2007. The agency provided the following 

response to the recommendations. 

Overarching Recommendations 

A. Crosscutting Research Program 

Recommendations (page 10): Initiate and fund a crosscutting research program in Air Traffic 

Management (ATM)/Weather Integration and insure that weather aspects are an integral part of 

new ATM initiatives from the beginning. 

B. Leadership 

Recommendation (page 10): Establish Senior Leadership oversight. 

Senior leadership oversight of all major weather – ATM integration development efforts should 

be established to insure progress and overcome traditional resistance that has been resident in the 

middle management levels of the FAA. 

FAA Response for A&B: We concur. The following activities, already underway, are expected 

to address these recommendations, at least in part. 

The Vice President of Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Operations Planning has established the 

Aviation Weather Office to lead development of new weather capabilities and realign legacy 

capabilities to achieve NextGen. This office reports directly to the Vice President and is 

responsible for aviation weather budget formulation, program development, and the research 

program for all of NextGen weather services including integrating weather into ATM decision 

support tools . The Aviation Weather Office has developed the NextGen Network Enabled 

Weather (NNEW) program that is expected to start in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 and will enable netcentric access to multi-agency weather data repositories in support of NextGen. The office has 

also developed a new budget line, called Reduce Weather Impact (RWI) for FY 2009 and 

succeeding years that will address the weather observations, forecasting, and integration needs of 

NextGen. 

The refocused Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP), which oversees seven NextGen 

“Solution Sets”, will help address crosscutting weather research and integration into ATM. 

NNEW and RWI, described above, in combination constitute one of the seven OEP solution sets. 

The OEP provides high-level, cross-agency management oversight of all solution sets to ensure 

support of NextGen objectives and plans. Within the OEP is an Impact and Implementation 

(I&I) Office whose job will be to ensure that all necessary coordination for NextGen capabilities 

occur efficiently and effectively, including weather integration capabilities. The Aviation 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-26 

Weather Office will work closely with the OEP I&I office to facilitate the coordination of 

weather capabilities from research to field implementation. 

For the first time the FAA has created a Weather Research Program Planning Team (PPT) that 

cuts across all FAA elements to establish FAA-wide weather research priorities. The three 

principal operational Service Units in ATO and both Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification 

in AVS are represented on the PPT. The Vice President of Operations Planning is participating 

in an executive level policy board to address cross-agency weather investments regarding 

NextGen. The board consists of executive level representatives from the FAA (Chair of the OEP 

Review Board), the National Weather Service (NWS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and 

the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). 

Recommendation (page 10): Establish REDAC monitoring. 

The REDAC should be directed to annually monitor weather-ATM integration initiatives to 

ensure adequate progress. 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA will brief the REDAC on weather/ATM integration 

research initiatives on a mutually agreed-upon schedule. Briefings have been and will continue 

to be provided to the Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety and to the NAS Operations Subcommittee 

on the Weather Research Program. 

Recommendation (page 11): Revitalize joint advisory committee reviews of FAA and NASA 

joint research such as weather-ATM integration. 

FAA and NASA should hold joint meetings of their advisory committees and include the 

identification of current and future cross agency research opportunities in support of integrating 

advanced aviation weather and air traffic management tools. Furthermore, a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) or Agreement of Understanding (AOU), between FAA and NASA, and 

encompassing weather and ATM research, may be needed to clearly elucidate the needed 

connection between these agencies. 

FAA Response: We concur. However, it is our understanding that that National Aeronautical 

and Space Administration (NASA) no longer has an active advisory committee. Consideration is 

being given to implementing a JPDO proposal for the formation of FAA-NASA research 

technology transition teams. One such team could be established for Weather-ATM integration. 

The FAA is already discussing development of a joint roadmap with NASA for weather-in-thecockpit research. 

C. Requirements Process 

Recommendation (page 11): Develop requirements for weather ATM integration participation 

within the AWRP. 

FAA Response: We concur. Integration managers in ATO Operations Planning are being 

staffed to address this recommendation. The Aviation Weather Office, which has the overall 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-27 

responsibility for weather requirements in the FAA, is working with each of the operational 

Service Units to align their requirements with FAA-wide and NextGen requirements including 

integration of weather into decision support tools. In concert with the JPDO, the Aviation 

Weather Office is planning integration workshops for early 2008. In addition, FAA has tasked 

MITRE to support integration of weather information into ATM decision support tools. 

Weather – Air Traffic Management Integration 

Near Term: IOC 2010 

A. Assessments of Avoidable Delay 

Recommendation (1) (page 13): Research is needed to identify and quantify avoidable delay. 

Quantitative research studies of “avoidable” delay, should be conducted each year, based on 

significant summer or winter storm events, to identify opportunities to reduce delay and to 

evaluate the performance of weather – ATM integration capabilities as they are developed and 

fielded. 

Recommendation (2) (page 13): ATM/TFM/AOC/FOC Involvement is needed. 

Operational user feedback on the feasibility of the ATM strategies developed by the automatic 

planner described in Section 4 should be provided. 

FAA Response for 1 & 2: We concur. FAA/ATO has developed and implemented the Weather 

Impacted Traffic Index (WITI) as a macro metric for correlating weather and NAS performance 

(e.g., delays) on a daily basis. Further work is planned for FY 2008 to extend WITI to evaluate 

the effectiveness of weather information in reducing avoidable weather delays. Additional 

funding for metrics development has been requested in subsequent fiscal years. 

System-wide modeling and analysis capability is in development in the ATO Operations 

Planning, Performance Analysis and Strategy Office. The model is planned for testing in FY10. 

The Director of that office will be responsible for tracking and reporting on this research. 

The FAA concurs that industry involvement is an important factor in determining NAS 

performance. There is robust coordination on all aspects of NAS performance, both internally 

and externally, through various stakeholder entities including Air Traffic Control Association, 

Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee Requirements and Procedures Sub-group, and 

ATA. This coordination will continue through FY 2009 and the foreseeable future. 

B. Translating Weather Data into ATC Impacts 

Recommendation (page 15): Expand research on the translation of convective weather impacts 

into ATC impacts so that this information can be used to effectively support decision making. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-28 

Research should be conducted to address the following elements: 

a. Improve the models for convective weather impacts, e.g., route blockage and airspace 

capacity. 

b. Determine if pilot thresholds for weather conditions that lead to deviations can be 

reduced, since unexpected deviations around storm regions in high density airspace can 

lead to prolonged, unnecessary route closures. 

c. Determine if the data link transfer of ground derived weather and ATC domain 

information (spatial boundaries acceptable for maneuvering) to the pilot achieve a more 

consistent pilot response to convective weather. 

d. Determine if the airspace usage differs between various en route facilities [e.g., the 

Jacksonville Center (ZJX) appears to have very different procedures for convective 

weather ATM than many of the ARTCCs in the Northeast]. 

e. Develop models for storm impacts on arrival and departure flows in both en route and 

terminal airspace. 

FAA Response: We concur. FAA has work underway and is planning FY 2008 research with 

MIT/ Lincoln Labs on the translation of convective weather impacts into Air Traffic Control 

(ATC) impacts. We plan to continue work on the Route Availability Planning Tool (RAPT) to 

improving route blockage models for convective weather. We are initiating development of a 

new convective forecast product called Consolidated Storm Prediction for Aviation (CoSPA) as 

the authoritative source for convective forecasts for standalone use and for integrating into 

NextGen decision support tools. However, additional work to translate weather into ATC 

impacts will be required. The FAA will review ZJX procedures to determine if these are a best 

practice that should be expanded and institutionalized. Any effective decision making must 

involve the pilot, thus the Office of Aviation Safety will be part of the process to define the 

research. 

C. Improved Weather Input into Collaborative Traffic Flow Management 

Recommendation (page 17): Develop a six-eight-ten hour convective forecast for strategic 

flow management decisions with automatically generated and updated forecasts of flow impacts. 

This should be a joint program between the AWRP and the TFM R & D programs with 

involvement by representatives of the CDM Weather Team 

FAA Response: We concur. Considerable research will be required to address this 

recommendation. 

On the convective forecast side of this recommendation, the FAA has issued draft requirements 

to NWS for extension in FY 2008-2009 of the Collaborative Convective Forecast Product 

(CCFP) to 8 hours and beyond. CoSPA described in the response to Recommendation 8, is 

intended to fill this forecast gap for the longer term but will require significant scientific 

development. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-29 

On the flow impact side of the recommendation, FAA recognizes the problem and is evaluating 

how to bridge the gap around the use of weather information in the automation programs to 

address this gap. Specific programs are yet to be defined but are essential to addressing the 

fundamental concern expressed by REDAC that weather information be effectively used in NAS 

operations. 

Recommendation (page 17): Improve the Traffic Management interaction with AOC/FOCs 

during weather impacts. 

Develop collaborative TFM systems that allow operators to better manage risks in meeting their 

own business objectives. Specifically, collaborative TFM systems should be developed that give 

operators the following capabilities: 

• Enable visibility into probabilistic TFM weather mitigation strategies through robust 

TFM data feeds for integration into their own internal systems via CDMnet and 

eventually System Wide Information Management (SWIM). 

• Electronically pre-negotiate multiple trajectory options with Traffic Managers. 

• Select viable route/altitude/delay options during severe weather impacts. 

• Integrate and ingest ATC-approved trajectories onto the flight deck for execution 

consistent with their own corporate infrastructure, business objectives and regulatory 

requirements. 

• Expand collaboration to include flight deck capabilities and decision making tools 

consistent with NextGen and within the corporate infrastructure, business objectives and 

regulatory requirements of the operator. 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA CDM Future Concepts Team is working on ways to 

improve interaction with customers and place more responsibility for flight operations with the 

AOC/FOCs. We recognize that while pre-negotiated routes are advantageous to system 

operations and efficiency, the interaction between the flight crew and air traffic controllers is a 

critical input to tactical routing determinations and flight operations. The Collaborative Air 

Traffic Management (CATM) solution set of the OEP involves integrating weather into decision 

support tools that will lead to improved traffic management interaction. 

D. Weather Information and Pilot Decision Making 

Recommendation (page 18): Initiate a research program to develop procedures and guidance 

on the integration of weather and airspace congestion information for preflight and in-flight 

decision making tools. 

The program should include the following objectives: 

• Develop appropriate rule sets for weather avoidance decision making in both non 

congested and, highly congested airspace. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-30 

• Develop ways to incorporate the same rule set into preflight, cockpit, AOC/FOC, and 

ATM decision support tools. 

• Develop methods to integrate or display current and forecast weather impact to flight 

profile, airspace congestion information, and weather decision support information in 

preflight and cockpit systems to enable greater shared situational awareness and 

improved collaborative decision making. 

• Conduct research on the direct, machine to machine, information transfer among cockpit, 

FOC, and ATM computing systems and determine whether this will facilitate consistent 

and expeditious decision making. This will place the users more “over the loop” than “in 

the loop” with respect to weather decision making. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that airspace congestion and weather information should be 

integrated to provide greater shared situational awareness and improved collaborative decision 

making between pilot, dispatcher, and ATM. In fact, one goal of the weather in the cockpit 

research program sponsored by AVS is focused on shared situational awareness between the 

pilot, the dispatcher, and ATM. Information on the airspace congestion and weather and 

participation of ATO are vital pieces of reaching shared situational awareness. FAA’s planned 

research program for FY 2009 and beyond includes weather-in-the-cockpit and flight planning 

automation components that will address this recommendation. 

E. Integrating Weather Impacts with Airport Surface and Terminal Management Systems 

Recommendation (page 20): Expand the use of route availability tools to integrate airport and 

terminal area weather data and ATM tools. 

Expand the deployment of integrated tools, such as route availability, to additional airports and 

terminal regions to improve NAS performance at the largest airports impacted by convective 

activity. 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA is looking at the applicability of expanding Route 

Availability Planning Tool (RAPT), an integrated planning tool, to other airports outside of the 

New York metro region. Assuming the identification of a positive business case, our plans are to 

develop, evaluate, and implement the capability at other locations. The FAA is also exploring 

ways to integrate RAPT into TFM processes including Departure Flow Management (DFM) and 

Departure Sequence Program (DSP) and making it en route capable. The OEP solution set 

“Reduce Weather Impact” states that weather information will be incorporated into decision 

support tools in multiple domains. 

Recommendation (page 20): Conduct research on enhancing the Traffic Management Advisor 

(TMA) to achieve a weather sensitive arrival planning tool. 

FAA Response: We concur. TMA currently integrates forecast winds, temperatures, and 

pressure derived from the Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) model in determining its output. The FAA 

is currently working on ways to integrate TMA data into TFM. For the FY 2009 budget 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-31 

submission, the FAA proposes research to extend TMA to the top 50 OEP airports, develop 

integration architecture for TMA, and link TMA arrival schedule and TFMS Monitor alert. 

Recommendation (page 20): Integrate RAPT, ITWS, DFM, and TMA with surface 

management systems to provide a singular terminal management tool spanning departures, 

arrivals, and surface movement. Consider common use by air traffic and operators for 

collaborative decisions. 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA is currently looking at the feasibility of integrating 

RAPT into DFM and DSP. Initial work would begin in late FY 2008. This would be one of the 

first steps to the larger recommendation identified in the recommendation. As part of NextGen, 

the FAA will be developing an integrated arrival/departure and surface traffic manager to 

improve decision making and flow management. The decision support tools will effectively 

manage high-capacity arrival and departure flows in the presence of various weather conditions. 

The initial availability is estimated in 2016. These new tools will be made available to both air 

traffic and external users for making collaborative decisions as prescribed in the CATM solution 

set. 

Recommendation (page 20): Support CDM and other efforts to provide meaningful and 

integrated terminal and TRACON specific weather forecast information. 

FAA Response: We concur. ATO System Operations recently led a CDM effort to identify 

requirements for TRACON-specific weather forecast information. The effort will continue, 

working to possible implementations within the CDM framework. 

Consistent with JPDO and OEP reduce weather impact solution set sponsored activities we 

expect network-enabled operations based 4-D Weather Data Cube to provide specific weather 

forecasts for terminal and TRACON applications. 

Mid Term IOC 2015 

F. Adaptive Integrated ATM Procedures for Incremental Route Planning 

Recommendation (page 24): Develop Weather Impact Forecasts versus Time (for different 

planning horizons). 

Develop weather forecasting capabilities that incorporate representations of the uncertainties 

associated with different weather phenomenon for different planning horizons. This should be 

included in the research recommended in Section 6 B, translating weather into ATM impacts. 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA is developing weather impact forecasts as part of the 

development of the 4-D Weather Data Cube concept and the use of probabilistic forecasts. In the 

FY 2009 budget submission, plans for weather impact forecasts are included as part of weather 

integration into ATM in NextGen Collaborative Air Traffic Management. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-32 

Recommendation (page 24): Develop Adaptive ATM/TFM Procedures. 

Develop TFM procedures that are adaptive, and that take advantage of changes in uncertainty 

over time. These procedures should incorporate distributed work strategies that match the locus 

of control for a specific decision with the person or group that has access to the knowledge, data, 

motivation and tools necessary to effectively make that decision. Such adaptive procedures 

require an integrated approach to strategic planning and tactical adaptation. 

FAA Response: We concur. Adaptive ATM/TFM procedures have been identified as a 

necessary step to NextGen. A task has been submitted in the FY 2009 budget request for this 

effort. Included in the Collaborative Air Traffic Management (CATM) solution set of the OEP, 

one of the key benefits is that decision makers will have more information about relevant issues, 

and improved automation tools. Decisions will be made more quickly, required lead times for 

implementation will be reduced, responses will be more specific, and solutions will be more 

flexible to change. 

Recommendation (page 24): Manage at the Flight Level. 

Take advantage of trajectory-based management so that control actions and their impacts can be 

more directly and precisely localized at the points in the system where they are required to deal 

with a given scenario. In particular, this means that tools and procedures need to be developed to 

adaptively manage at the flight level instead of traffic flows, and that the air traffic management 

user does not need detailed meteorology experience. 

FAA Response: We concur. The execution of “tactical ATM procedures” for weather 

avoidance will be supported by enhancements in the En route Automation Modernization 

(ERAM)/TFM evolution, namely, the receipt by ERAM of flow-constrained area definitions 

from TFM and the receipt and execution by ERAM of aircraft-specific reroutes from TFM. In 

En Route, Traffic Flow Management will send flow-constrained area definitions and reroutes, 

which will be used by automation. With automation executing aircraft specific reroutes, 

procedures and training will be developed to ensure controllers do not override automated 

decisions. This capability is a candidate for future ERAM releases. Also further research into 

tactical reroutes calculated by 

En Route automation is in the concept exploration phase by Mitre Inc. 

For NextGen, trajectory management is an integral part of trajectory-based operations along with 

trajectory planning and execution and is addressed in the FAA’s FY 2009 budget submission 

NextGen – Trajectory-Based Operations. Any effective decision making must involve the pilot, 

thus AVS will be part of the process to define the research. 

Recommendation (page 24): Translate weather information and forecasts to parameters relevant 

to decision support tools. 

Develop decision support tools that translate the implications of probabilistic weather forecasts 

into the decision parameters that are relevant to the application of particular TFM procedures and 

in a way that the air traffic management user does not require significant meteorological training. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-33 

FAA Response: We concur. The Reduce Weather Impact solution set plans to develop 

objectively indexed weather information (observations and forecasts) that can be translated into 

impacts on specific aircraft types and configurations. 

Recommendation (page 25): Develop human-centered designs. 

Develop human-centered designs for these decision support tools that enable their users to 

understand the current state of the relevant parts of the NAS, and that support these users in 

understanding the basis and implications of recommendations generated by their decision 

support tools that automatically generate options for users to consider. 

FAA Response: We concur. We recognize the need to look at human factors issues around 

automated decision making for weather situations and the importance of pilot, controller, and 

dispatcher decisions and capabilities. As part of human centered design research, human factors 

researchers are developing guidance on displays and techniques as part of the FY 2009 budget 

submission. 

Recommendation (page 25): Develop tools and automation enabling operations and 

implementation. 

Develop computer-supported communication tools and automated decision support tools that 

enable effective coordination and collaboration in this distributed work system, and that enable 

timely implementation of the decisions that are made. 

FAA Response: We concur. Development and implementation of tools and automation 

enabling operations is an expected outcome of the FAA’s FY 2009 Collaborative Air Traffic 

Management (CATM) investments and pre-implementation engineering. Any effective decision 

making must involve the pilot, thus AVS will be part of the process to define the research. 

Additionally, as part of human centered design research, human factors will evaluate and 

develop guidance on automation tools used by pilots, dispatchers, and ATM. 

G. Weather Impacts and Tactical Trajectory Management 

Recommendation (page 25): Implement Tactical Trajectory Management with integrated 

weather information. 

Develop a highly automated advanced Tactical Trajectory Management (TTM) decision support 

capability integrated with convective weather and turbulence to decrease controller and pilot 

workload, and increase safety. This would be a mostly automated system. This capability would 

assist the controller in a shared severe weather separation responsibility with the pilot. 

FAA Response: We concur. Tactical Trajectory Management has been identified as a 

necessary step to NextGen and is included in the FY 2009 budget request under the CATM 

solution set. The FAA will determine weather information required for embedded decisionmaking in flow related operations. CATM covers both strategic and tactical interactions with the 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-34 

users—whether airborne or on the ground. Also in the CATM, major activities will include 

defining approaches to truly integrating weather into strategic flow decision support tools. 

Under New ATM Requirements in the FY 2009 budget submission research will develop 

requirements to integrate weather data into automated trajectory management system. 

Recommendation (page 26): Investigate the human factors issues (communication, information 

display, safety nets, cognitive complexity, and mental workload) associated with new paradigms 

for tactical trajectory management. 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA recognizes the importance of human factors in assessing 

new paradigms for tactical trajectory management. Tactical trajectory management decisions 

involve the pilot, dispatchers, and ATM; thus, the FAA will develop a coordinated research 

program in this area. 

The FAA plans new research to: 

• Conduct an analysis of human performance benefits in terms of safety and capacity when 

using enhanced weather products, such as storm movement and turbulence, at the en 

route controller’s workstation; and 

• Assess communication and display issues in use of NextGen weather information 

supporting collaborative ATM. 

H. Airspace Designs for Weather Impacts 

Recommendation (page 27): Airspace designs should enable route flexibility during adverse 

weather conditions. 

If the vision of 4D trajectories is to become a reality, the airspace must be designed to support 

seamless adjustments of the route of flight in all four dimensions, as required by weather 

impacts. 

The development of ATM decision support tools must be done jointly with the weather research 

community so that decisions will adequately address impacts of adverse weather. Foundational 

efforts that reach across the disciplines of airspace design, weather translation into ATM impact 

and ATM decision support are required to achieve effective integration. 

FAA Response: We concur. Airspace design has been identified as a necessary early step to 

NextGen. We recognize that en route and terminal automation capabilities and project plans will 

require re-engineering to support new airspace design. The FY 2009 budget submission includes 

in the CATM solution set, weather integration into ATM and will include development of 

methods to adjust TFM/TMI needs as weather conditions evolve. 

Recommendation (page 27): Investigate the human factors issues associated with the dynamic 

reconfiguration of airspace, including issues associated with information display, training, and 

cognitive complexity. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-35 

FAA Response: We concur. Human factors associated with dynamic reconfiguration of 

airspace are addressed in the FAA’s FY 2009 budget submission under NextGen CATM. 

Included in this research is analysis of human performance benefits in terms of safety and 

capacity when using enhanced weather products, such as storm movement and turbulence, at the 

en route controller’s workstation and developing guidance on displays and techniques. 

IOC Post 2015 

I. Advanced Weather ATM Integration Concepts 

Recommendation (page 28): Develop methods which combine the use of both probabilistic 

and deterministic forecasts and observations, to maximize throughput using multiple dynamic 

flight lanes or “tubes” in weather impacted areas. 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA is collaborating with NASA on use of dynamic flight 

lanes. The “Reduce Weather Impact” solution set will determine how probabilistic weather 

forecasts and other probabilistic weather information can be developed for use by NAS decision 

makers. As both research areas mature they can be developed into an integrated capability. 

Recommendation (page 29): Develop methods to transition from a probabilistic trajectory or 

flight envelope to a 4D trajectory which is useable for separation and safety assurance. Establish 

an independent bi-annual review of this work to determine the potential benefits and costs to 

aviation. 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA is collaborating with NASA on research in this area. 

Trajectory based operations are addressed in the NextGen – Trajectory Based Operations 

solution set of the OEP. The OEP and JPDO will be reviewing progress and anticipate future 

review by REDAC. 

Recommendation (page 29): Conduct research into replacement of surrogate weather 

indicators such as radar reflectivity with reflectivity with actual indicators such as turbulence, 

icing, lightning, or wind shear, and an estimate of ATM impact. For example, radar reflectivity 

can be translated into ATM impact by estimated airspace pilots will avoid and the associated 

airspace capacity loss. 

FAA Response: We concur. FAA has some work underway and is planning FY 2008 research 

with MIT/ Lincoln Labs on the translation of convective weather impacts into ATC impacts. 

However, additional work to translate weather into ATC impacts will be required. 

Recommendation (page 29): Develop methods to use gridded and scenario based probabilistic 

weather data for ATM decision making. 

Develop methods to translate deterministic and probabilistic convective forecasts to ATM impact 

for use in network based capacity estimate models. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-36 

Determine the reduction in capacity of an airspace region due to convective weather using a 

network model. 

FAA Response: We concur. The Reduce Weather Impact solution set will determine how 

probabilistic weather forecasts and other probabilistic weather information can be developed for 

use by NAS decision makers. As both research areas mature, they can be developed into an 

integrated capability. The CATM solution set plans to use gridded and scenario based 

probabilistic weather data for ATM decision making. 

Recommendation (page 30): Investigate the human factors issues associated with the 

integration of such probabilistic modeling into decision support tools. 

FAA Response: We concur. Examples of human/system integration research associated with 

the integration of probabilistic modeling into decision support tools planned in the FY 2009 

budget submission will include: 

• Identifying requirements for collaborative ATM in use of probabilistic weather 

information by pilots and controllers; 

• Completing a preliminary cognitive task analysis supporting common information 

between pilots and controllers in use of probabilistic weather information; and 

• Developing guidance to the weather program to enhance usability of forecasting products 

for pilot decision making. 

Human Factors Considerations for Integrated Tools 

Recommendation (page 31): Develop advanced information sharing and display concepts for 

the design of integrated decision-support tools. 

Develop strategies for information representation and display that enable people to maintain 

situation awareness regarding weather and traffic impacts, develop shared mental models, and 

evaluate inputs to the decision process provided by technology. 

Of particular importance is the need to conduct research on strategies for representing, 

integrating and displaying probabilistic information about uncertainty regarding weather and 

traffic constraints and its predicted impacts as a function of look-ahead time. Equally important 

is the need to research new strategies for risk management that make use of such information. 

Research on the effective use of probabilistic information by ATC, TFM and FOCs is a major 

challenge that needs to commence in the near term in order to obtain short term benefits and to 

enable more powerful solutions in the longer term. This research needs to consider human 

factors as well as technology development challenges. 

FAA Response: We concur. Examples of Human Factors research included in the FY 2009 

budget submission are: 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-37 

• Developing standards and guidance for design approval of weather decision support for 

cockpit use including integration of weather information with existing CommunicationNavigation-Surveillance/ATM information on multi-function displays; 

• Conducting an analysis of human performance benefits in terms of safety and capacity 

when using enhanced weather products, such as storm movement and turbulence, at the 

en route controller’s workstation; and 

• Conducting an air-ground integration simulation regarding improved weather products at 

the controller workstation and in the cockpit to enhance safety and capacity in the NAS. 

Integrated decision-support tools involve the pilot, dispatchers, and ATM; thus, the FAA will 

develop a coordinated research plan in this area. 

Recommendation (page 31): Develop new approaches and strategies for effective distributed 

decision making and cooperative problem solving. 

Develop effective strategies and technologies (decision support and communication tools) to 

enable distributed decision making to address the interaction of weather and traffic constraints, 

and to adaptively respond to situations as they evolve. This requires consideration of cognitive 

complexity, workload, and the ability of people to develop and maintain necessary levels of skill 

and expertise. It requires consideration of the need to design a resilient system that provides 

effective safety nets. And it requires system engineering decisions concerning when to design 

the system to provide coordination as a result of the completion of independent subtasks and 

when to design the system to support collaboration in order to ensure that important interactions 

occur. 

Develop technologies that support cooperative problem solving environments that allow people 

to work interactively with decision support technologies and with each other to assess situations 

as they develop, and to interactively generate and evaluate potential solutions. 

FAA Response: We concur. Examples of Human Factors planned research under the FY 2009 

budget submission will include developing methods for effective cooperative use of weather 

information among pilots, controllers, AOCs/FOCs, and Air Traffic Operation Centers to 

enhance weather-related safety and efficiency decisions, and conducting an air-ground 

integration simulation regarding improved weather products at the controller workstation and in 

the cockpit to enhance safety and capacity in the NAS. 

Distributed decision making and cooperative problem solving involves the pilot, dispatchers, and 

ATM; thus, the FAA will develop a coordinated research plan in this area. 

Recommendation (page 32): Develop methods for implementing human-centered designs for 

decision-support tools. 

Develop effective procedures and technologies to ensure effective communication and 

coordination in the implementation and adaptation of plans in this widely distributed work 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-38 

system that includes meteorologists, traffic managers, controllers, dispatchers, ramp controllers 

and pilots. 

FAA Response: We concur. We recognize the need to look at human factors issues around 

automated decision making for weather situations and the importance of pilot, controller, and 

dispatcher decisions and capabilities. As part of human centered design research, human factors 

researchers are developing guidance on displays and techniques as part of the FY 2009 budget 

submission. Decision-support tools involve the pilot, dispatchers, and ATM; thus, the FAA will 

develop a coordinated research plan in this area. 

Implications on Air Navigation Service Providers 

A. Training on New Integrated Tools 

Recommendation (page 33): Proactively enable new training on integrated tools. 

The FAA and aviation industry should proactively develop training curricula for controllers, 

traffic managers, pilots, dispatchers, and weather personnel which cover 

• The new roles and responsibilities in the use of supporting technologies. 

• The roles, responsibilities and expectations of other decision makers with whom each 

group must interface. 

• The training doctrine, developed in concert with the integrated tools development, 

leveraging that real-world experience to maximize early benefits and refinements. 

• The training cadre, deployed to all major new facilities as the tools are deployed, to both 

assist in training and to maximize early benefits and identify problems. 

The resulting procedures and rules must be translated into controlling documents such as the 

Federal Air Regulations (FARs), the Airman Information Manual (AIM), Air Traffic Manuals, 

Flight Manuals, and Aircraft Manuals. 

FAA Response: We concur. Two separate components of FY 2009 budget submission support 

adequate understanding of functions and limitations of automation and decision aids. This will 

incorporate training of Air Traffic Service Providers (ATSP), pilots, and dispatchers designed to 

ensure adequate understanding of functions and limitations of automation and decision aids 

important to ensuring efficiency and effectiveness in different ATSP roles and positions. 

B. Best Practices in Weather Mitigation 

Recommendation (page 34): Identify best weather practices of air traffic facilities and train 

these practices system wide. 

Identify facilities with superior performance and develop best practices guidance for use by other 

facilities. Do not limit benchmarking to NAS facilities only. Seek global examples and new 

visions of innovative weather management techniques. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-39 

Develop and train ARTCC and TRACON ATC and TFM staff on “best practices” during the 

introduction and first five years of all new weather and weather-ATM integrated tools 

Establish metrics which compare alternative processes. 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA currently performs an end-of-season review of the 

collaborative decision making process used by Traffic Flow Management concerning the use of 

the Collaborative Convective Forecast Product (CCFP). 

In the FY 2009 budget submission, the FAA will initiate field research to examine how aviation 

weather information is used today for collaborative decision making and identify best practices 

at ATC facilities (En Route, TRACON, ATCT, ATCSCC) and AOC/FOCs. 

Implications on Airline and Flight Operation Centers 

Recommendation (page 35): Ensure strong industry participation in CDM and NextGen 

concept development and implementation and consider expanding industry participation on 

review boards. 

Industry must have voice and buy-in to future developments to ensure that internal corporate 

infrastructure and business systems can support, blend with and interact effectively with the NAS 

service provider systems. 

Joint development of these systems is possibly the key component of a successful future 

capability 

FAA Response: We concur. The FAA strongly encourages industry participation because it is a 

cornerstone of the Collaborative Decision Making and NextGen development processes. The 

FAA will continue participation in RTCA, ATMAC, OEP Working Sub-Group, JPDO ANSP, 

Aircraft, and Weather Working Groups, and other Ad-hoc groups including the CDM Weather 

Evaluation Team (WET). 

Implications on FAA and NextGen Enterprise Architecture 

Recommendation (page 36): Ensure that direct ATM automation-weather integration is a key 

focus of the development of OEP/NAS Enterprise Architecture operational and technical views 

for the transition to NextGen. 

To achieve the capacity and safety goals for NextGen, weather and ATM automation 

developments must become aligned and focused to define the operational and system views for 

the evolution to highly automated weather impact analysis and solution-generation system, 

where the human operators are no longer the “glue” for trajectory level decisions. This is a 

necessary and fundamental shift from today where weather display and human interpretation is 

the norm. The resultant operational and technical views must be reflected in the OEP and 

companion NAS EA in order to enable timely investment decision on deploying these needed 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-40 

integrated automation-weather capabilities. This information must also be (constantly) 

coordinated with NextGen concept and EA development to ensure consistency. 

FAA Response: We concur. Within the OEP is an Impact and Implementation (I&I) office 

tasked with ensuring that all necessary coordination for NextGen capabilities occurs efficiently 

and effectively, including weather integration capabilities. ATO Operations Planning has been 

restructured to better plan and manage the implementation of NextGen. The establishment of the 

FAA Aviation Weather Office is key to managing the development and integration of weather 

from the provider of weather information into ATM. The Aviation Weather Office will work 

closely with the OEP I&I office to facilitate the coordination of weather capabilities from 

research to field implementation. The integration of weather information into decision support is 

one of the highest priorities in the Collaborative Air Traffic Management solution set of the OEP 

and part of the FY 2009 budget submission. 

Implications on FAA Aviation Weather Research Program 

Recommendation (page 37): Support for the AWRP should be increased beyond previous 

levels. 

Support for the AWRP should be increased to enable further improvements in the 0-8 hour 

forecast time frame, and to allow the weather research community to enter into joint 

collaborations with the automation research community in integration of weather information 

into ATM DSS. Additionally, the FAA ATO-P organization should reexamine the R&D goals 

for AWRP in light of the needs of NextGen. 

Support for the National Ceiling and Visibility Program should be restored. Related efforts to 

support and benefit individual sectors of the industry should be prioritized and addressed. For 

example: 

1. Development of the Helicopter Emergency Medical Evacuation System (HEMS) tool. 

2. Rewriting FAR 121 limitations regarding Ceiling and Visibility such as FAR 121.619 

(also know as the “1, 2, 3 Rule” for alternate fuel specifications 

FAA Response: Partial concurrence. The FAA supports continuation of the Aviation Weather 

Research Program. During its existence as the premier national aviation weather research 

program, it has matured numerous capabilities in operational use today in both government and 

the private sector, including enhanced models, Web-based flight planning tools, as well as 

hazardous aviation weather products such as icing, turbulence, convection and ceiling and 

visibility. Not all of these capabilities meet FAA regulatory standards. While there is a need for 

continued improvement in science of aviation weather, there is an equally great need to ensure 

the full integration of scientific developments into operational use and alignment with NextGen. 

FAA weather research also supports development of specifications, standards, and other 

regulatory and guidance materials that will support the development, certification, and 

operational implementation of such scientific developments. 
2009 NARP Appendix D 

June 22, 2009 

D-41 

FAA currently supports both the National Ceiling and Visibility Program and the Helicopter 

Emergency Medical System tool for their safety and capacity benefits. 

However, the FAA does not support rewriting any part of the 14 CFR Part 121 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations related to limitations regarding ceiling and visibility. For the specific 

example mentioned, i.e., Part 121.619 (the 1, 2, 3 rule), alternate fuel specifications, the current 

rule is safe and the FAA has no data to substantiate a change when destination weather is less 

than required to meet the rule. FAA recognizes that as advanced weather technologies are 

implemented into operations, associated rulemaking may be necessary to support the 

implementation. FAA will continue to work with all stakeholders to identify potential 

rulemaking requirements as early as possible. 

Recommendation (page 38): Conduct research to develop improved methods of sensing 

turbulence taking advantage of a multi-sensor approach using radar, profilers, anemometers, 

satellite imagery, GPS, and instrumented aircraft to improve the forecasting and now casting of 

convective and non-convective turbulence. 

FAA Response: We concur. FAA weather in the cockpit research is currently developing 

standards for the performance of turbulence detection systems. Continued research in this area 

includes development of guidelines for automatic reporting of turbulence. FAA weather 

research is developing technology for ground-based detection of turbulence and turbulence 

forecasting. The FAA is continuing to perform research in this area. The potential to improve 

turbulence detection by combining aircraft based measurements and auto reporting data with the 

ground based network will also be examined by the FAA. 

2009 NARP Appendix E 

June 22, 2009 

E-1 

APPENDIX E: Alignment of FAA NextGen R&D Programs 

This appendix is composed of a set of tables and figures showing how FAA R&D supports 

NextGen. The FAA NextGen R&D programs are a subset of the FAA R&D goals, targets, and 

milestones listed in Chapter 2. This appendix describes how the NextGen R&D milestones 

support the mid-term Operational Improvements (OIs) in the FAA’s NextGen Implementation 

Plan (NGIP) and the far-term OIs in the JPDO Next Generation Air Transportation System 

Integrated Work Plan: A Functional Outline (IWP)

1

 in eight of the ten FAA R&D goals. In the 

2009 portfolio, two goals, Human Protection and Safe Aerospace Vehicles, are focused on nearterm agency needs and are not supported by any of the NextGen R&D programs. In many cases, 

an FAA NextGen R&D milestone supports more than one NextGen capability or OI and more 

than one solution set. There is one solution set, Transform Facilities, that has no NARP 

NextGen R&D milestones mapped to it since the solution set has matured beyond the research 

phase. 

There is a table for each FAA R&D goal. The table provides detailed information about the 

NextGen mapping for those OIs supported by one or more of the FAA NextGen R&D 

milestones. Although, as shown, the NARP NextGen R&D milestones support a relatively small 

number of mid-term OIs from the NGIP, the same R&D milestones support a much larger set of 

the far-term OIs from the IWP. As mentioned in Chapter 3, this is not unexpected. The bulk of 

the R&D funding for NextGen will not start until FY09. Given the substantial lead time (5-10 

years) required to complete the R&D milestones before they can contribute to implementing new 

capabilities, the R&D planned to start in FY09 will not be completed in time to impact the midterm (2012-2018) OIs in the NGIP. However, in the far-term, there is significant mapping 

between the FAA NextGen R&D milestones and the OIs in the IWP. The IWP itself is aligned 

with the mid-term NGIP. 

 

1

 Joint Planning and Development Office, Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Work Plan: A 

Functional Outline (http://www.jpdo.gov/iwp.asp). 
2009 NARP Appendix E 

June 22, 2009 

E-2 

The following key for the tables is provided to help the reader under the content within these 

mapping tables. 

Mapping of NARP NextGen R&D Milestones 

Following is the key to the solution set names used in this appendix: 

TBO Initiate Trajectory Based Operations 

HD Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports 

FLEX Increase Flexibility in the Terminal Environment 

CATM Improve Collaborative ATM 

RWI Reduce Weather Impact 

SSE (Safety) Increase Safety, Security, and Environmental Performance, Safety subset 

SSE (E) Increase Safety, Security, and Environmental Performance, Environmental 

Performance subset 
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-3 

NARP R&D Goal 2.1 - Fast, Flexible, and Efficient: A system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs. NARP R&D Target By 2016, demonstrate that the system can handle growth in demand up to 3 times current levels while reducing gate-to-gate transmit time by 30 percent. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-ter

2009 Demonstrate the addition of convective 

weather (current and forecast) into Traffic

Management Advisor (TMA) to increase throughput and efficiency for large, super density airports (NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development). 

N/A Net-Enabled 

(2021, IOC: Information 

Activity 1.1: Demonstrate super density operations. 

2010 Demonstrate greater throughput in 

congested, domestic, en route airspace using point-in-space metering linked to RNAV/RNP routes (NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development). 

HD: Time Based Metering using RNAV and RNP Route Assignments (104123)

Trajectory-b2018); AutomManagemenassisted TraIOC: 2024); 

Gate-to-gate 

2009 Demonstrate via simulation standard TBO: Automation Support for Mixed Environments (102137).

separation in a full-equipage, fully automated environment with no voice communication (NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development). 

HD: Time Based Metering using RNAV and RNP Route Assignments (104123).

N/A 

2011 Demonstrate trajectory-based operations 

in transitional airspace, between oceanic and domestic en route, using oceanic data link and Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures (ATOP) automation (NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development). 

TBO: Automation Support for Mixed Environments (102137). Delegated S

IOC: 2022); (0358, IOC: (0359, IOC: 

Activity 1.2: Demonstrate trajectory-based operations. 

2013 Demonstrate trajectory-based operations 

in mixed-equipage, high altitude airspace with actual aircraft and procedures (NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development). 

N/A Trajectory-b

2018); AutomManagemenassisted TraIOC: 2024); 

Gate-to-gate 
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-4 

NARP R&D Goal 2.1 - Fast, Flexible, and Efficient: A system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-ter

Activity 1.2: (continued) 2015 Demonstrate auto-negotiations between 

flight automation and ground automation without human initiation (NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development). 

Activity 3: Separation Standards 2009 Develop and simulate separation 

procedures that vary according to aircraft capability and pilot training (NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development). 

TBO: Delegated Responsibility for Separation (102118); Automation Support for Mixed Environments (102137).

Delegated SIOC: 2022); IOC: 2022); Procedures 

2010 Determine pilot and air navigation service 

provider (ANSP) situational aircraft separation display concepts required for implementation of the NextGen “Trajectory Based Operation” and “High Density” concepts (Wake TurbulenceNG).

2011 Refine the boundaries of the current 6 

weight categories for the National Airspace System (NAS) fleet mix and define automation requirements to support those modifications (NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization). 

Activity 4: Wake Turbulence 

2011 Determine optimal set of aircraft flight 

characteristics and weather parameters for use in setting wake separation minimums (NextGen - Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization). 

TBO: Reduced Horizontal Separation Standards - 3 mi. (102117); Delegated Responsibility for Separation (102118); NextGen Oceanic Procedures (102136). HD: Improved Operations to Closely Spaced Parallel Runways (102141); Wake Vortex Incorporated into Flow (102142).

Reduce Sep(0348, IOC: Surface TraIndependen

(0334, IOC: IMC (0335, Procedures 2018); Wake Dynamic WiMetroplex MIntegrated AManagemenTrajectory-bgate (0370, 

NG The Wake Turbulence Program contains funding for both core research and NextGen research. Those activities noted with the superscript NG indicate thos

those without notation indicate those funded with the core program resources. 
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-5 

NARP R&D Goal 2.1 - Fast, Flexible, and Efficient: A system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-ter

2012 Determine the 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 (Wake TurbulenceNG). 

2013 Complete development of ANSP wake 

separation standards that better use aircraft flight characteristics and information concerning surrounding weather conditions (NextGen - Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization). 

Activity 4 (continued) 

2016 Develop the algorithms that will be used 

in the ANSP and flight deck automation systems for setting dynamic wake separation minimum for each pair of aircraft (NextGen - Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization). 

N/A 

NG The Wake Turbulence Program contains funding for both core research and NextGen research. Those activities noted with the superscript NG indicate thos

those without notation indicate those funded with the core program resources.
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-6 

Figure E-1: Goal 2.1 Linking of FAA NextGen R&D Activities to Far-term Operational Imp
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-7 

NARP R&D Goal 2.2 - Clean and Quiet: A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms. NARP R&D Target By 2016, demonstrate that significant aviation noise and emissions impacts can be reduced in absolute terms (to enable three times capacity) in a cost-effective 

particulate matter and climate impacts to levels that enable appropriate action. 

NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-t

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). 

Activity 1. Measure current level of aviation related noise and emissions. 

2012 Expand noise data collection to very 

light jets and supersonic aircraft (NextGen Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics). 

SSE (E): National EMS Supports Integrated Environmental 

Performance; NGATS [NEXTGEN] Operational Initiatives that Reduce Environmental Impacts (FAA Enterprise Architecture).

EnvironmeFrameworNextGen ETechnolog

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). 

Activity 2. Determine acceptable levels of noise and emissions. 

2011 Determine how aviation generated 

particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants impact local health, visibility, and global climate (NextGen Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics). 

SSE (E): National EMS Supports Integrated Environmental 

Performance; NGATS [NEXTGEN] Operational Initiatives that Reduce Environmental Impacts (FAA Enterprise Architecture).

ImplemenAircraft TeImplemen2018) 
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-8 

NARP R&D Goal 2.2 - Clean and Quiet: A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-t

2011 Complete development of first 

generation ground plume model for aircraft engine exhaust (NextGen Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics). 

Activity 3. Develop models to predict the impact and benefits of changes. 

2014 Update environmental assessments 

models to incorporate new noise metrics (NextGen Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics). 

SSE (E): National EMS Supports Integrated Environmental Performance; NGATS [NEXTGEN] Operational Initiatives that Reduce Environmental Impacts (FAA Enterprise Architecture).

Implemen2018) 

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 Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics). 

N/A Environme

Frameworbased MaAutomatioLevel 3 (0Trajectory2024); TraGate-to-ga

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). 

Activity 4. Develop noise and emission reduction methods. 

2012 Identify and pursue the development of 

engine and airframe technologies that will be the most effective at producing environmental benefits (NextGen - Environmental and Energy - Environmental Management Systems and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction). 

SSE (E): National EMS Supports Integrated Environmental 

Performance; NGATS [NEXTGEN] Operational Initiatives that Reduce Environmental Impacts (FAA Enterprise Architecture).

EnvironmeOperationNextGen ETechnolog
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-9 

NARP R&D Goal 2.2 - Clean and Quiet: A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-t

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 - Environmental and Energy - Environmental Management Systems and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction). 

N/A Trajectory

2018); EnvTerminal OAutomatioLevel 3 (0Trajectory2024); TraGate-to-ga

2013 Establish engine design sensitivities by 

measuring particles emitted from combustor engine systems (NextGen Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics). 

2013 Demonstrate airframe and engine 

technologies to reduce noise and emissions (NextGen Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics). 

SSE (E): National EMS Supports Integrated Environmental Performance; NGATS [NEXTGEN] Operational Initiatives that Reduce Environmental Impacts (FAA Enterprise Architecture).

EnvironmeOperationNextGen ETechnolog

Activity 4 (continued) 

2014 Demonstrate optimized en route 

operations that enhance fuel efficiency and reduce emissions (NextGen - Environmental and Energy - Environmental Management Systems and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction). 

N/A Environme

OperationEnvironmeFrameworbased MaAutomatioLevel 3 (0Trajectory2024); TraGate-to-ga
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-10 

Figure E-2: Goal 2.2 Linking of FAA NextGen R&D Activities to Far-term Operational Imp
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-11 

NARP R&D Goal 2.3 - High Quality Teams and Individuals - The best qualified and trained workforce in the world. NARP R&D Target By 2016, demonstrate improvement in air navigation service provider efficiency (e.g., greater number of aircraft) and effectiveness (e.g., fewer operational errorof operations, procedures, and information. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-

TBO: Expanded Conflict Resolution via Data Communications (104105).

2010 Define anticipated ANSP workload 

reductions due to implementation of data communications (NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration). 

HD: Use Data Messaging to Provide Flow and Taxi Assignments (104208).

AutomatiLevel 3 (0Trajector2024); TrGate-to-g

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/Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency). 

HD: Integrated Arrival/Departure Airspace Management (104122); Time Based Metering using RNAV and RNP Route Assignments (104123).

IndependIMC (033ApproachWind-BasProcedurMitigation (0403, IOSpacing 

2013 Redefine ANSP roles in a strategic air 

traffic environment for en route and terminal domains (NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency). 

N/A 

Activity 2. 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. 

2013 Demonstrate collaborative air traffic 

management efficiencies enabled by common situation awareness between flight operators and ANSP (NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency). 

CATM: Full Collaborative Decision Making (105207).

DelegateIOC: 202
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-12 

NARP R&D Goal 2.3 - High Quality Teams and Individuals - The best qualified and trained workforce in the world. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-

2013 Demonstrate increased ANSP TBO: Flexible Airspace Management (108206).

efficiencies through new procedures that allow ANSP personnel to manage and introduce routing, airspace, and traffic mix changes in the four dimensional (position plus time) dynamic air traffic environment (NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency). 

CATM: Manage Airspace as Trajectories (102302).

IndependIMC (033ApproachWind-BasProcedurMitigation (0403, IOSpacing 

2016 Increase efficiency given the need to 

manage multiple airport streams for the terminal phases of flight in large metropolitan areas given a mixedequipage environment (NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency). 

CATM: Full Collaborative Decision Making (105207). Independ

IMC (033ApproachWind-BasProcedurMitigation (0403, IOSpacing 

Activity 2 (continued) 

2016 Redefine the ANSP role 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/Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency). 

N/A Delegate

IOC: 202
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-13 

Figure E-3: Goal 2.3 Linking of FAA NextGen R&D Activities to Far-term Operational Imp
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-14 

NARP R&D Goal 2.4 - Human-centered Design: Aerospace systems that adapt to, compensate for, and augment the performance of the human. NARP R&D Target 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, conairports and for all aircraft. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-

2010 Develop initial taxonomy describing the 

relationship between human pilots/ATC and associated automated systems (NextGen - Air Ground Integration, NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration). 

N/A 

2012 Complete initial research to evaluate and 

recommend pilot-ATC procedures for negotiations and shared decision making NextGen activities (NextGen - Air Ground Integration, NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration). 

TBO: Delegated Responsibility for Separation (102118); NextGen Oceanic Procedures (102136); Tactical Trajectory Management (104121).

HD: Full Surface Traffic Management with Conformance Monitoring (104206).

Activity 1. Define the changes in roles and responsibilities between pilots and controllers and between humans and automation required to implement NextGen. 

2015 Complete research to enable safe and 

effective changes to pilot and ATC roles and responsibilities for NextGen procedures (NextGen - Air Ground Integration, NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration). 

CATM: Full Collaborative Decision Making (105207).

DelegateIOC: 202(0358, IO(0359, IObased Maseparatioassisted T(0369, IOLevel 5 F

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 (NextGen Air Ground Integration). 

Activity 2. Define human and system performance requirements for design and operation of aircraft and air traffic management systems. 

2011 Initiate research to assess pilot 

performance in normal and non-normal NextGen procedures, including single pilot operations (NextGen Air Ground Integration). 

N/A Trajectory

2018) 
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-15 

NARP R&D Goal NARP R&D Goal 2.4 - Human-centered Design: Aerospace systems that adapt to, compensate for, and augment the performance of the human. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-

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). 

Activity 2 (continued) 

2015 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). 

2012 Complete research to develop methods 

to mitigate mode errors in use of NextGen equipment (NextGen - Air Ground Integration, NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration). 

2013 Develop initial guidance on training 

methods to support detection and correction of human errors in near- to mid-term NextGen procedures (NextGen - Air Ground Integration, NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration). 

Activity 3. Develop and apply error management strategies, mitigate risk factors, and reduce automation-related errors. 

2015 Complete research to identify and 

manage the risks posed by new and altered human error modes in the use of NextGen procedures and equipment (NextGen - Air Ground Integration, NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration). 

N/A N/A 
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-16 

NARP R&D Goal 2.4 - Human-centered Design: Aerospace systems that adapt to, compensate for, and augment the performance of the human. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-

TBO: Delegated Responsibility for Separation (102118); NextGen Oceanic Procedures (102136); Tactical Trajectory Management (104121).

2013 Demonstrate the transition of selfseparation responsibility to pilots 

(NextGen - Air Ground Integration, NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Operations Human Factors - Air/Ground Integration). 

HD: Full Surface Traffic Management with Conformance Monitoring (104206).

Activity 4. Conduct incremental and full mission demonstrations to increase the likelihood of successful implementation of research results. 

2015 Functional demonstration – demonstrate 

integrated pilot and controller functional capabilities (NextGen - Air Ground Integration, NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Operations Human Factors - Air/Ground Integration). CATM: Full Collaborative Decision Making (105207).

DelegateIOC: 202(0358, IO(0359, IObased Maseparatioassisted T(0369, IOLevel 5 F
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-17 

Figure E-4: Goal 2.4 Linking of FAA NextGen R&D Activities to Far-term Operational Imp
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-18 

NARP R&D Goal 2.7 - Self-Separation - No accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle operations in the air and on the ground. NARP R&D Target By 2016, develop initial standards and procedures for self-separation. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-t

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 (NextGen - Self Separation). 

2013 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 (NextGen - Self Separation). 

Activity 1. Level 1 - Surface/runway operations awareness. 

2015 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 (NextGen - Self Separation). 

HD: Full Surface Traffic Management with Conformance Monitoring (104206).

Low-VisibNear-Zero2025). 

2011 Complete initial research to evaluate the impact and 

potential risks associated with use of TCAS in NextGen procedures (NextGen - Self Separation). 

TBO: Use Aircraft-provided Intent Data to Improve N/A Conflict Resolution (102122).

2013 Complete research to identify likely human error 

modes and recommend mitigation strategies in closely spaced arrival/departure routings (NextGen - Self Separation). 

Delegated 

Activity 2. Level 2 - Reduced separation 

2015 Complete research and provide human factors 

guidance to reduce arrival and departure spacing including variable separation in a mixed equipage environment (NextGen - Self Separation). 

HD: Use Aircraft-provided Intent Data to Improve Flow and Conflict Resolution (102139).

Delegated IOC: 2025
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-19 

NARP R&D Goal 2.7 - Self-Separation - No accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle operations in the air and on the ground. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-t

2011 Complete research to evaluate and recommend 

procedures, equipage and training to safely conduct oceanic and en route pair-wise delegated separation (NextGen - Self Separation). 

TBO: Reduced Horizontal Separation Standards - 3 Delegated mi. (102117); Delegated Responsibility for Separation (102118); NextGen Oceanic Procedures (102136).

Activity 3. Level 3 - Delegated Separation 

2015 Enable reduced and delegated separation in oceanic 

airspace and high density en route corridors (NextGen - Self Separation). 

CATM: Full Collaborative Decision Making (105207).

Delegated IOC: 2025
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-20 

Figure E-5: Goal 2.7 Linking of FAA NextGen R&D Activities to Far-term Operational Imp
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-21 

NARP R&D Goal 2.8 - Situational Awareness: Common, accurate, and real-time information of aerospace operations, events, crises, obstacles, and weather. NARP R&D Target By 2015, demonstrate common real-time awareness of ongoing air operations, events, crisis, and weather at all types of airports by pilots and controllers. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-te

2010 Develop concepts and requirements 

for the provision, integration, and use of weather information in the cockpit (NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit). 

RWI: Full Operational Weather Capability (103121); Automatic Hazardous Weather Alert Notification (103117); Near-real-time dissemination of weather information to all ground and air users (103120).

2010 Simulate and evaluate available 

cockpit weather technologies (NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit). 

2012 Develop prototype weather technology 

in the cockpit capability (NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit). 

2014 Simulate, test, and evaluate fullyintegrated cockpit use of NextGen 

operational concepts, including WTIC (NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit). 

2015 Demonstrate the integration of 

navigation information and flight information, including weather information, into cockpit decisionmaking and shared situational awareness amongst pilots, dispatchers, and air traffic controllers supported by NextGen air and ground capabilities (NextGen - Weather in the Cockpit). 

Activity 1.2 - Demonstrate weather in the cockpit: Policy and guidance. 

2015 Develop design approval guidance for 

hardware and software standards, archiving weather data, and operational approval of new products and products from non-government vendors (NextGen - Weather in the Cockpit). 

CATM: On Demand NAS Information (103305).

Net-Enabl(2021, IOCInformatio2022). 
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-22 
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-23 

Figure E-6: Goal 2.8 Linking of FAA NextGen R&D Activities to Far-term Operational Imp

NARP R&D Goal 2. 9 - System Knowledge: A thorough understanding of how the aerospace system operates, the impact of change on system performance and risk, and how thNARP R&D Target By 2016 understand economic (including implementation) and operational impact of system alternatives. NARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-t

2009 Evaluate current information protection 

and assurance models and potential conflicts with privacy and consumer advocacy groups (System Safety Management Transformation). 

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 (System Safety Management Transformation). 

Activity 1.1 - 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. 

2013 Complete the Aviation Safety 

Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) pre-implementation activities, including concept definition, with other JPDO member agencies, participants, and stakeholders (System Safety Management Transformation). 

SSE (Safety): Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (FAA Enterprise Architecture).

Increased Scope and 

2011 Develop proof of concept for NextGen 

including a safety management system prototype to implement on a trial basis with selected participants that involve a cross-section of air service providers (System Safety Management Transformation). 

SSE (Safety): Safety Management Systems (FAA Enterprise Architecture).

Activity 2 - Safety Management System: Produce guidelines for developing processes and technologies to implement a safety management system. 

2014 Demonstrate a National Level System 

Safety Assessment capability that will proactively identify emerging risk across the NextGen (System Safety Management Transformation). 

SSE (Safety): Fully Institutionalized National Aviation Safety Policy and Continuous Safety Improvement Culture (FAA Enterprise Architecture).

Improved IOC: 2020
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-24 

NARP R&D Goal 2. 9 - System Knowledge: A thorough understanding of how the aerospace system operates, the impact of change on system performance and risk, and how th

2011 Demonstrate capacity increase to 166% 

current levels (NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling). 

2013 Demonstrate capacity increase to 230% 

current levels (NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling). 

Activity 4 - Develop methods, metrics, and models top demonstrate that the system can handle growth in demand up to 3 times current levels. (In support of Goal 2.1 milestones.) 

2016 Demonstrate capacity increase to 300% 

current levels (NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling). 

Refer to research goals 2.1 "Fast, flexible, and efficient". Refer to re

efficient". 

2009 Demonstrate no environmental 

constraints at 130% capacity (NextGen - Environment and Energy - Validation Modeling). 

2011 Demonstrate no environmental 

constraints at 166% capacity (NextGen - Environment and Energy - Validation Modeling). 

2013 Demonstrate no environmental 

constraints at 230% capacity (NextGen - Environment and Energy - Validation Modeling). 

Activity 5 - 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 3 times current levels. (In support of Goal 2.2 milestones.) 

2016 Demonstrate no environmental 

constraints at 300% capacity (NextGen - Environment and Energy - Validation Modeling). 

Refer to research goals 2.2 "Clean and quiet". Refer to re
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-25 

Figure E-7: Goal 2.9 Linking of FAA NextGen R&D Activities to Far-term Operational Imp
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-26 

NARP R&D Goal 2.10 - World Leadership: A globally recognized leader in aerospace technology, systems, and operations. NARP 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 seamNARP Activity Group Year NARP Milestone NextGen Impl. Plan Solution Set OIs IWP Far-t

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 (NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation). 

SSE (Safety): Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (FAA Enterprise Architecture).

Increased Scope and 

2013 Complete development of ANSP wake separation 

standards that better use aircraft flight characteristics and information concerning surrounding weather conditions. (Wake TurbulenceNG). 

HD: Wake Vortex Incorporated into Flow (102142). Reduce S

(0348, IOCSurface TEfficient M2018); InteTraffic Ma

2015 Demonstrate the integration of navigation information RWI: Full Operational Weather Capability (103121)

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). 

HD: Wake Vortex Incorporated into Flow (102142)

WTMD: WWind ProcTurbulencProcedure

Activity 2. Leverage research results. 

2016 Demonstrate improvement in air navigation service 

provider efficiency (e.g., greater number of aircraft) and effectiveness (e.g., fewer operational errors) through automation and standardization of operation, procedures, and information (NextGen - AIr Traffic Controller/Technical Operations Human Factors - Controller Efficiency). 

TBO: Expanded Conflict Resolution Advisories via Data Communication (104105).

AutomatioLevel 3 (0(0362, IOCProcedureTrajectory2024); TraGate-to-ga

NG The Wake Turbulence Program contains funding for both core research and NextGen research. Those activities noted with the superscript NG indicate thos

those without notation indicate those funded with the core program resources. 
2009 NARP 

June 22, 2009 

E-27 

Figure E-8: Goal 2.10 Linking of FAA NextGen R&D Activities to Far-term Operational Imp


2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-1 

APPENDIX F: Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Acronym Full Term 

0-9 

3-D PAM Three-Dimensional Path Arrival Management 

4-D TBO Four-Dimensional Trajectory Based Operations 

4-DT Four-Dimensional Trajectory 

A 

AAAE American Association for Airport Executives 

AAIADS Aerospace Accident Injury and Autopsy Data System 

AA-IADS Aircraft Accident/Injury and Autopsy Data System 

AAM Office of Aviation Medicine 

AC Advisory Circular 

ACCRI Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative 

ACES Airspace Conflict Evaluation Simulator 

ACF Aeronautical Charting Forum 

ACI Airports Council International 

ACI-NA Airports Council International - North America 

ACO Aircraft Certification Office 

ACOSM Air Carrier Operations Systems Model 

ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program 

ADDS Aviation Digital Data Service 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast 

AEC Aviation Emissions Characterization 

AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool 

AEH Airborne Electronic Hardware 

AGHME Aircraft Geometric Height Measurement Element 

AI Aeronautical Information 

AIA Aerospace Industries Association 

AIDL Aircraft Intent Description Language 

AIM Airspace and Aeronautical Information Management 

AIM Aviation Integrated Modeling 

AIM Aeronautical Information Management 

AIP Airport Improvement Program 

AIR American Institute for Research 

AIRE Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduced Emissions 

AIXM Aeronautical Information Exchange Model 

AMC Aerospace Medical Certification 

AME Aviation Medical Examiner 

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider 
2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-2 

Acronym Full Term 

ANT Automated NextGen Tower 

AOC Aircraft/Airline Operations Center 

AOC Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Oversight Program 

APEX Aircraft Particle Emission eXperiment 

APMT Aviation Portfolio Management Tool 

APU Auxiliary Power Unit 

AQP Advanced Qualification Program 

ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 

ARP Aerospace Recommended Practice 

ARTS Automated Radar Terminal System 

ASAP Aviation Safety Action Program 

ASDE-X Airport Surface Detection System – Model X 

ASEB Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board 

ASIAS Aviation Safety Information and Analysis Sharing 

ASPIRE Asia and South Pacific Initiative to Reduce Emissions 

ASR Alkali-Silica Reactive 

ASR Airport Surface Radar 

ASRS Aviation Safety Reporting System 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

ATA Air Transport Association 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

ATCOV Air Traffic Color Vision Test 

ATCT Air Traffic Control Tower 

ATD Anthropomorphic Test Device 

ATD&P Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping 

ATM Air Traffic Management 

ATMP Air Tour Management Plan 

ATO Air Traffic Organization 

ATOP Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures 

ATO-P Air Traffic Organization - NextGen and Operations Planning 

ATP Airline Transport Pilots 

AT-SAT Air Traffic Selection and Training 

ATSP Air Traffic Service Provider 

avgas Aviation Gasoline 

AVS Office of Aviation Safety 

AVSI Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute 

 
2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-3 

Acronym Full Term 

B 

BA Big Airspace 

BA/C Big Airspace/Collocated Condition 

BA/N Big Airspace/Non-collocated Condition 

BOMV Buffer Oriented Micro-architectural Validation 

C 

C3 Control, Command, and Communication 

CAAFI Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative 

CAASD Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 

CAEP Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

CAMI Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

CANSO Civil Air Navigation Services Organization 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CAST Certification Authorities Software Team 

CAST Commercial Aviation Safety Team 

CATM Collaborative Air Traffic Management 

CAVS-S Cockpit Display of Traffic Information Assisted Visual Separation 

CC Continuous Commissioning 

CC5 Construction Cycle Five 

CCSP Climate Change Science Program 

CDA Continuous Descent Approach/Arrival 

CDC Centers for Disease Control 

CDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic Information 

CEH Complex Electronic Hardware 

CFIT Controlled Flight Into Terrain 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CHI Computer Human Interface 

CIP Capital Investment Plan 

CIP Current Icing Product 

CLEEN Continuous Low Energy, Emissions and Noise 

CLEQ CAMI Life Experiences Questionnaire 

CNS Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

COA Certificate of Authorization 

CoE Center of Excellence 

COMSTAC Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 

ConOps Concept of operations (or operational concept) 

CONUS Continental United States 
2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-4 

Acronym Full Term 

CoSPA Consolidated Storm Product for Aviation 

COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf 

CRC The Coordinating Research Council 

CRD Concept and Requirements Definition 

CRDA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 

D 

DARWIN Design Assessment of Reliability With INspection 

DataComm Data Communications 

DESIREE Distributed Environment for Simulation, Rapid Engineering, and 

Experimentation 

DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Texas 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DIWS Digital Imaging and Workflow System 

DNL Day-Night-Level 

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

DPE Designated pilot examiner 

D-RVSM Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum 

DSA Detect, Sense and Avoid 

DSR Display System Replacement 

E 

EA Enterprise Architecture 

EDA En Route Descent Advisor 

EDS Environment Design System 

EDMS Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System 

EDS Environmental Design Space 

EFB Electronic Flight Bag 

EFG Economic and Financial Group 

EFVS Enhanced Flight Vision Systems 

E-IPT Environmental Integrated Product Team (now EWG) 

ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle 

EMAS Engineered Materials Arresting System 

EMS Environmental Management System 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERAM En Route Automation Modernization 

ERDC US Army Engineer Research and Development Center 

ETBE Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 

EUROCONTROL European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation 
2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-5 

Acronym Full Term 

EVS Enhanced Vision System 

EWG Environmental Working Group 

EWIS Electric Wiring Interconnect Systems 

F 

F&E Facilities and Equipment 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FAARFIELD FAA Rigid and Flexible Iterative Elastic Layered Design 

FACT Future Airport Capacity Task 

FAROS Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal 

FASTGEN Fast Shot-Line Generator 

FASTTM Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool 

FEA Federal Enterprise Architecture 

FEWS Future En Route Workstation 

FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Center 

FFS Full fight simulator 

FICAN Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise 

FICON Field Condition 

FMC Flight Management Computer 

FMS Flight Management System 

FOD Foreign Object Debris 

FOQA Flight Operations Quality Assurance 

FPT Flourescent Penetrant Inspection 

FRM Flammability Reduction Means 

FSS Flight Service Specialists 

FSIMS Flight Standards Information Management System 

FSW Friction stir welded 

F-T Fischer-Tropsch 

FTWS Future Terminal Workstation 

FY Fiscal Year 

G 

GA General Aviation 

GAO U.S. Government Accounting Office 

GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

GIAA Airport Improvement Program 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

GPS Global Positioning System 

H 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 
2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-6 

Acronym Full Term 

HCAS Hazard Categorization and Analysis System 

HCFC Hydrochloroflourocarbon 

HCS Host Computer System 

HDA High Density Airport 

HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air 

HERSA Human Error Safety Risk Assessment 

HFACS Human Factors Analysis and Classification System 

HFC Hydroflourocarbon 

HFDS Human Factors Design Standard 

HFIX Human Factors Intervention Matrix 

HITL Human in the Loop 

HRET High Reach Extendable Turret 

HUMS Health and Usage Monitoring Systems 

I 

I&I Integration and Implementation 

IA Interagency Agreement 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

ICCAIA International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries 

iCMM® Integrated Capability Maturity Model 

IDRP Integrated Departure Route Planner 

IFR Instrument Flight Rules 

ILS Instrument Landing System 

IMA Integrated Modular Avionics 

IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions 

INM Integrated Noise Model 

IOSA International Air Transport Association Operational Safety Audit 

IPRF Innovative Pavement Research Foundation 

IRB Investment Review Board 

ITS Intelligent Training Systems 

IWP JPDO Next Generation Air Transportation Systems Integrated Work 

Plan: A Functional Outline 

J 

JAMS The Joint Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials and 

Structures 

JFK John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York 

JPDO Joint Planning and Development Office 

JPE Joint Planning Environment 

JRC Joint Resources Council 
2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-7 

Acronym Full Term 

L 

LCGS Low-Cost Ground Surveillance 

LCSS Low-Cost Surface Surveillance 

LED Layered Elastic Design 

LED Light emitting diode 

LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging 

LOSA Line Operations Safety Audit 

LTO Landing and Takeoff Cycle 

LWE Liquid Water Equivalent 

M 

M&S Merging and Spacing 

MAF Microprocessor Approval framework 

MAF Microprocessor Approval Framework 

MAGENTA Modeling System for Assessing Global Noise Exposure 

MIA Minimum Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Altitude 

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

MMIR Maintenance Malfunction Information Reporting 

MMPDS Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization 

MMPI Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MoC Memorandum of Cooperation 

MON Motor octane numbers 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

MPS Minimum performance standard 

MVA Minimum Vector Altitude 

N 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

NAPA National Academy of Public Administration 

NAPTF National Airport Pavement Test Facility 

NARP National Aviation Research Plan 

NAS National Airspace System 

NASA U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials 

NAT North Atlantic 

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

NATPRO National Air Traffic Professionalism Program 

NAWC Naval Air Warfare Center 
2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-8 

Acronym Full Term 

NCP National Airspace System Change Proposal 

NDI Nondestructive Inspection 

NEIS Net Enabled Information Sharing 

NEO Net Enabled Operations 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System 

Nextor National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research 

NGIP NextGen Implementation Plan 

NGL NextGen Laboratory Team 

NLA New Large Aircraft 

NOSS Normal Operations Safety Survey 

NOTAM Notice to Airmen 

NOX Nitrogen Oxide 

NPARDRI National Plan for Aeronautics Research and Development and 

Related Infrastructure 

NRC National Research Council 

NSS NAS Strategy Simulator 

NT NextGen Towers 

NTDA NEXRAD Turbulence Detection Algorithm 

NTSB U.S. National Transportation Safety Board 

NWEC NextGen Weather Evaluation Capability 

NWS National Weather Service 

O 

OAM Office of Aerospace Medicine (FAA) 

OBIGGS Onboard inert gas generation system 

OCS Obstruction Clearance Surface 

OE Operational Error 

OEP Operational Evolution Partnership 

OI Operational Improvement 

OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

OOT Object-Oriented Technology 

OPD Optimized Profile Descent 

Ops Operations 

OSED Operational Suitability and Environmental Description/Operational 

Services and Environment Description 

OST Office of Science & Technology Policy 

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy 

P 

PAM Path Arrival Management 
2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-9 

Acronym Full Term 

PAPI Precision Approach Path Indicator 

PAPR Powered Air Purifying Respirator 

PARC Performance-Based Operations Aviation Rule-Making Committee 

PARTNER Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction 

PATM Performace-based Air Traffic Management 

PBPK Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic 

PCPSI Pilot-Controller Procedures and Systems Integration 

PDARS Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System 

PDP Pavement Deicing Product 

PEPC Pre-Employment Processing Center 

PF Personality Factor 

PHA Preliminary Hazards Assessment 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PITT Propulsion Indications Task Team 

PM Particulate Matter 

PV Performance verification 

PVT Psychomotor Vigilance Task 

R 

R&D Research and Development 

R,E&D Research, Engineering and Development 

RDHFL Research Development & Human Factors Laboratory 

REB FAA R&D Executive Board 

REDAC Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

REL Runway Entrance Light 

RF Radius-To-Fix 

RIL Runway Intersection Light 

RIRP Runway Incursion Reduction Program 

RITA U.S. Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

RITE Research in the Intermodal Transportation Environment 

RMA Regional Airline Association 

RNAV Required Area Navigation 

RNP Required Navigation Performance 

RPI Relative Position Indicator 

RSA Runway Safety Area 

RTCA Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (f.k.a.) 

RWI Reduce Weather Impact 

RWSL Runway Status Light 
2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-10 

Acronym Full Term 

S 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

SAGE System for Assessing Aviation Global Emissions 

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research 

SBS Surveillance and Broadcast Services 

SCPI System Capacity, Planning and Improvement 

SDAT Sector Design and Analysis Tool 

SDP Service Delivery Point 

SEMP Systems Engineering Management Plan 

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research 

SFO San Francisco International Airport 

SIS Scientific Information System 

SLD Supercooled Large Droplet 

SME Subject matter expert 

SMP Strategic Management Process 

SMS Safety Management System 

SNT Staffed NextGen tower 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SOAP Sustained Operations Assessment Profile 

SoC System on a Chip 

SPK Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene 

SRMP Sustainable Range Management Plans 

SSO Spatial Standard Observer 

SSS Stanford Sleepiness Scale 

STARS Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System 

STL St. Loius International Airport 

SUA Special Use Airspace 

SVS Synthetic Vision Systems 

SVS Synthetic Vision System 

SwRI Southwest Research Institute 

T 

TA Tailored Arrival 

TARGETS Terminal Area Route Generation, Evaluation, and Traffic Simulation 

TAWS Terrain awareness and warning system 

TBO Trajectory Based Operations 

TCAS Traffic Collision and Avoidance System 

TCP Tricresyl Phosphate 

TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program 
2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-11 

Acronym Full Term 

TERPS Terminal Instrumentation Procedures 

TFM Traffic flow management 

TGF Target Generator Facility 

ThermaKin Thermal-Kinetic Burning Model 

THL Takeoff Hold Light 

TMA Traffic Management Advisor 

TMI Traffic Management Initiative 

TMM Testing Maturity Model 

TO Technical Operations 

TOD Top Of Descent 

TODDS Tower Operations Digital Data System 

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control 

TRB U.S. Transportation Research Board 

TRL Technology Readiness Level 

TSO Technical Standard Order 

U 

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System 

UCF University of Central Florida 

UEDDAM Uncontained Engine Debris Damage Assessment Model 

UI User Interfaces 

USAF U.S. Air Force 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

V 

VAS Visual analogue mood scale 

VDRP Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

VHP Vapor Hydrogen Peroxide 

VHP Vaporized hydrogen peroxide 

VLJ Very Light Jet 

VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions 

VRR Voice Recognition and Response 

W 

WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System 

WAFS World Area Forecast Services 

Wake Re-Cat Wake Turbulence -- Re-Categorization Project 

WBAT Web Based Application Tool 

WJHTC William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility 

WRF Weather Research and Forecast 
2009 NARP Appendix F 

June 22, 2009 

F-12 

Acronym Full Term 

WTIC Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

WTMA Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Arrivals 

WTMD Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures