2012 NARP 

March 2012 

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

the United States Congress pursuant to Section 44501(c) of Title 49 of the United States Code. 

The NARP is available on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/go/narp. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

Table Of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ii 

Preface ............................................................................................................................................iv 

1.0 National Airspace System ...................................................................................................1 

1.1 Mission...........................................................................................................................1 

1.2 Vision .............................................................................................................................1 

1.3 National Goals ...............................................................................................................2 

1.4 NextGen Mandate ..........................................................................................................2 

1.5 Planning Documents ......................................................................................................2 

1.6 Research and Development ...........................................................................................4 

2.0 Research and Development Goals ......................................................................................9 

2.1 R&D Goal 1 - Fast, Flexible and Efficient ..................................................................12 

2.2 R&D Goal 2 - Clean and Quiet....................................................................................18 

2.3 R&D Goal 3 - High Quality Teams and Individuals ....................................................26 

2.4 R&D Goal 4 - Human-Centered Design......................................................................32 

2.5 R&D Goal 5 - Human Protection.................................................................................40 

2.6 R&D Goal 6 - Safe Aerospace Vehicles .......................................................................50 

2.7 R&D Goal 7 - Separation Assurance ...........................................................................58 

2.8 R&D Goal 8 - Situational Awareness ..........................................................................62 

2.9 R&D Goal 9 - System Knowledge...............................................................................68 

2.10 R&D Goal 10 - World Leadership ...............................................................................78 

3.0 Alignment with NextGen ..................................................................................................85 

3.1 NextGen Solution Sets.................................................................................................85 

3.2 FAA NextGen R&D Portfolio ......................................................................................86 

4.0 Research Business Management.......................................................................................93 

4.1 Sponsors.......................................................................................................................93 

4.2 Programs ......................................................................................................................93 

4.3 Budget..........................................................................................................................99 

4.4 Partnerships................................................................................................................104 

4.5 Evaluation ..................................................................................................................108 

Acronyms and Abbreviations.......................................................................................................110 

Appendices (separate document) 

A. Program Descriptions 

B. Partnership Activities 

C. Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

D. NARP Milestone Status 

E. Appendices Acronyms and Abbreviations 

FY 2011 R&D Annual Review (separate document) 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

Executive Summary Aviation is a vital resource for the United States. It provides opportunities for business, job creation, economic 

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

communities and opens up new domestic and international markets and supply chains. As a result, the United States 

needs a system that leads the global aviation community and responds quickly to changing and expanding 

transportation needs. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) supports this system through the introduction of 

new technologies and procedures, innovative policies, and advanced management practices. 

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

development (R&D) investments are well managed, deliver results, and sufficiently address national priorities. The 

NARP integrates the FAA R&D programs into a portfolio that addresses the near-, mid-, and far-term research needs 

of the aviation community. The NARP uses R&D goals and performance targets to bridge the strategic visions laid 

out in the former Flight Plan and the new Destination 20251 to the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

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

the FAA to address the current challenges of operating the safest, most efficient air transportation system in the world 

while building a foundation for the future system in an environmentally sound manner. 

The NARP includes ten R&D goals with corresponding targets for 2016 that represent a mid-point between the initial 

R&D plan established in 2006 and the future system envisioned for 2025. The R&D targets for 2016 remain 

ambitious, and they challenge and encourage researchers to innovate, take risks, and seek non-traditional solutions. 

This year, the NARP begins shifting the alignment of FAA R&D goals and corresponding performance targets from 

the former Flight Plan, to the strategic goals, outcomes, and performance metrics set forth in Destination 2025. 

Alignment of the FAA’s R&D strategies to Destination 2025 is expected to be completed next year in 2013. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2013, the FAA plans to invest a total of $323,188,000 in R&D. The R&D investment spans 

multiple appropriations for the FAA, including $180,000,000 in Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D); 

$97,888,000 in Facilities and Equipment (F&E); $44,300,000 in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP); and 

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

1 Effective August 25, 2011, Destination 2025 replaced the Flight Plan as the FAA’s strategic plan. 

Executive Summary ii 
2012 NARP 

iii Executive Summary 
 

 

 

2012 NARP 

Preface Section 44501(c) of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. § 44501(c)) requires the Administrator of the FAA 

to submit the NARP to Congress annually with the President’s Budget. The NARP includes both applied research 

and development as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-112 and involves activities 

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

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

operations, to include aircraft safety, airports, commercial space transportation, environment and energy, and human 

factors. The NARP shows how these research elements work together and support the near-, mid-, and far-term 

research needs of the aviation community. The NARP defines ten R&D goals with performance targets and interim 

milestones, creating a multi-year plan that integrates program efforts and measures progress toward achieving these 

goals. In previous years, the NARP illustrated the alignment of the FAA R&D portfolio with the goals, objectives, 

and performance targets in both the Flight Plan and the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) NextGen 

Integrated Plan3. For 2012, the NARP will begin transitioning the alignment of the FAA’s R&D portfolio goals from 

the Flight Plan to the new long-term vision recently set forth by the FAAAdministrator in Destination 2025. 

The 2012 NARP shows how the FAA R&D programs are achieving milestones that originally appeared in the 2006 

NARP. Progress of research in 2011 is described and shows how the FAA R&D programs are progressing toward 

achieving 2016 R&D targets. 

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

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

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

Chapter 2 maps the R&D programs planned for FY 2013 to the current FAA R&D goals. It provides a description of 

each R&D target, method of validation, and funding requirements for each R&D goal. Milestones for each program 

are identified and provide measures of interim progress toward achieving the R&D target. In addition, significant 

progress items achieved in 2011 are presented for each R&D goal. 

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

Sets and Operational Improvements of the NextGen Implementation Plan. The FAA R&D programs that support 

NextGen research are a subset of the R&D portfolio and budget. 

Chapter 4 provides a summary of each R&D program; the five-year budget plan; partnership activities with other 

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

and budget according to the President’s budget submission for FY 2013. 

Appendices are included in a separate volume from the main body of the 2012 NARP. 

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

planned activities and accomplishments, and criteria for success. 

2 OMB Circular A-11, “Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget,” August 18, 2011, section 84, pages 11-12 

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

3 Joint Planning and Development Office, Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan, December 12, 2004 

(www.jpdo.gov). 

Preface iv 
2012 NARP 

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

organizations. It lists information for FY 2011, including active agreements with other government agencies, 

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

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

listed according to the reports produced by the committee in FY 2011. The FAA response to each recommendation is 

included. This appendix supports the evaluation section of Chapter 4. 

Appendix D reports the status of all milestones in Chapter 2 of the 2012 NARP. To ensure complete transparency and 

to maintain continuity with previous editions of the NARP, this appendix notes any changes in the milestones aligned 

with the ten R&D goals. 

Appendix E provides a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the 2012 NARP appendices. 

The R&D Annual Review is a NARP companion document which is also prepared by the FAA to submit to Congress 

with the President’s Budget Request pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 44501(c)(3). The R&D Annual Review describes 

research completed during FY 2011, including the dissemination of research results and a description of any new 

technologies developed. It aligns the accomplishments with the ten R&D goals presented in Chapter 2 of the NARP 

and the programs described in Appendix A. 

v Preface 
Chapter One 

National Airspace System 
 

 

 

2012 NARP 

Aviation is a vital resource for the United States (U.S.) because of its strategic, economic, and social importance. The 

aviation industry provides opportunities for business, job creation, economic development, law enforcement, 

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

domestic and international markets and supply chains. 

To maximize these opportunities, the U.S. must not only maintain, but also continue to improve upon the NAS so that 

it remains responsive to rapidly changing and expanding transportation needs while ensuring the highest level of 

safety. Increased mobility, higher productivity, reduced environmental impact, and greater efficiency are possible 

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

practices. Collaborative, needs-driven R&D is central to this process, because it enables the U.S. 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 FAA’s mission is to provide the safest and most efficient aerospace system in the world. The NAS provides a 

service: it facilitates the movement of anyone and anything (e.g., people, goods, aerospace vehicles) through the 

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

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

defense, emergency response, surveillance, research). 

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

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

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

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

aircrews, air traffic controllers, system technicians, and ground personnel). Because the role and interaction of these 

elements determine the nature and performance of the system, it is important to consider all elements simultaneously 

in system design, development, and operation. 

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

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

The public plays a significant role by paying taxes and fees that contribute to regulation of the aviation industry; 

support the development, maintenance, and operation of the air traffic management system; and provide for airport 

security and other public aviation services. 

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. Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Commerce (DOC), FAA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), and the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), is 

“A transformed aviation system that allows all communities to participate in the global marketplace, provides services 

tailored to individual customer needs, and accommodates seamless civil and military operations.”4 

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

Enhancing Economic Growth,” November 25, 2003. 

1 Chapter 1 
 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

The air transportation system must accommodate an increasing number and variety of aerospace vehicles (e.g., 

unmanned aircraft systems, very light jets), a broader range of air and space operations (e.g., point-to-point, space 

launch, and re-entry), and a variety of business models (e.g., air taxis, regional jets). It will do this across all airspace, 

at all airports, space launch and re-entry sites, and in all weather conditions, while simultaneously improving system 

performance and ensuring safety and security. 

National Goals 

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

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

substantially to continued economic prosperity, national security, and a higher standard of living for all Americans in 

the 21st century. These national goals are: 

• Enhancing economic growth and creating jobs 

• Expanding system flexibility and delivering capacity to accommodate future demand • Tailoring services to customer needs 

• Integrating capabilities to ensure our national defense • Promoting aviation safety and environmental stewardship 

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

NextGen Mandate 

Enacted in 2003 under Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act5, the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen) is the ongoing transformation of the NAS to advance growth and increase safety 

while reducing aviation’s environmental impact. It represents an evolution from a ground-based system of air traffic 

control to a satellite-based system of air traffic management. This transformation is being realized through the 

development of aviation-specific applications for existing, widely-used technologies, such as the Global Positioning 

System, and technological innovation in areas such as weather forecasting, data networking, and digital 

communications. In conjunction with innovative technologies is new airport infrastructure and new procedures, 

including the shift of certain decision-making responsibility from the ground to the cockpit6

. 

To oversee planning and manage the partnerships designed to bring NextGen online, Congress created the Joint 

Planning and Development Office (JPDO). The JPDO is comprised of representatives from DoD, DOT, DHS, DOC, 

FAA, NASA, OSTP, as well as members from private-sector organizations and academia7. 

Planning Documents 

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

requirements to address the day-to-day safety and capacity issues of the NAS. The FAA has aligned its existing plans 

to achieve a balance between near-term goals and NextGen by working with other agencies to plan and refine the farterm goals for NextGen. This section explains how the FAA and JPDO plans and goals are connected and how the 

5 Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-176, December 12, 2003. 

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

7 http://www.jpdo.gov/ 

Chapter 1 2 
 

 

2012 NARP 

FAA R&D portfolio supports the larger planning effort by providing research to balance the near-, mid-, and far-term 

needs of the aviation community. 

Destination 2025 

On August 25, 2011, Destination 2025 replaced the Flight Plan as the FAA’s strategic plan. Destination 2025 

provides a long-term strategic vision for the FAA, outlined across five key goal areas, capturing the anticipated 

transformation for the future of the NAS. While the document establishes a firm benchmark for the FAA to achieve 

NextGen related goals by 2025, it also sets clear performance metrics until 2018 and uses this date as an accessible 

midpoint for evaluating progress toward arriving at the longer-term 2025 destinations. The goals in Destination 

2025 are: 

• Move to the Next Level of Safety • Create Our Workplace of the Future 

• Deliver Aviation Access through Innovation 

• Sustain Our Future • Advance Global Collaboration 

For more information, see http://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/media/Destination2025.pdf. 

Joint Planning and Development Office Plans 

The JPDO supports the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and reports to its Senior Policy Committee, chaired 

by the Secretary of Transportation. In 2004, working with industry and academia, the JPDO published the NextGen 

Integrated Plan, establishing the far-term system goals and objectives for NextGen in 2025. Subsequently, JPDO 

produced the NextGen Concept of Operations and NextGen Integrated Work Plan. The JPDO plans address the 

efforts of all NextGen participants, including the FAA, in the far-term. For more information, see http:// 

www.jpdo.gov/. 

FAA Enterprise Architecture 

The FAA Enterprise Architecture (EA) has three components: NAS Regulatory EA, Non-NAS EA, and NAS EA. 

The NAS Regulatory EA includes systems and operational changes for NAS policy, certification, environment 

regulation, and safety management. The Non-NAS EA includes IT investments and operational changes for agency 

business processes such as strategic and financial planning. The NAS EA contains systems and operational changes 

for the command and control of the NAS. The NAS EA provides a set of technical roadmaps describing how the 

current NAS will transition to NextGen, including the near-, mid-, and far-term target architectures and the transition 

strategies to achieve these architectures. It contains milestones for planning purposes but it is not used as a tool for 

managing NextGen implementation. For more information on the NAS EA, see https://nasea.faa.gov/. 

NAS Capital Investment Plan 

The FAA NAS Capital Investment Plan for Fiscal Years 2013-2017 (CIP) describes the planned investments in the 

NAS over the next five years for each budget line item in the facilities and equipment (F&E) appropriation. The CIP 

is similar to the NARP in that the FAA submits both to Congress at the same time as the President’s Budget. 

However, the CIP includes only FAA F&E programs, whereas the NARP addresses the entire FAA R&D portfolio. 

Both documents present the F&E-funded programs in the FAA R&D portfolio. The CIP addresses all near- and midterm FAA programs funded by the F&E appropriation, ties directly to Destination 2025 goals and outcomes, 

identifies the NextGen investments funded by the F&E appropriation, and provides the NAS EA roadmaps. The CIP 

3 Chapter 1 
 

2012 NARP 

also supports the NAS modernization effort depicted in the NAS EA. For more information, 

see http://go.usa.gov/aXa/. 

NextGen Implementation Plan 

The NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP) is the FAA’s primary outreach document for updating the aviation 

community, Congress, the flying public, and other NextGen stakeholders on progress, while providing a summary 

overview of plans for the future. The NGIP, particularly the appendices, provides operators and airports with 

necessary information for NextGen deployments. The NGIP further offers partners in the international aviation 

community a summary of planning timelines in support of the agency’s global harmonization efforts. The NGIP, 

which is updated annually, draws upon and informs a number of FAA planning documents, including the NAS EA, 

CIP, and Destination 2025. Chapter 3 of the NARP provides a summary of the NGIP and the seven solutions 

contained therein. For more information, see http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/. 

National Aviation Research Plan 

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

programs, and identifies investments planned for the next five years in four FAA appropriation accounts. The NARP 

is an integrated, performance-based R&D plan with goals and performance targets that support Destination 2025, the 

NGIP, and the NextGen Integrated Plan. The R&D goals reflect the broad spectrum of the FAA R&D portfolio, 

including aircraft safety, airports, commercial space technology, environment and energy, weather, human factors, and 

wake turbulence. For more information, see http://www.faa.gov/go/narp/. 

Research and Development 

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

modernization of the NAS. It conducts applied research and development as defined by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11. The definition of applied research is systematic study to gain knowledge or 

understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met. The definition 

of development is systematic application of knowledge or understanding directed toward production of useful 

materials, devices, and systems or methods, including design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new 

processes to meet specific requirements.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. 

Vision and Values 

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

research and development. 

8 OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget, August 18, 2011, section 84, pages 11-12 

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

Chapter 1 4 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

The FAA has defined five R&D organizational values to enable it to better manage its programs and achieve its farterm R&D vision. These are: 

•	 Goal driven - Achieve the mission. The FAA uses R&D as a primary enabler to accomplish its goals and 

objectives. 

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

performance of the aviation system. 

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

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

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

aviation capabilities and create new ways of doing business to accelerate the introduction of R&D results into 

new and better aviation products and services. 

•	 Customer focused - Deliver results. The FAA R&D program delivers quality products and services to the 

customer quickly and affordably. 

By aggressively promoting these values, the FAA will generate the maximum benefit from its R&D resources to help 

achieve the national vision of a transformed aviation system. 

Goals 

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

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

integrate its programs. 

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

the goals and performance targets of the Flight Plan and NextGen Integrated Plan connect and how the strengths of 

the FAA R&D portfolio might help achieve the goals of these two plans. Since Destination 2025 has replaced the 

Flight Plan as the FAA’s strategic plan, the R&D goals and performance targets will be re-examined to support the 

transformation of the Nation’s aviation system by 2025. Updated R&D goals and performance targets that are fully 

aligned with the performance metrics of Destination 2025 will appear in the 2013 NARP. 

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

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

challenge researcher sponsors and performers to think far-term and achieve future breakthroughs. The R&D goals 

are: 

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

anytime on schedules that meet customer needs 

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

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

•	 Human-Centered Design – aerospace systems that adapt to, compensate for, and augment the performance 

of the human 

•	 Human Protection – a reduction in fatalities, injuries, and adverse health impacts due to aerospace 

operations 

5	 Chapter 1 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP 

•	 Safe Aerospace Vehicles – a reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle design, structure, 

and subsystems 

•	 Separation Assurance – a reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle operations in the air 

and on the ground 

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

crises, obstacles, and weather 

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

on system performance and risk, and how the system impacts the nation 

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

Table 1.1 shows the primary relationship among the former Flight Plan goals, Destination 2025 goals, FAA R&D 

goals, and the far-term goals identified in the NextGen Integrated Plan. Each FAA R&D goal aligns with a 

Destination 2025 goal. 

Table 1.1: Alignment of Goals 

Former Flight Plan 

Goals Destination 2025 Goals NextGen Integrated Plan Goals 

FAA R&D 

Goals 

• Greater Capacity Greater Capacity 

• Deliver Aviation Access 

through Innovation • Expand Capacity • Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

• Sustain Our Future • Protect the Environment • Clean and Quiet 

• Increased Safety • Move to the Next Level of 

Safety • Ensure Safety 

• Human-Centered Design 

• Human Protection 

• Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

• Separation Assurance 

• Situational Awareness 

• System Knowledge

 -- --

• Secure the Nation 

• Ensure our National 

Defense

 --

• International 

Leadership 

• Advance Global 

Collaboration 

• Retain U.S. Leadership in 

Global Aviation • World Leadership 

• Organizational 

Excellence 

• Create Our Workplace of 

the Future -- • High Quality Teams and Individuals 

Chapter 1	 6 
 

 

2012 NARP

7 Chapter 1
Development Goals

Chapter Two 

Research and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

The research and development (R&D) goals help the FAA align, plan, and evaluate its R&D portfolio. 

This chapter maps the R&D programs in FY 2013 to the current FAA R&D goals. It defines each R&D goal, 

identifies the corresponding R&D target, describes the method of validation, and identifies the funding 

requirements for each R&D goal. Milestones of each program are presented by R&D goal and significant 

progress achieved in 2011 is highlighted. 

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

used to meet those needs. The R&D targets are qualitative in nature and derived from guidance set forth in the 

Joint Planning and Development Office’s (JPDO) Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) 

Integrated Plan, NextGen Implementation Plan, and Destination 2025. 

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

for the year 2016 to help measure progress toward the R&D goal and a description of the methods (e.g., 

modeling, simulation, demonstration, initial standards) that will be used to validate the target. Financial tables 

are presented for each R&D goal that show the current enacted year (FY 2012) and request year (FY 2013) 

funding requirements for each program. This is followed by some of the milestones needed to reach the R&D 

goals. Most of the milestones represent detailed steps toward achieving each R&D target and are annotated 

with checkmarks if completed. Following the milestones are progress items that describe the significant results 

achieved in 2011 towards achieving each R&D goal. 

The status of each of these milestones in this chapter is listed in Appendix D. The appendix notes any changes 

in the milestones from last year to provide the reader complete transparency and maintain continuity with 

previous editions of the NARP. 

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

with the R&D goal. The intent is to identify clear responsibilities so that each program focuses on a specific, 

limited number of R&D goals. 

9 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

Table 2.1: Map of R&D Programs in 2013 to R&D Goals 

Chapter 2 

R&D Programs 

Shaded boxes indicate program funding supports the R&D Goal. Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 

Fast, 

Flexible, 

and Efficient 

Clean and 

Quiet 

High 

Quality 

Teams and 

Individuals 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety A11.c 

Aeromedical Research A11.j 

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors A11.i 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research A11.f 

Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety A11.d 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Capacity --

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Environment --

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Safety --

Airport Technology Research Program - Capacity --

Airport Technology Research Program - Environment --

Airport Technology Research Program - Safety --

Airspace Management Program 1A01D 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) 4A08A 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety --

Continued Airworthiness A11.e 

Environment and Energy A13.a 

Fire Research and Safety A11.a 

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

Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) A12.a Coordinate Coordinate 

NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors A12.c 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) 1A08A 

NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation A11.m 

NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management Systems 

and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction 1A08E 

NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics A13.b 

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 1A08B 

NextGen - Operational Assessments 1A08H Coordinate 

NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling 1A08C 

NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors A12.d 

NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers 1A08D 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 1A08G 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence A12.b 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization 1A08F 

NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit A12.e 

Operations Concept Validation 1A01C Coordinate 

Propulsion and Fuel Systems A11.b 

Runway Incursion Reduction 1A01A 

System Capacity, Planning and Improvement 1A01B 

System Planning and Resource Management A14.a 

System Safety Management A11.h 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research A11.l 

Weather Program A11.k 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility A14.b 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.1 (continued) 

2012 NARP 

Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Goal 9 Goal 10 

HumanCentered 

Design 

Coordinate

Coordinate

Coordinate

Human 

Protection 

Safe 

Aerospace 

Vehicles 

Separation 

Assurance 

Situational 

Awareness 

System 

Knowledge 

World 

Leadership 

Coordinate A11.c

Coordinate A11.j

Coordinate Coordinate A11.i

A11.f

A11.d

--

Coordinate --

Coordinate --

--

--

--

1A01D

4A08A

Coordinate Coordinate --

A11.e

Coordinate A13.a

Coordinate A11.a

Coordinate Coordinate A11.g

Coordinate Coordinate A12.a

A12.c

Coordinate 1A08A

A11.m

1A08E

Coordinate A13.b

Coordinate

Coordinate

Coordinate

Coordinate

Coordinate Coordinate 1A08B

1A08H

1A08C

Coordinate A12.d

1A08D

Coordinate 1A08G

Coordinate A12.b

Coordinate Coordinate 1A08F

Coordinate A12.e

1A01C

A11.b

1A01A

1A01B

A14.a

A11.h

A11.l

A11.k

A14.b

11 Chapter 2 
R&D Goal 1 

Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

A system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, 

anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs 
.

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that the modernized system can handle anticipated growth in traffic demand and reduce 

gate-to-gate transit time. 

Method of Validation9 

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

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

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

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

assessment of progress and validation of this target. 

Funding Requirements - R&D Goal 1 

Funding levels are listed for the current enacted (2012) and requested year (2013). Programs with zero funding listed support this goal 

with FAA staff resources only. 

1,604 

3,500 

10,674 

26,444 

2,456 

9,020 

1,650 

12,025 

7,770 

8,400 

10,350 

370 

22,000 

1,500 

8,096 

1,650 

12,507 

A11.k Weather Program 

(50% of program) 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 

(70% of program) 

A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence 

(100% of program) 

A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory

 Facility 

(10% of program) 

1A01C Operations Concept Validation 

1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management

 Requirements 

(100% of program) 

1A08F NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization 

(100% of program) 

4A08A Center for Advanced Aviation System

 Development (CAASD)

 (45% of R&D program in FY 2012) 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Capacity 

(33% of program) 

Airport Technology Research Program - Capacity 

(100% of program) 

2012 Enacted ($000) 2013 Request ($000) 

Coordination Only 

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

planned, it is possible to handle a significant increase in system capacity and is purposely aggressive, as R&D goals should be

stretch goals. 

13 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP 

Milestones 

NextGen Demonstrations 

Develop and demonstrate NextGen

technologies and concepts. 

Demonstrate Super-Density Operations. 

(NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure

Development10) 

2009: Demonstrate the addition of 

convective weather (current and 

forecast) into Traffic Management 

Advisor routing to increase throughput 

and efficiency for large, super density 

airports. 

Demonstrate Trajectory-Based Operations. 

(NextGen Demonstrations and 

Infrastructure Development) 

2008: Demonstrate improved trajectorybased operations in mixed-equipage, 

oceanic airspace with actual aircraft 

and procedures. 

2009:	 Demonstrate via simulation standard 

separation in a full-equipage, fully 

automated environment with no voice 

communication. 

Airport Capacity 

Increase airport capacity while 

reducing costs. 

2008: Increase airport capacity. 

(Airport Cooperative Research 

Program - Capacity) 

2011:	 Develop guidebook to assist airport 

planners with airfield and airspace 

capacity evaluation. 

(Airport Cooperative Research 

Program - Capacity) 

2012:	 Develop new standards and guidelines 

for runway pavement design. 

(Airport Technology Research 

Program - 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. (NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence) 

2013:	 Modify procedures as requested to 

allow use of closely spaced parallel 

runways for arrival operations during 

non-visual conditions (two to three 

airports per year per Task Force 5 

recommendations and for requests 

from airports). (NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence) 

2015:	 Together with the European 

Organisation for the Safety of Air 

Navigation, deliver a more capacityefficient set of wake separation 

standards to the International Civil 

Aviation Organization 

(Leader-Follower Pair-Wise Static). 

(NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Recategorization) 

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) 

2013: Determine how best to incorporate the 

leader/follower based wake separation 

standards into the en route and 

terminal automation platforms. 

(NextGen - Wake Turbulence - 

Re-categorization) 

10 The NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development program is no longer considered R&D after FY 2009. 

Chapter 2	 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

Wake Turbulence 

Demonstrate wake turbulence avoidance 

technologies and procedures. 

2010: Determine Air Navigation Service 

Provider (and pilot as needed) 

situational aircraft separation display 

concepts required for implementation 

of the NextGen Trajectory-Based 

Operation and High Density concepts. 

(NextGen - Wake Turbulence) 

2011: Refine the boundaries of the current 

six weight categories for the NAS fleet 

mix and define automation 

requirements to support those 

modifications. (NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence - Re-categorization) 

2011: Determine initial set of optimal aircraft 

flight characteristics and weather 

parameters for use in setting wake 

separation minimums. (NextGen -

Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization) 

2012: Determine the NAS infrastructure 

requirements (ground and aircraft) for 

implementing the NextGen TrajectoryBased Operation and High Density 

concepts within the constraints of 

aircraft-generated wake vortices and 

aircraft collision risk. (NextGen -

Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization) 

2016: Develop the algorithms that will be 

used in the Air Navigation Service 

Provider (and flight deck as needed) 

automation systems for setting 

dynamic wake separation minimum for 

each pair of aircraft. (NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence - Re-categorization) 

Aviation Weather 

Reduce weather-related delays to increase 

on-time arrival rate and reduce 

transit time. 

2010: Develop 0-8 hour advanced storm 

prediction algorithm. 

(Weather Program) 

2010: Transition Rapid Refresh Weather 

Forecast Model for implementation at 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration National Centers for 

Environmental Prediction. 

(Weather Program) 

 2011: Demonstrate 0-8 hour advanced storm 

prediction algorithm. 

(Weather Program) 

2012: Establish and justify quantitative 

requirements for terminal-area wind 

diagnosis and forecast capabilities to 

improve benefits from fourdimensional Trajectory Based 

Operations. (NextGen - Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit) 

2013: Expand wind studies to more 

comprehensive environments and 

procedures, and more comprehensive 

assessment of benefits versus wind 

modeling error and evaluate weather 

prediction technology relative to wind 

modeling accuracy. (NextGen -

Weather Technology in the Cockpit) 

2013: Transition 0-8 hour advanced storm 

prediction algorithm for 

implementation. (Weather Program) 

2014: Transition in-flight icing Alaska 

forecast and analysis capability for 

implementation. (Weather Program) 

2015: Provide accurate and timely wind 

information to the Flight Management 

System and Air Traffic Control 

systems, and demonstrate TrajectoryBased Operation benefits. (NextGen -

Weather Technology in the Cockpit) 

15	 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

Progress in FY 2011: Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

Airport Airfield Capacity Analyses: Airport capacity is a critical evaluation component of most airport planning 

projects. With the many current and evolving factors and limitations that influence capacity at a given airport, 

capacity modeling tools and techniques are needed to assist airport operators and planners in making timely and 

cost-effective critical project funding decisions. In response to this need, the Airport Cooperative Research 

Program (ACRP) - Capacity developed a guidebook to assist the aviation industry with airfield and airspace 

capacity evaluation. The guidebook addresses airport airfield and airspace capacity planning at all types of 

airports. The guidebook includes an assessment of relevant methods and modeling techniques for evaluating 

existing and future capacity for airports beyond those outlined in the current FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5 

Airport Capacity and Delay or the Airport Capacity Model. The guidebook also identifies the limitations of the 

existing techniques and presents capacity modeling guidelines that will improve the decision-making process 

for determining the appropriate level of modeling sophistication for a given planning study or capital 

improvement project and make the process more consistent from airport to airport. (Airport Cooperative 

Research Program) 

Determination of an Initial Set of Optimal Aircraft Flight Characteristics and Weather Parameters for Use In 

Setting Wake Separation Minima: Aircraft flight characteristics (aircraft weight, aircraft type, trajectory, etc.) 

and weather observed by the aircraft (wind and its direction, turbulence of the atmosphere, humidity, 

temperature, etc.) are vital information elements for many future NextGen-era air traffic control (ATC) and 

management applications needed for efficient and safe use of constrained airspace and airport runways. Safe 

reduction of required wake vortex separations between aircraft is one application that promises significant 

enhancement to airspace and airport capacity. Determining the optimal parameters involved defining the 

parameters, prioritizing them in terms of benefit derived in enhanced capacity and safety, determining 

transmission rates and precision and gaining agreement among the FAA and the MITRE Corporation’s Center 

for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD)-led Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics 

(RTCA) Special Committee 206, Work Group 1 government and industry participants. If Work Group 1’s 

foundational recommendations on aircraft and weather parameters are adopted and developed by RTCA, aircraft 

and avionics manufacturers will have defined requirements for linking the aircraft information elements needed 

for the NextGen era into aircraft data link broadcast messages. (NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Recategorization) 

Determination of Wake Separation Minima for Use with Boeing 747-8 Aircraft: A part of the services provided 

by FAA air traffic control is ensuring that aircraft are sufficiently separated from each other to minimize the risk 

of an aircraft encountering strong wake turbulence generated by the aircraft ahead. Wake separation minima for 

the B747-8 aircraft were developed prior to the aircraft’s entry into service and permitted safe but smaller 

separation than established in the interim guidance for this aircraft prior to this evaluation. This work was 

accomplished by a work group comprised of the FAA Flight Standards Service, Boeing Company, FAA Air 

Traffic Organization, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL), Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center, and European Aviation Safety Agency, among others. A similar effort 

to set the Boeing 787 Aircraft wake separation minima was completed earlier in 2011. This work benefits both 

the aircraft manufacturer and the world’s Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs). For the ANSP they are 

minima that ensure safety but are not overly conservative to interfere with the efficient use of an airport’s 

runways. For the manufacturer, the minimum safe wake separations prescribed for its new aircraft allow the 

aircraft to be viewed favorably by its potential customers. The smaller the required separations, the more 

desirable the aircraft becomes in terms of its impact on airport arrival and departure operations. This work also 

supports R&D Goal 10 – World Leadership. (NextGen – Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization) 

Chapter 2 16 
 

2012 NARP 

Refinement of the Boundaries of the Proposed Six Weight Categories for the NAS: The last review of wake 

separation standards used by air traffic control occurred nearly 20 years ago, in the early 1990’s. These current 

wake separation minima are safe but are outdated due to the dramatic change in the aircraft fleet mix at major 

airports, major advances in knowledge of aircraft wake transport and decay, and the development of air traffic 

control decision support tools that enable application of more capacity efficient wake separation processes. In 

2010, a FAA/EUROCONTROL workgroup provided the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) with 

a recommendation for replacing the current standards with one made up of six categories for wake separation 

minima. In 2011, the FAA/EUROCONTROL work group met with the ICAO Study Group tasked with the 

review of the six category wake standard recommendation, clarified and enhanced the recommendation’s 

benefit and safety documentation as requested by the ICAO Study Group, and further refined the types of 

aircraft assigned to each of the six wake categories. Assessments have shown that the adoption of the six 

category recommendation will yield an average of 7% increase in the number of landings and take-offs that can 

be supported at U.S. capacity-constrained airports and a 3% to 4% capacity increase at Europe’s capacityconstrained airports. This work also supports R&D Goal 10 – World Leadership. (NextGen - Wake Turbulence 

- Re-categorization) 

0-8 Hour Advanced Storm Prediction Algorithm Demonstration and Evaluation: The FAA is developing an 

advanced storm prediction algorithm specifically designed to minimize flight delays caused by convective 

weather (i.e., thunderstorms). Reducing weather delays is a key element to achieving the Flight Plan Goal of 

Greater Capacity as well as NextGen Weather Operational Improvements (OIs). In FY 2010, a prototype 0-8 

hour advanced storm prediction algorithm was first demonstrated in real-time to Air Traffic Management 

(ATM) users as part of an operational evaluation. The results of this evaluation, which were released in early 

FY 2011, showed that user opinions were favorable regarding the use of the algorithm’s forecasts for strategic 

Traffic Flow Management planning. In addition, the benefits analysis showed that the algorithm’s forecasts 

were incorporated in Playbook Routing, Airspace Flow Program planning, and improved situational awareness, 

yielding an estimated annual benefit of 10,000 hours of delay avoided with a cost savings of $26.8M. 

The algorithm also performed well meteorologically – it outperformed the legacy capabilities in key areas and 

added detail to the lower resolution forecasts currently being used. In FY 2011, changes to improve the 

meteorological performance were incorporated into the 0-8 hour advanced storm prediction algorithm in 

response to user comments and the objective performance assessment from 2010. The improved prototype was 

demonstrated to ATM users for a second season, beginning June 2011, as part of a supplemental user evaluation. 

User feedback was gathered and the final report was completed in 2011. Future Convective Weather 

capabilities by FY 2016 will include probabilistic forecasts of convective hazards over the Continental United 

States (CONUS) and oceanic domains. (Weather Program) 

17 Chapter 2 
18

R&D Goal 2 

Clean and Quiet 

A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in 

absolute terms 
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate11 that significant aviation noise and emissions impacts can be reduced in absolute terms 

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

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

levels that enable appropriate action. 

Method of Validation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding Requirements - R&D Goal 2 

Funding levels are listed for the current enacted (2012) and requested year (2013). Programs with zero funding listed support this goal 

with FAA staff resources only. 

2012 Enacted ($000) 2013 Request ($000) 

15,074 

23,500 

12,183 

5,000 

1,500 

14,776 

19,861 

9,500 

5,000 

1,500 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 

A13.a Environment and Energy 

(100% of program) 

A13.b NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics 

(100% of program)

 1A08E NextGen - E&E - Environmental Management 

Systems and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction 

(100% of program) 

1A08H NextGen - Operational Assessments 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Environment 

(100% of program) 

Airport Technology Research Program - Environment 

(100% of program) 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

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

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

in system capacity. 

19 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

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. 

(Environment and Energy; Airport 

Cooperative Research Program -

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. 

(Environment and Energy) 

2012: Initiate a project to study aircraft 

noise annoyance data and sleep 

disturbance around airports. (Airport 

Technology Research Program – 

Environment) 

2013: Obtain direct measurements of 

hazardous air pollutants and 

particulate matter data to update 

modeling tools. (Environment and 

Energy) 

Threshold Levels 

Determine acceptable levels of noise

and emissions. 

2010: Develop new standards and 

methodologies to quantify and assess 

the impact of aircraft noise and 

aviation emissions. (Environment 

and Energy; Airport Cooperative 

Research Program - 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. 

(Environment and Energy; NextGen - 

Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics; 

Airport Cooperative Research 

Program - Environment) 

2011: Investigate feasibility of metrics for 

new aircraft standards for CO2 

emissions. (Environment and 

Energy) 

2013: Examine the suitability of aircraft 

noise and emissions metrics to 

establish environmental standards. 

(Environment and Energy) 

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) 

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) 

Chapter 2	 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

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 firstgeneration ground plume model for 

aircraft engine exhaust. 

(Environment and Energy) 

2011: Enhance regional analysis capability 

in aviation environmental analysis 

tools. (NextGen - Operational 

Assessments) 

2013: Update environmental assessment 

models to incorporate new noise 

metrics. (Environment and Energy) 

2013: Refine the estimates of aircraft 

contribution to climate change. 

(Environment and Energy, 

NextGen - Environmental Research -

Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics) 

2013: Refine estimates of aircraft emitted 

particulate matter on climate, air 

quality and human health. 

(Environment and Energy, NextGen - 

Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

2014: Complete development and field a 

fully validated suite of tools, 

including the Aviation Environmental 

Design Tool and the Aviation 

Environmental Portfolio Management 

Tool. (Environment and Energy; 

Airport Cooperative Research 

Program - Environment) 

2014: Assess NAS-wide benefits of 

environmental mitigation solutions 

comprised of new technologies, 

alternative fuels, advanced 

operational procedures, market 

measures, and options for policy and 

noise/emissions standards. (NextGen 

– Environment and Energy – 

Environmental Management System 

and Advanced Noise and Emission 

Reduction) 

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) 

2010: Develop algorithms to optimize 

ground and airspace operations by 

leveraging communication, 

navigation, and surveillance 

technology in the short- to mediumterm to optimize aircraft sequencing 

and timing on the surface and in the 

terminal area. (NextGen – 

Environment and Energy – 

Environmental Management System 

and Advanced Noise and Emission 

Reduction) 

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) 

21	 Chapter 2 
 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

2011: Complete detailed feasibility study, 

including economic and 

environmental impacts and an 

assessment of the potential of 

renewable alternative fuels for gas 

turbine engines. (NextGen -

Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

2013: Identify and pursue the development 

of a Flight Management System and 

other system technologies that will be 

the most effective at producing 

environmental benefits. (NextGen -

Environment and Energy - 

Environmental Management System 

and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction) 

2013: Identify and pursue the development 

of engine and airframe technologies 

that will be the most effective at 

producing environmental benefits. 

(NextGen - Environmental Research -

Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics) 

2013: Complete significant demonstration 

of “drop-in” alternative turbine 

engine fuels. (NextGen -

Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

2013: Demonstrate optimized airport and 

terminal area operations that reduce 

or mitigate aviation impacts on noise, 

air quality, or water quality in the 

vicinity of the airport. (NextGen -

Environment and Energy - 

Environmental Management System 

and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction; Airport Cooperative 

Research Program - Environment) 

2013: Demonstrate airframe and engine 

technologies to reduce noise and 

emissions. (NextGen -

Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

2014: Complete assessment of renewable 

alternative turbine engine fuels. 

(NextGen - Environmental Research -

Aircraft Technologies, Fuels and 

Metrics) 

2015: Complete transition plans for 

renewable alternative fuels. 

(NextGen - Environmental Research -

Aircraft Technologies, Fuels and 

Metrics) 

2015: Assess the environmental benefits of 

the first round of Continuous Lower 

Energy, Emissions, and Noise 

airframe and engine technologies 

through integrated flight 

demonstration. (NextGen -

Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

Environmental Management

Develop environmental management 

system for the NAS. 

2013: Evaluate, refine, and apply 

Environmental Management System 

decision support tools to the aviation 

system. (NextGen - Environment and 

Energy - Environmental Management 

System and Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction) 

2015: Refine and update approaches for 

Environmental Management System 

performance tracking. (NextGen -

Environment and Energy - 

Environmental Management System 

and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction) 

Chapter 2	 22 
2012 NARP 

Progress in FY 2011: Clean and Quiet 

Guidebook on Preparing Airport Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories: While approaches for computing noise 

and local air quality at the airport level are generally well established, there is no specific guidance or generally 

applied practice for computing airport-level greenhouse gas (GHG) emission inventories. Under international 

treaties, GHGs are addressed at a national or state level. However, in responding to local political concerns, 

cities and counties across the country are beginning to attempt to quantify the contribution of sources within 

their boundaries to local and regional GHG emissions without a basic common understanding and source of 

reference material. The wide variance in levels of the estimated local aviation contributions is most likely a 

result of the methodology used to quantify and compare emissions rather than actual level or variance in the 

type of activities. There is a growing need to provide airport operators with clear and cohesive information on 

the national inventory of airport-level GHG emissions. Given the rising level of interest regarding aviation’s 

contribution to GHG emissions and ultimately to climate change, it is imperative that airports have the most upto-date information necessary to address potential concerns. In response to this need, the ACRP – Environment 

has developed a guidebook that can be used to prepare airport source-specific inventories of GHG emissions. 

The guidebook provides methods to calculate airport GHG emissions inventories in a consistent manner and 

information on considerations that should be taken into account when scoping and preparing such inventories. 

This guidebook focuses on the following six GHG emissions that are widely recognized as relevant and 

quantifiable: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluoro 

compounds, and perfluorocarbons. (Airport Cooperative Research Program) 

Reduction in Particulate Matter Emissions: FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) completed measurements of aircraft exhaust emissions from the combustion of renewable alternative 

fuels for existing aircraft engines. Emission measurements on the combustion of 50/50 blends and 100% 

renewable fuels showed significant reductions in particulate matter emissions. (Environment and Energy) 

Addition of Alternative Bio-Derived Oil-based Jet Fuels: On July 1, 2011, the aviation community reached a 

major milestone when the American Society for Testing and Materials International approved a revision of the 

D7566 specification to add alternative jet fuels made from bio-derived oils. Known as HEFA (hydroprocessed 

esters and fatty acids) jet fuels, they can be made from renewable plant oils such as camelina, jatropha, and 

algae or waste fats which are then mixed with petroleum jet fuel up to a 50% blend level. This represents the 

culmination of more than three years of collaborative work by the FAA, Department of Defense (DoD), and 

industry, including the engine and aircraft manufacturers, airlines, and fuel suppliers. The approval assures the 

safety and performance of the fuel and is enabling, for the first time, the commercial use of biofuel by airlines 

globally. (NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

Development and Deployment of Sustainable Alternative Fuels: In partnership with industry, the FAA 

completed significant milestones towards developing and deploying sustainable alternatives fuels. Boeing 

completed a study on how alternative jet fuel affects rubber seals in aircraft fuel systems, and Honeywell 

demonstrated a jet biofuel blend that will not clog fuel systems at cold temperatures. Rolls-Royce completed 

laboratory testing of future jet biofuels under development by nine fuel companies. In partnership with the 

United States Department of Agriculture, the FAA developed a Feedstock Readiness Level Tool to assess the 

development and availability of various feedstock needed by biorefineries to produce jet biofuels. (NextGen -

Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

Operational Benefits of Surface Movement Optimization Strategies: The FAA conducted a field study at 

Boston Logan airport to evaluate the operational benefits of surface movement optimization strategies that 

reduce congestion while improving the environmental performance. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

research team targeted taxiing-out delays and improved surface operational efficiency by controlling the aircraft 

pushback rate at the gate. This field study showed an average reduction in gate-hold time of 4.3 minutes per 

aircraft pushback, resulting in a savings of 16-20 gallons of fuel burn per operation. This estimated fuel savings 

23 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

is roughly equal to the fuel savings from Continuous Descent Approach (which is now commonly known as 

Optimized Profile Descent) – an operational procedure which is widely used worldwide and was pioneered by 

the FAA. (NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management System and Advanced Noise and 

Emission Reduction) 

Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise Program: In partnership with industry, the FAA focused the 

Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program on accelerating development of aircraft 

technologies that reduce noise, emissions, and fuel burn that will lead to commercial products beginning in 

2015. Boeing completed wind tunnel tests of advanced wings and component tests of advanced, light-weight 

materials used for aircraft engines. General Electric (GE) continues to make progress on advanced engine 

combustors, demonstrating a 60% reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions and meeting a key CLEEN goal. This 

combustor will be used in CFM International’s LEAP-X turbofan engine as parts of Boeing’s re-engine 737 

aircraft. GE has also conducted Open Rotor engine wind tunnel tests, demonstrating improved aerodynamic 

and noise performance. Rolls-Royce completed component tests of advanced, light-weight engine materials, 

demonstrating a reduction in weight and increase in engine fuel efficiency. (NextGen - Environmental Research 

- Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics) 

NextGen Environmental Management System: Sustaining unconstrained future aviation growth implies that 

aviation stakeholders address environmental sustainability in their planning and operation. Therefore, the FAA 

is developing an Environmental Management System (EMS), which is a strategic framework to proactively 

manage the long-term environmental issues associated with NextGen. The EMS approach aims to maximize 

environmental benefits while ensuring efficient compliance with regulatory requirements. This year, work was 

performed on all three main components of the EMS framework development: approaches, outreach and 

communication, and data management and decision support. In particular, Phase I pilot studies were completed 

at Denver International Airport and Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) and communication was 

initiated with a range of stakeholders (e.g., manufacturers, airport operators, air transport association, etc.). This 

year, the first EMS Forum was convened to strategize EMS development and implementation, identify best 

practices, and overcome challenges through interaction with stakeholders. (NextGen - Environment and Energy 

- Environmental Management System and Advanced Noise and Emission Reduction) 

Chapter 2 24 
 

 

2012 NARP 

25Chapter 2 
26

25 Chapter 2

R&D Goal 3 

High Quality Teams 

and Individuals 

The best qualified and trained workforce in the world 
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate improvement in Air Navigation Service Provider efficiency (e.g., greater number of 

aircraft) and effectiveness (e.g., improvement of safety metrics) through automation and standardization of 

operations, procedures, and information. 

Method of Validation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding Requirements - R&D Goal 3 

Funding levels are listed for the current enacted (2012) and requested year (2013). Programs with zero funding listed support this goal 

with FAA staff resources only. 

2012 Enacted ($000) 2013 Request ($000) 

10,364 

5,011 

8,122 

10,014 

1,111 

4,498 

5,000 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors

 (100% of program) 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human

 Factors 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 

A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory

 Facility

 (30% of program) 

4A08A Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 

(CAASD)

 (25% of R&D program in FY 2012)

 1A08A NextGen - ATC/Technical Operations Human 

Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration)

 (100% of program) 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

27 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

 

 	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP 

Milestones 

Increase to 130 Percent12 

Demonstrate 130 percent controller 

efficiency. (Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors) 

2008: Demonstrate efficiency 

improvements when controllers 

receive information on aircraft 

equipage, performance capabilities, 

and applicable procedures in a mixed 

equipage environment. 

2008: Conduct initial simulation to 

determine what weather information 

is required by en route and tower 

controllers to improve efficiency. 

Demonstrate Improvements

in 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. 

2010: Define anticipated controller 

workload reductions due to 

implementation of data 

communications. (NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors (Controller 

Efficiency and Air Ground 

Integration)) 

2010:	 Define initial requirements and 

anticipated efficiency benefits for 

merging and spacing decision support 

tools to support continuous descent 

approach in the terminal area. (NextGen 

- Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors (Controller 

Efficiency and Air Ground Integration)) 

2012:	 Improve computer-human interface 

design to reduce information overload 

and resulting errors. (Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors) 

2013:	 Assess the Front Line Manager Quick 

Reference Guide for effectiveness in 

aiding Air Traffic Control safety. (Air 

Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors) 

2013:	 Analyze controller roles in a strategic air 

traffic environment for the impact on 

personnel selection and training. 

(NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors (Controller 

Efficiency and Air Ground Integration)) 

2013:	 Demonstrate collaborative air traffic 

management efficiencies enabled by 

common situation awareness between 

flight operators and Air Navigation 

Service Providers. (NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors (Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground Integration)) 

2013:	 Demonstrate increased Air Navigation 

Service Provider (ANSP) efficiencies 

through new procedures that allow 

ANSP personnel to manage and 

introduce routing, airspace, and equipage 

mix changes in the dynamic air traffic 

environment. (NextGen - Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration)) 

12 The year 2004 was chosen as a baseline for consistency with the Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 

108-176) and the Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan submitted to Congress as required in that legislation. 

Chapter 2	 28 
 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP 

2014:	 Provide a draft of a revised Human 

Factors Design Standard for human 

factors application to Air Traffic 

Control system acquisition. (Air 

Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors) 

2016:	 Perform an analysis of controller 

roles in terms of the services they 

provide during a given phase of 

flight as the differences between en 

route and terminal begin to blur. 

(NextGen - Air Traffic Control/ 

Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration)) 

Selection Criteria 

Ensure ANSPs have the aptitude and 

capability required to manage air traffic in the

future system. (NextGen - Air Traffic Control/ 

Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground 

Integration)) 

2012: Apply program-generated human factors 

knowledge to improve aviation system 

personnel selection and training. 

2015: Develop selection procedures to 

transform the workforce into a new 

generation of service providers that can 

manage traffic flows in a highly 

automated system. 

29	 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

Progress in FY 2011: High Quality Teams and Individuals 

Survey on Use of “Front Line Manager Quick Reference Guide”: In 2011 researchers administered a 

comprehensive survey to all En Route and Terminal Front Line Managers. The survey assessed the utility, 

usability, and perception of the consolidated “Front Line Manager Quick Reference Guide” (FLM QRG) which 

was deployed to all En Route and Terminal facilities in 2010. Survey results will be used to update and improve 

the QRG, assist the FAA in the development of FLM training and reference materials, and serve as a baseline to 

assess out-year organizational impacts. Since its deployment the QRG has received positive internal and 

external feedback; it has also been referenced in Congressional testimonies and newsfeeds. (Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human Factors) 

Update to Job Analysis for Front Line Controllers: Researchers updated the job analysis for front line 

controllers to a new 2011 baseline, including the nature and use of current technology and support tools. They 

then evaluated the emerging technology drivers being brought into the air traffic control environment in the 

mid-term, including both improved information sources and decision support tools, and described the impact of 

these changes on how the controller will manage traffic. While the major functions and tasks being performed 

by the controllers in this timeframe remain the same, there are changes to the knowledge required, the skills 

used and the relative importance of some abilities. Results of this research have been provided to the training 

development organization, Human Resources, the service areas, and researchers involved in personnel selection 

and developing requirements for future workstations. The benefit and use of this research result is to provide a 

basis for determination if changes need to be made in personnel selection, to set the foundation for the 

development of new training, and to represent the human component of the NAS. (NextGen – Air Traffic 

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

Meteorological Training for Pilots and Guidance Materials: The program completed a study on the education 

and training issues associated with general aviation (GA) pilots’ use of meteorological (MET) information in the 

cockpit. The study found guidance documents that did not contain the latest MET knowledge nor include how 

atmospheric phenomena could affect aircraft performance. The study also found that the age range in MET 

guidance documents made them difficult to use as a set. Finally, the study includes recommendations for 

improved weather-related training and testing. The final report has been published and provided to the FAA 

Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) and is currently available by request through the NextGen - Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC) program office. (NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit) 

Chapter 2 30 
 

 

2012 NARP

31 Chapter 2
32

R&D Goal 4 

Human-Centered Design 

Aerospace systems that adapt to, compensate for, 

and augment the performance of the human 
.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 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, 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, ATC productivity tools, and networkenabled collaborative decision-making to increase capacity, reduce delays, and promote safety. 

Funding Requirements - R&D Goal 4 

Funding levels are listed for the current enacted (2012) and requested year (2013). Programs with zero funding listed support this goal 

with FAA staff resources only. 

6,162 

7,000 

3,777 

200 

1,700 

5,416 

10,172 

1,296 

180 

1,700 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration

 Human Factors 

(100% of program) 

A11.h System Safety Management 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human

 Factors 

A11.k Weather Program 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 

A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration

 Human Factors 

(100% of program) 

A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory

 Facility 

(35% of program) 

1A08A NextGen - ATC/Technical Operations Human 

Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground

 Integration) 

1A08F NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization 

4A08A Center for Advanced Aviation System

 Development (CAASD)

 (1% of R&D program in FY 2012) 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Capacity 

(34% of program) 

2012 Enacted ($000) 2013 Request ($000) 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

33 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

Milestones 

Roles and Responsibilities 

Define the changes in roles and 

responsibilities, between pilots and 

controllers and between humans and 

automation, required to implement 

NextGen. 

2011: Develop initial mid-term analysis 

describing the relationship between 

human pilots and controllers with 

associated automated systems. 

(NextGen - Air Ground Integration 

Human Factors; NextGen - Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration)) 

2011: Document ramp operational and 

safety techniques and how airport 

operators implement pavement 

maintenance programs. 

(Airport Cooperative Research 

Program - Capacity) 

2012: Complete initial research to evaluate 

and recommend procedures for 

negotiations and shared decisionmaking between pilots and 

controllers. (NextGen - Air Ground 

Integration Human Factors; NextGen 

- Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground 

Integration)) 

2016: Complete initial research to enable 

safe and effective changes to 

controller roles and responsibilities 

for NextGen procedures. (NextGen -

Air Ground Integration Human 

Factors; NextGen - Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration)) 

Human System Integration 

Define human and system performance 

requirements for design and operation of 

aircraft and ATC 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 

Human Factors) 

2012: Initiate research to assess pilot 

performance in normal and nonnormal NextGen procedures, 

including single pilot operations. 

(NextGen - Air Ground Integration 

Human Factors) 

2012: Develop human factors guidance for 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance – 

Broadcast enabled Cockpit Display of 

Traffic Information certification and 

operational approval. (Flightdeck/ 

Maintenance/System Integration 

Human Factors) 

2012: Provide human factors guidance for 

the design of instrument procedures. 

(Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors) 

2013: Complete research to identify human 

factors issues and potential mitigation 

strategies for the use of legacy 

avionics in NextGen procedures. 

(NextGen - Air Ground Integration 

Human Factors) 

2015: Demonstrations completed and data 

available to support the development 

of human factors standards, guidance, 

and procedures for the presentation 

and use of meteorological information 

in the cockpit. Specific measurable 

performance objectives verified for 

human factors design elements. 

(NextGen - Weather Technology in 

the Cockpit) 

Chapter 2	 34 
 

	 

2012 NARP 

2016: Complete research to assess 

procedures, training, display, and 

alerting requirements to support 

development and evaluation of 

planned and unplanned transitions 

between NextGen and legacy airspace 

procedures. (NextGen - Air Ground 

Integration Human Factors) 

Error Management

Develop and apply error management 

strategies, mitigate risk factors, and

reduce automation-related errors. 

(NextGen - Air Ground Integration 

Human Factors; NextGen - Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations Human 

Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air

Ground Integration)) 

2012: Complete research to develop 

methods to mitigate mode errors in 

use of NextGen equipment. 

2014: Develop initial guidance on training 

methods to support detection and 

correction of human errors in near- to 

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 Human Factors; NextGen -

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and

Air Ground Integration)) 

2017: Functional simulation – simulate 

integrated pilot and controller 

functional capabilities. 

35	 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

Progress in FY 2011: Human-Centered Design 

Ground Handling Training and Practices: Over the past few years, airports and airlines have been asked to 

develop comprehensive safety and operational training programs for ramp activities. In addition, the last ICAO 

audit of the FAA urged the agency to set up a regulatory program for ramp safety. However, there is a general 

absence of any industry standard or assessment of effective common practices. Thus, there is an overall lack of 

comprehensive information upon which to build future safety and operational guidance. The ACRP – Capacity 

has collected these practices and examined the rationale for each practice and the factors that influence that 

practice. The report describes the current state of ramp operational and safety techniques available to airports 

and their tenants, including airlines, ground handling agents, fuelers, caterers, and others having significant 

levels of ramp activity. The project included: (1) an investigation of the available literature on ramp safety 

operations and training to determine the state of current practice in the U.S., (2) reviews of past ramp and apron 

safety survey (such as the Airports Council International Ramp Safety Survey) results for relevant information, 

(3) new surveys and interviews of airports, airlines, ground handlers and others to determine current and 

effective practices. The target audience for this report is airport operations managers who manage or are 

considering managing a ground handling operation. (Airport Cooperative Research Program) 

Advanced Technology for Terminal Air Traffic Control Training: To evaluate the use of advanced training 

technologies in the terminal environment, CAASD developed prototype Terminal Trainers for evaluation at the 

Miami Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) and the Potomac Consolidated TRACON 

(PCT). The prototype presents ATC training curriculum in a web-based framework that includes voice 

synthesis, speech recognition, multimedia lessons, game-based training techniques, simulation, and interactive 

training tools. The prototype provides a research platform that can be used to assess the benefits of these 

automated capabilities and support capability evaluation and validation to reduce the FAA’s risk in the eventual 

acquisition of specific technologies. Field evaluation at PCT began in September 2010 and continued through 

FY 2011. PCT evaluation results validated the results from the earlier Miami TRACON evaluations and have 

shown that the prototype is effective in training airspace at different facilities managing varying levels of 

airspace complexities. Students who completed all of their airspace training requirements using the prototype 

have demonstrated a significantly greater operational understanding of airspace design than students who used 

traditional methods. The technology and design requirements for the prototype’s current set of airspace training 

capabilities were transferred to the FAA. (Center for Advanced Aviation System Development) 

Electronic Flight Bag Technologies and Interfaces: This research is part of a multi-year program to gather data 

to help the FAA address human factors issues related to Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs) and support development 

and update of EFB-related policies and guidance. The EFB market continues to evolve, and the lines between 

Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 EFBs are merging. Research in FY 2011 was conducted to understand the impact 

of these changes. Researchers continued to provide technical support to the Capstone 3 Electronic Flight Bag -

Airport Surface Moving Map operational evaluation, which examined the impact of a Surface Moving Map 

with ownship position on a Class 2 or Class 3 EFB. This operational evaluation provides a means to gather 

human factors feedback on the EFB from commercial airline pilots via interviews and/or observations. The 

information gathered addresses topics such as EFB display location, display readability, information 

organization, and usability. In addition to the operational evaluation, usability studies were conducted to 

systematically identify potential human factors issues in an office (desktop) environment. The results of this 

research will be summarized in a report for the FAA Office of Aircraft Certification and FAA Office of Flight 

Standards. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Airport Map Displays: This research is part of a multi-year program to gather data to support the development 

and update of human factors regulatory and guidance material addressing flight deck integration of surface 

moving maps depicting ownship position and traffic information. Several advanced functions are under 

consideration, including display of surface traffic and alerts of potential runway incursions. Researchers are 

compiling FAA regulatory and guidance material, industry recommendations, and human factors research into 

Chapter 2 36 
2012 NARP 

one document to identify and address common human factors issues that may arise in the evaluation of airport 

surface moving maps. This document is intended to provide input and data to the FAA Office of Aircraft 

Certification on human factors and pilot interface issues such as colors, symbols, fonts, labels, workload, 

situational awareness, and errors as related to the airport moving map function. Additionally, researchers 

published a technical report that provides a preliminary glimpse into potential human factors concerns with the 

use of a surface moving map, traffic function, and the presentation of surface indications and alerts. The 

findings address the following topics: use of color, indications, alerts, symbols, information prioritization, 

airport database, and air-ground integration. The information is intended to support the development of 

minimum operational performance standards for surface conflict detection and alerting. This document was 

shared with the RTCA Special Committee-186 working group, which is developing the minimum operation 

performance standards for such a function. (Human Factors Considerations for the Integration of Traffic 

Information and Alerts on an Airport Surface Map, http://www.volpe.dot.gov/coi/hfrsa/docs/ 

hf_guidance_traffic_info.pdf). (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Proactive Audit Approach to Support Safety Management System in Airline Maintenance and Ramp 

Operations: Researchers are proactively studying airline maintenance and ramp operations during normal 

situations to develop maintenance and ramp Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA) processes. The research 

team updated, expanded, and refined LOSA training materials based on feedback from field tests. The team 

wrote a literature review that provided an overview of previous LOSA efforts and the accomplishments of the 

FAA/Air Transport Association (ATA) LOSA team. Trained observers collected safety-related data on 

maintenance performance in a non-jeopardy environment at a major carrier and cargo operator. A multi-tier 

prototype database for storing and analyzing safety related LOSA data was tested and fielded. The results of the 

prototype testing are currently being used as the basis for the final database development. The team, with the 

assistance of the ATA’s Human Factors Committee and other industry partners, will provide all materials to the 

public for implementation. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast: This research project is a multi-year program to provide human 

factors support for applications that use Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B), including 

Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI). In FY 2011, human factors research primarily addressed the 

design and evaluation of symbology for avionics displays that show ADS-B. The work was a follow-on activity 

to a Human Factors Program data collection experiment conducted in FY 2010 to examine whether symbols for 

CDTI should match symbols for the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). In the experiment, 

researchers conducted simulations with pilots in dynamic traffic with and without the proximate status 

indication. The data analysis showed that pilots seem to perceive the most proximate aircraft as also the most 

threatening, but in actuality, this may not necessarily be the case. Additionally, researchers began a CDTI 

Industry Survey that is intended to gather information on the human factors aspects of CDTI displays (e.g., 

display resolution, alerts, and symbols). The information collected is intended to support the Office of Aircraft 

Certification and Office of Flight Standards. The results were summarized in a conference paper on the study, 

and a full technical report is being drafted. (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors) 

Relationship between Human Pilots and Controllers with Associated Automated Systems: Two multi-year 

research efforts provided human factors technical information during FY 2011 to address the relationship 

between human pilots, controllers, and associated automated systems. 

In the first, a university team developing a Human Automation Relationship Taxonomy (HART) for NextGen 

delivered an interim product that provides a comprehensive review of human factors scientific literature related 

to human-automation interaction and a detailed description of current flight deck automated systems. The 

37 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

HART provides both a theoretical basis and a practical tool to support the FAA field office’s analyses of humanautomation interactions in support of aircraft equipment certification and operational approval for flight 

procedures in the NextGen context. 

In the second, a major aircraft avionics manufacturer leveraged prior internal R&D efforts to provide the FAA 

with an analysis of the likely human factors implications and recommended mitigation strategies to improve 

flight crew-automation performance benefits and reduce potential adverse effects of adaptive automation flight 

deck technologies (i.e., non-deterministic automated systems). Guidelines and recommendations for design of 

adaptive flight deck systems are expected in early 2012. 

Both projects support regulatory guidance for the pending new rule in 14 CFR 25.1302, Installed Systems and 

Equipment for Use by the Flight Crew. (NextGen – Air Ground Integration Human Factors) 

Cockpit Presentation of Meteorological Information: The program completed the test plans for a human-overthe-loop evaluation to provide cloud top information to pilots in a collaborative decision environment, assessing 

the benefits and impacts of providing this information. If the anticipated benefits are successful in the current 

lab and planned flight demonstrations, the program will move forward to make cloud top information standard 

in the cockpit. In another project (assessing the impacts of the lack of standardization of MET presentations), 

the project plan was written and approved; the simulator, weather products, and MET displays were selected; 

and the effort to integrate products into the simulator was started. (NextGen - Weather Technology in the 

Cockpit) 

Standardized Meteorological Symbology and Support to SAE G-10: The program completed a draft Cockpit 

MET Symbology verification procedure. The verification procedure is scheduled to be approved by FAA 

management in April 2012. The procedure will be used by the FAA to make a determination of the 

acceptability of the industry-developed (SAE G-10) and recommended standardized MET-symbology that is 

scheduled to be completed by September 2012. (NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit) 

General Aviation Meteorological Information User Needs: The program completed a GA Users’ Needs study 

that identified the GA community’s preferences for weather information services for preflight and during flight, 

and it identified their preferences for receiving this information. The final report is available from the WTIC 

program office. The expected benefits of this research are to identify the gaps between what the GA community 

currently has available and is readily using, and what they perceive as needed and preferential, and then 

implement efforts to fill the identified gaps. (NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit) 

Chapter 2 38 
 

 

2012 NARP 

39 39 Chapter 2 
40

39

R&D Goal 5 

Human Protection 

A reduction in fatalities, injuries, and adverse health impacts 

due to aerospace operations 
.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

R&D Target 

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

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

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

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

sufficient to meet the targeted operational improvement. 

Funding Requirements - R&D Goal 5 

Funding levels are listed for the current enacted (2012) and requested year (2013). Programs with zero funding listed support this goal 

with FAA staff resources only. 

6,013 

1,621 

11,000 

1,444 

2,500 

5,504 

6,440 

1,993 

9,895 

1,399 

2,500 

5,353 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety 

(84% of program) 

A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety 

A11.d Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety 

(30% of program) 

A11.j Aeromedical Research 

(100% of program) 

A11.k Weather Program 

(9% of program) 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Safety 

(50% of program) 

Airport Technology Research Program - Safety 

(35% of program) 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety 

2012 Enacted ($000) 2013 Request ($000) 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

41 Chapter 2 
	 

	 

2012 NARP 

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 firefighting procedures and equipment 

standards to address double-decked 

large aircraft. (Airport Technology 

Research Program - Safety) 

2015: Establish validation parameters for 

mathematical models that can 

evaluate whether aircraft type designs 

meet requirements for evacuation and 

emergency response capability, in lieu 

of actual tests. (Aeromedical 

Research) 

Turbulence 

Prevent injuries and fatalities due to 

turbulence. (Weather Program) 

2013: Transition mountain-wave turbulence 

forecast capability for 

implementation. 

2015: Transition turbulence forecast 

capability for all flight levels for 

implementation. 

2016: Transition global turbulence forecast 

capability for implementation. 

2017: Transition convectively-induced 

turbulence forecast capability for 

implementation. 

Hazardous Weather 

Prevent injuries and fatalities due to 

hazardous weather. 

2012: Identify specific and recurring 

weather-related causes in reported 

safety incidents/accidents that identify 

weather as a primary cause. 

(NextGen - Weather Technology in 

the Cockpit) 

2013: Develop and implement resolutions to 

prevent recurrence of reported 

weather-related safety incidents/ 

accidents that were researched in FY 

2012. (NextGen - Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit) 

2013: Assess and quantify the safety 

benefits to the NAS of providing 

Graphical Turbulence Guidance, 

Eddy Dissipation Rate, and icing to 

the cockpit. (NextGen - Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit) 

2014: Develop data and methods for 

guidance material for the 

airworthiness acceptance criteria and 

test methods for engines in simulated 

high ice water content environments. 

(Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety) 

2015: Safety reporting systems indicate 

success of corrective actions and 

enhanced meteorological information 

(turbulence and icing) to reduce 

weather-related accidents/incidents. 

(NextGen - Weather Technology in 

the Cockpit) 

Chapter 2	 42 
 

 

 

 

	 

Occupant Restraint 

Improve occupant restraint systems to 

reduce injuries and fatalities. 

(Aeromedical Research; Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety) 

2014: Establish design criteria for restraint 

systems that protect occupants at the 

highest impact levels that the aircraft 

structure can sustain. 

Airports 

Prevent injuries and fatalities due to 

aircraft overrun. (Airport Technology 

Research Program - Safety) 

2011: Complete evaluation of new airport 

runway pavement groove shape to 

reduce risk of overrun due to 

hydroplaning. 

Cabin Air Quality 

Reduce health risk to aircrew and 

passengers due to cabin environmental 

threats. (Aeromedical Research) 

2010: Validate computational models of 

chemical air contaminants, such as 

volatile organic compounds, to 

evaluate health and safety impacts on 

passengers and crew. 

2012: Develop and validate chemical kinetic 

models for bleed air systems for 

health and safety effects on 

passengers and crew. 

2014: 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. 

2014: Develop and analyze methods to 

detect and analyze aircraft cabin 

2012 NARP 

contamination including chemicalbiological hazards and other airborne 

irritants. 

2014: Apply and validate advanced air 

sensing technology for volatile 

organic compounds in the aircraft 

cabin environment. 

2015: Develop bleed air contamination 

models of engine compressors and 

high temperature air system for 

effects on the health and safety of 

passengers and crew. 

Commercial Space 

Identify the requirements for safe 

commercial space transportation 

operations. (Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety) 

2008: Conduct a study to provide a basic 

understanding of what is necessary in 

an Informed Consent form for 

commercial space flight participants. 

Human Aeromedical Safety 

and Health Risk Management 

Identify and manage human aeromedical 

safety and health risks. 

2012: Assess role of airports and airlines in 

the spread of vector-borne diseases. 

(Airport Cooperative Research 

Program - Safety) 

2015: Incorporate aerospace medical issues 

in the development of safety 

strategies concerning pilot 

impairment, incapacitation, spatial 

disorientation, and other aeromedicalrelated factors that contribute to loss 

of aircraft control. (Aeromedical 

Research) 

43	 Chapter 2 
 

	 

2012 NARP 

2015: Develop advanced methods to extract will link aviation-related injuries to 

aeromedical information for autopsy findings, medical 

prognostic identification of human certification data, aircraft cabin 

safety risks. (Aeromedical Research) configurations, and biodynamic test 

results. (Aeromedical Research) 2015: Develop a system (Aerospace 

Accident Injury and Autopsy Data 2016: Apply and develop advances in gene 

System) capable of compiling, expression, toxicology, and 

classifying, assessing, and bioinformatics technology and 

determining causal factors of methods to define human response to 

aviation-related injuries. The system aerospace stressors. (Aeromedical 

Research) 

Chapter 2	 44 
2012 NARP 

Progress in FY 2011: Human Protection 

Assessing the Role of Airports and Airlines in the Spread of Vector-Borne Diseases: Air travel has long been 

suspected of playing a role in transmitting and spreading insect-borne diseases. Considerable resources have 

been devoted to addressing the phenomenon of airport malaria (isolated cases of malaria in the vicinity of an 

international airport in a region in which malaria is not typically present). The assumption is that airport 

malaria is transmitted when a mosquito is transported during an international flight from a malaria-endemic 

region and then bites a human after landing. This theory has given rise to the practice of disinsection--using 

chemical pesticides to rid arriving aircraft of insects prior to disembarkation--which currently is required as a 

condition of landing by 20 countries (though not by the United States). To address these concerns, the ACRP – 

Safety has performed research to provide a better understanding of how the transmission and spread of insectborne diseases are facilitated by air travel. The program has developed a user-friendly Geographic Information 

System-based tool on a CD-ROM to help better define the roles of airports and airlines in the transmission and 

spread of insect-borne human diseases. The tool shows the interrelationships among the global distribution of 

insect-borne infectious diseases, locations of known outbreaks, and international air service routes to identify 

seasonal risks of insect-borne infectious disease transmission and spread by air travel, and to help identify 

potential mitigation strategies. This research provides a basis for airports, airlines, and public health officials to 

assess the appropriateness and efficacy of current mitigation practices. (Airport Cooperative Research 

Program) 

Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems: Currently, there is only one civil aircraft arresting 

system that meets FAA standards; that is the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS). EMAS uses a 

cellular material and has been installed at a number of airports where it has successfully demonstrated its ability 

to bring aircraft to a stop in several overrun incidents. However, at many airports, the land area at the end of a 

runway is inadequate to accommodate an EMAS system that meets FAA standards. Acquiring and installing the 

EMAS cellular material is labor-intensive and expensive. The ACRP – Safety has furthered the development of 

alternative civil aircraft arresting systems that safely decelerate an aircraft overrunning a runway. The program 

has produced a report that informs airport operators, planners, and engineers of (1) alternatives to the current 

civil aircraft arresting system, (2) steps required to pursue approval of such systems, and (3) tradeoffs involved 

in changing current aircraft arresting system design and performance parameters. (Airport Cooperative 

Research Program) 

Selection of Appropriate Child Anthropomorphic Test Dummies for Aviation Testing: The FAA Civil Aerospace 

Medical Institute (CAMI) Biodynamics Research Team has evaluated the capabilities of the current 

anthropomorphic test dummies (ATDs) and has identified dummies that provide the best prediction of injury for 

the anticipated aviation impact environment. It was determined that the CAMI Newborn, Child Restraint Air 

Bag Interaction 12-month old, and Hybrid-III 3-year old were the best choice for evaluating a conventional, 

rigid shell child restraint system. Because the Q-Series 1-year old ATD has the skeletal features that normally 

carry belt loads and has instrumentation to assess chest compression injuries, it was selected for further 

evaluation. The findings were presented at the Triennial International Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research 

Conference, October 25-28, 2010, NJ: http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2010Conference/proceedings.asp. 

(Aeromedical Research) 

Enhanced Emergency Evacuation of Passengers Using Modeling and Simulation: The number of post-crash 

passenger fatalities is often directly correlated with the speed of emergency evacuation from the aircraft; the 

following research efforts were undertaken to aid in reducing the number of post-crash fatalities: 

Grouped Passenger Behaviors during Emergency Evacuation - Grouped passenger behavior data were compiled 

and analyzed in a computer simulation study. Emergency evacuations of airplane with and without grouped 

passengers were compared in terms of total evacuation time and exit usage. The results of this research indicate 

45 Chapter 2 
 

2012 NARP 

that a group of passengers tends to egress more slowly than a similar number of individual passengers. 

Application of the results may be used to enhance survivability from aircraft accidents. 

Aircraft Emergency Evacuation Study with Injured Passengers - Computer simulations were used to evaluate 

aircraft emergency evacuation involving injured passengers. Such passengers were modeled with different 

walking speeds during evacuation to simulate multiple levels of injury. The results of this research indicate that 

the seating location and degree of passenger injury may be used to enhance emergency evacuation models, 

equipment, guidance, and procedures so as to increase survivability from an accident. 

Computer Simulations on Interior Access Vehicles for Emergency Evacuation – A new concept vehicle, called 

the Interior Intervention Vehicle (IIV), is being studied. The primary function of the IIV is to assist fire fighters 

to evacuate passengers, while simultaneously fighting the fuselage fire in a post-crash sequence. Research 

conducted indicated that while evacuation from narrow-body airplanes is much less likely to benefit from IIV, 

evacuations of wide-body aircraft could be enhanced if the IIV is deployed quickly. 

The results of these research efforts were presented to the aviation safety community at the 6th Triennial 

International Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference, October 25-28, 2010, NJ. (Aeromedical 

Research) 

Biomarkers of Moderate Alcohol Ingestion: Development of gene expression markers for aerospace medical 

factors requires that putative markers be validated by an alternative method. The Functional Genomics 

Research Team of the CAMI performed a screening study using microarray analysis for gene expression 

markers responsive to moderate alcohol use. The team successfully validated the results from the screening 

experiment for alcohol and established a lower limit of quantitation which can now be translated to marker 

validation for alcohol use, sleep deprivation, and hypoxia. A manuscript reporting these results has been 

completed. Kupfer D, et al, Characterization of gene expression changes in blood occurring during acute 

ethanol use. (Aeromedical Research) 

Radiation Exposure In-Flight: The CAMI Radiobiology Research Team provided guidance for measuring and 

estimating radiation exposure during commercial aerospace activities and developed instructional materials on 

radiation exposure to humans during commercial aerospace travel. This information serves to educate 

crewmembers on the types and amounts of radiation received during air travel and how to manage their 

exposure. (Aeromedical Research) 

Medical Certification Process Review: Personnel of the Aerospace Medical Research and Certification 

Divisions at CAMI conducted a review of 24 pilot applications with cases of heart disease that were processed 

for medical certification on January 2001 by an FAA Cardiology Panel. The objective of the study was to 

determine the aeromedical status of these 24 pilots during the 10 years following the panel review. Results of 

the study indicated that the airmen’s aeromedical status was monitored successfully and their certification either 

lapsed or was denied, as appropriate. The results of this effort will aid the aviation medical community in the 

assessment of aeromedical decision making processes and harmonization of such standards. Abbas, R.J., 

Forster, E.M., Warren, S., Whinnery, J.E., and Silberman, W. FAA Aeromedical Certification Cardiology Panel: 

10-Year Review. Proceedings from the 82nd Annual Scientific Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association, 

Anchorage, May 11, 2011. (Aeromedical Research) 

Ischemic Heart Disease in Airline Transport Pilots: The Aerospace Medical Research Division at CAMI 

conducted a study that addressed the characteristics of ischemic heart disease in airline transport pilots. The 

study’s objective was to assess the medical certification of pilots with disqualifying pathologies such as 

coronary artery disease, a condition that can lead to incapacitation or impairment in-flight. The study was 

Chapter 2 46 
2012 NARP 

performed in collaboration with National University of Colombia School of Medicine’s residents in aerospace 

medicine. This collaboration promoted the harmonization of medical certification standards with other nations. 

Fajardo-Rodriguez, H.A., Forster, E.M., Valderrama, C., Malpica, D., and Garcia, D. Cardiovascular Risk 

Factors in U.S. Airline Transport Pilots with Ischemic Heart Disease. Proceedings from the 82nd Annual 

Scientific Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association, Anchorage, May 11, 2011. (Aeromedical Research) 

Analysis of Medications in Aircraft Accidents: Determining when various medications are present in fatalities 

resulting from aviation accidents can help establish the cause of the accident; in consequence, the following 

research efforts were conducted: 

Prevalence of Benzodiazepines in U.S. Aviation - FAA aerospace medical researchers evaluated the prevalence 

of benzodiazepines in U.S. aviation accident pilot fatalities that occurred between 1990 and 2008. These 

medications are a commonly prescribed and a frequently abused group of drugs. Their side effects include 

drowsiness, dizziness, decreased alertness, and/or memory loss leading to impairment and a decreased ability to 

properly control an aircraft. 

Postmortem Distribution of Citalopram from Aviation Accident Fatalities - The FAA Forensic Toxicology 

Research Team at CAMI developed a new analytical procedure for the analysis of citalopram (Celexa) in 

forensic biological specimens obtained from aircraft accidents. The FAA research study developed methods 

designed for difficult-to-analyze specimens (e.g., putrefied and/or contaminated tissue) so as to detect any level 

of the substance. The results of this research are described in the following publication: Lewis, R.J., Angier, 

M.K., Johnson, R.D., Rains, B.M., and Nepal, S. Analysis of Citalopram and Desmethylcitalopram in 

Postmortem Fluids and Tissues Using Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (DOT/FAA/AM-11/17). 

Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine: Washington, DC, 2011. (Aeromedical 

Research) 

Quantifying Exposures to Pesticides on Aircraft: Two types of pesticide application procedures are currently 

practiced on aircraft: residual treatment (applied to empty planes but designed to leave an active film for at 

least 8 weeks) and top of descent spraying (applied while passengers are aboard). A validated sampling scheme 

has been developed for aircraft surfaces. Current studies on sampling from fifty additional routes along with 

sampling of the urinary pyrethroid metabolites from crew members is documenting the level and prevalence of 

pesticide exposures from spraying. These data will enable the appropriate design of an epidemiological study to 

address the concerns of the crew and passengers, particularly children and pregnant women, about exposure to 

pesticides on international flights. The results of this research effort are described in the following publication: 

Mohan, K.R. and Weisel, C.P. Sampling Scheme for Pyrethroids on Multiple Surfaces on Commercial Aircrafts. 

Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 2010, 20, pp 320-325. (Aeromedical Research) 

Bleed Air Contamination: Several research efforts were conducted in order to better understand the source and 

potential dangers of bleed air contaminants: 

Evaluation of Commercial Sensors for Detection of Bleed Air Contaminants – The Airliner Cabin Environment 

Research (ACER) team at Auburn University and Boise State University evaluated commercial carbon 

monoxide and carbon dioxide sensors to determine their ability to detect and potentially measure evolved CO 

and CO2 contaminants from thermal degradation of test fluids. Seven CO2 and fifteen CO sensors from assorted 

manufacturers were procured and installed in the sensor analysis module. The built-in calibration processes for 

many of these sensors will present difficulties for their application on aircraft. Further testing will be done to 

quantify the effects of pressure on the sensors for various concentrations of the target gas. The results of this 

research will be described in the following publication: Klein, D., Loo, S.M., Kiepert, J., Pook, M., and Hall, J. 

Survey of Sensor Technology for Aircraft Cabin Environmental Sensing. Proceedings from the American 

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 41st International Conference on Environmental Systems, Portland, 

July 17-21, 2011. (Aeromedical Research) 

47 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

Development of Tri-cresyl Phosphate Sensing Technology for Aircraft Application – Potentially serious air 

contamination problems involve aircraft working fluids (e.g., hydraulic fluids, de-icer fluids, or engine oils) 

entering the aircraft cabin through contamination of the bleed air supply from the engines during flight or from 

the auxiliary power unit during ground operations. ACER researchers at Auburn University are developing a 

prototype tri-cresyl phosphate sensor system that will identify these containments as described in the following 

publication: Yang, X., Zitova, A., Kirsch, J., Hiremath, N., Fergus, J., Overfelt, R., and Simonian, A. 

Electrochemical Sensing Technology for Detection of Tricresyl Phosphate. Proceedings from the American 

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 41st International Conference on Environmental Systems, Portland, 

July 17-21, 2011. (Aeromedical Research) 

Development of Bleed Air Contamination Models – ACER scientists and engineers at Auburn University and 

Kansas State University have been collaborating with engineers from Boeing and Honeywell to understand and 

model the flow dynamics and thermal conditions representative of bleed air supplies for typical aircraft. These 

data are being integrated with models of droplet pyrolysis to quantify the expected generation of carbon 

monoxide, carbon dioxide, and unburned hydrocarbons to better predict expected passenger and crew exposures 

for specific amounts of working fluids contaminating the bleed air supply. The results of this research effort are 

described in the following publication: Haney, R.L., Siddiqui, N.A., Andress, J.R., Fergus, J.W., Overfelt, R.A., 

and Prorok, B.C. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) Application to FTIR Spectroscopy Data of CO/CO2 

Contaminants of Air. Proceedings from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 41st 

International Conference on Environmental Systems, Portland, July 17-21, 2011. (Aeromedical Research) 

Evaluation of New Airport Runway Pavement Groove Shape: The FAA conducted research to investigate a 

new runway groove shape designed to improve water runoff and reduce the chance of an aircraft hydroplaning 

during heavy rainfall. By decreasing the chance of hydroplaning, the risk of an aircraft overrunning the runway 

due to hydroplaning is also greatly reduced. In 2011, the FAA completed a draft FAA Technical Note report that 

includes details of all research conducted to evaluate the new pavement groove shape. This report was 

published early in 2012. (Airport Technology Research Program) 

Composite Aircraft Fire Safety: Progress was made in FY 2011 toward the development of fire safety criteria 

for composite aircraft, as described in technical reports DOT/FAA/AR-09/58 and DOT/FAA/AR-11/6. In the 

former report, full-scale and small-scale fire tests were conducted to evaluate the toxic gases inside an intact 

aircraft subjected to a post-crash fire. It was shown that a composite fuselage resists fuel fire penetration for 

more than five minutes (length of test) as compared to an aluminum alloy fuselage which will melt through in 

less than one minute. Moreover, the toxic gas concentrations were lower than measured inside an aluminum 

fuselage fitted with an insulation fire barrier to impart penetration resistance. Based on scaling factors derived 

from a comparison of the full-scale and small-scale test results, toxic gas criteria measured in the small-scale 

test method were recommended to ensure survivability for five or more minutes during a postcrash fuel fire 

inside an intact composite fuselage or an aluminum fuselage with a fire barrier. In the latter report, 

instrumented composite and aluminum wing fuel tank test articles were heated from above, as might occur on a 

hot sunny day. Fuel tank vapor concentrations and temperatures were measured during heating and when the 

fuel tanks were tested in a wind tunnel under simulated flight conditions. It was shown that the composite fuel 

tank achieved higher temperatures and fuel vapor concentrations than the aluminum fuel tank during heating 

from above. However, air flow over the fuel tank in the wind tunnel caused rapid cooling and reduction in fuel 

vapor concentrations below the lower flammability limit. In addition, painting the tanks had a profound effect 

on the aluminum tank, which caused higher temperatures and fuel vapor concentrations comparable to the 

composite tank, but the painted tanks also experienced rapid cooling and reduction of vapor concentrations in 

the wind tunnel. Thus, it appears that wing fuel tanks, regardless of construction material, can be vulnerable to 

a fuel tank explosion during a hot sunny day while on the ground and shortly after take-off. This testing is 

continuing with different paint colors and composite thicknesses, and will be published in a technical report in 

2012. (Fire Research and Safety) 

Chapter 2 48 
 

 

2012 NARP

49 Chapter 2
50

R&D Goal 6 

Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

A reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle design, structure, 

or subsystems 
.

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate damage and fault tolerant vehicles 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 and commercial space vehicles into the NAS; and 

addressing safety problems specific to GA aircraft. Validation of the R&D target will include analysis, 

modeling, flight simulation, physical demonstration, prototypes, and initial standards. The results from this 

goal will contribute to the R&D target to demonstrate a two-thirds reduction in fatalities and significant injuries 

under R&D Goal 5 - Human Protection. 

Funding Requirements - R&D Goal 6 

Funding levels are listed for the current enacted (2012) and requested year (2013). Programs with zero funding listed support this goal 

with FAA staff resources only. 

1,145 

2,300 

2,534 

3,783 

11,136 

1,147 

3,504 

2,071 

500 

1,227 

2,882 

2,569 

4,651 

12,674 

1,691 

5,901 

1,995 

555 

500 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety 

(16% of program) 

A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems 

(100% of program) 

A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety 

(100% of program) 

A11.d Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety 

(70% of program) 

A11.e Continued Airworthiness 

(96% of program) 

A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention

 Research 

(100% of program) 

A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research 

(100% of program) 

A11.m NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General

 Aviation 

(100% of program) 

A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory

 Facility 

(15% of program) 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety 

(50% of program) 

2012 Enacted ($000) 2013 Request ($000) 

51 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

Milestones 

Engines 

Prevent engine failures. 

Engine and component structures 

2015: Complete a certification tool13 that 

will predict the risk of failure of 

turbine engine rotor disks that may 

contain undetected material and 

manufacturing anomalies. 

(Propulsion and Fuel Systems) 

Uncontained engine failures 

2014: 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) 

2013: Establish required skills and develop 

training materials for all second level 

composite structures knowledge areas 

(maintenance, inspection, structural 

engineering, and manufacturing) for 

operational safety. (Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety) 

2014: Develop technical data to assess the 

application of advanced aluminumlithium metallic alloys for primary 

fuselage structure in transport category 

airplanes. (Continued Airworthiness) 

2016: Develop technical data to assess the 

fatigue and environmental durability of 

bonded repairs to metallic structure 

(Continued Airworthiness) 

Systems 

Prevent accidents due to system failures. 

Avionics 

2013: Identify safety issues and propose 

mitigation approaches when software 

development techniques and tools are 

used in airborne systems. 

(Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety) 

Flight Controls

2011: Complete the study in usage, design, and 

training issues for rudder control 

systems in transport aircraft. 

(Continued Airworthiness) 

Unmanned Aircraft 

Integrate unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) 

into the civil airspace. (Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research) 

2012: Determine a set of performance 

characteristics and operational 

requirements for sense and avoid 

technologies. 

13 Design Assessment of Reliability With INspection (DARWIN®) 

Chapter 2	 52 
 

 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

2013: Analyze data and identify potential 

safety implications of system 

performance impediments of 

communications latency. 

2013: Identify the current technologies for 

small unmanned aircraft systems to 

establish a central repository of 

historical data used to track 

continuous airworthiness of life 

limited components. 

2015: Identify recommended strategies for 

unmanned aircraft systems to 

compensate for missing sensory 

information at the control station and 

a method to assess performance 

requirements and methods of 

compliance for control stations. 

2016: Conduct field evaluations of 

unmanned aircraft system 

technologies in an operational 

environment, including sense and 

avoid, control and communications, 

and contingency management 

technologies. The documented 

results will be used to develop 

certification and airworthiness 

standards. 

General Aviation 

Reduce GA accidents. 

2013: Develop technical data on rotorcraft 

that provide guidance for 

certification of Health and Usage 

Monitoring Systems for usage 

credits. (Continued Airworthiness) 

2016: Develop engine and fuel test 

methods to evaluate the 

performance, safety, durability, and 

operability of unleaded aviation 

gasoline. (NextGen – Alternative 

Fuels for General Aviation) 

Commercial Space 

Identify the requirements for safe 

commercial space transportation vehicles. 

(Commercial Space Transportation Safety) 

2010: Conduct a study to examine the 

operational environment, determine the 

number of sensors needed, define the 

data recovery process, and provide black 

box survivability criteria for use in 

developing requirements for a black box 

system to be used in commercial space 

transportation systems (expendable 

launch vehicles and reusable launch 

vehicles). 

2011: Conduct a study to provide guidance to 

the FAA and industry on the use of 

operational limitations and inspection 

requirements for suborbital reusable 

launch vehicles comprised of composite 

materials. The results of this study will 

help to develop effective rules for 

operations and maintenance for use of 

composite materials, as they apply to 

commercial space transportation. 

2012: Conduct a study to provide information 

on the capability, limitations, and 

considerations for global positioning 

system (GPS) implementation in space 

launch and reentry environments, such 

as Space and Air Traffic Control, which 

will be used to help determine 

requirements for GPS usage and future 

technologies. 

2012: Conduct a study to identify means of 

preventing hazards (such as fires and 

explosions) involving nontraditional 

monopropellants and oxidizers 

(specifically hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, 

and nitrous oxide, N2O) used in 

propulsion systems in commercial space 

applications. 

53	 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

Progress in FY 2011: Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

Generalized Damage and Failure Model: Progress in the development of a generalized failure model is on track 

to complete material evaluations of aluminum and titanium in 2014. The MAT 224 framework has passed 

quality assurance checks and is implemented in the production version of explicit finite element code LSDYNA. This milestone makes the model available for use by industry and academia. The production code 

allows more users to support the schedule for completing the aluminum and titanium models and verification 

for impact of turbine engine fragments in 2014. (Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program) 

Implications of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in Controlled Airspace: The need for UAS access to 

the NAS is increasing. DoD operates UAS in U.S. airspace to test aircraft, test procedures, and train ground 

controllers. The Department of Homeland Security uses unmanned aircraft to patrol the nation’s borders. Other 

agencies and organizations use them for activities such as disaster relief or scientific research. These missions 

often require UAS access to non-segregated airspace where they fly with manned aircraft and are managed by 

FAA air traffic controllers. CAASD conducted research on the impact of UAS on FAA controllers from a 

human factors perspective, and the effect of UAS on safety and capacity of the airspace. The research focused 

on Class A (high altitude en route) airspace where UAS are operating on instrument flight rule (IFR) flight 

plans, using discrete transponders code, and communicating with air traffic controllers. These UAS fly very 

complex routes, making it difficult for ATC to predict their paths and therefore complicating the task of 

separating UAS from other traffic. CAASD researchers used a sampling of voice data to further understand 

how controllers are affected by UAS flights. Voice data synchronized with radar was accessed through an FAA 

post-operations analysis tool called Falcon human-in-the-loop (HITL) experiments were continued from 2010 to 

explore the methods of indicating a loss of the command and control link to the controller. This research has 

begun to quantify some of the differences and similarities between UAS and manned aircraft from the 

perspective of the air traffic controller. Some key outcomes of the 2011 research include the identification of 

several research questions which must be answered prior to full UAS integration, as well as contributing input 

into the development of a mid-term concept of operations for UAS in the NAS. (Center for Advanced Aviation 

System Development) 

Study On the Use of Operational Limitations and Inspection Requirements for Suborbital Reusable Launch 

Vehicles Comprised of Composite Materials: The Aerospace Corporation was tasked by the Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center to provide technical support to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST), in developing guidance for AST and industry use on operational 

limitations and inspection requirements for suborbital reusable launch vehicles built using composite structures 

and subjected to a typical flight profile. Four representative suborbital flight profiles were selected from a 

previous study. A review of the literature was conducted, which included peer-reviewed journal articles, 

conference proceedings, and standards set forth by NASA, the American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics (AIAA), and ASTM, with the goal of identifying the operational environment phenomena, and 

their adverse effects on fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites, and also considerations for maintenance of 

composites, including lessons learned in the use of composites by the aviation community. Additional 

contributions were obtained from interviews with various subject-matter experts at The Aerospace Corporation. 

Environmental phenomena, their adverse effects on composite structure, and mitigation techniques, were 

identified. The phenomena were not ranked, in part due to lack of substantiated and uniform fidelity and 

maturity of data for each, but also due to the potential for synergistic effects and for environment coupling. 

Additionally, further study and data are necessary to understand the influence of exposure time on the effects of 

these phenomena, and also the severity of their effect at a representative suborbital altitude. (Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety) 

Rudder Control Systems in Transport Aircraft: Researchers completed a study to identify factors that may 

influence pilot commanded rudder over-controls, which could lead to potential airframe structural failures. The 

study was conducted in five parts: (1) studies of existing directional control standards, (2) literature and 

Chapter 2 54 
2012 NARP 

accident/incident reviews, (3) desktop flight simulation and analysis, (4) global transport-airplane pilot survey 

of in-flight rudder usage, and (5) real-time, full scale piloted simulations. 

Results from this study indicate that currently certified rudder control system designs produce varying effects in 

pilot inputs as opposed to actual rudder movements. In addition, rudder-pedal feedback to the pilot and the 

actual load on vertical stabilizers varies as well. Experience indicates that variations in pilot training and pedal 

input characteristics may lead to the tendency of rudder over-control events that could overstress the airframe 

structure in some airplane designs. 

Technical information with supporting data from this study were delivered to the proper FAA regulatory offices 

for considerations in developing rudder-control design standards and/or pilot training requirements, and the 

issues shown in the study are being considered by an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. (Continued 

Airworthiness) 

Damage Detection Technologies: The FAA’s Airworthiness Assurance Nondestructive Inspection Validation 

Center at Sandia National Labs, in conjunction with industry and airline partners, applied an in-situ crack 

detection system known as Comparative Vacuum Monitoring (CVM) to several large transport and regional jets 

to validate CVM technology as a standard non-destructive inspection practice and as a means of conducting 

structural health monitoring (SHM). CVM is a simple pneumatic-based sensor technology developed to 

monitor the onset and growth of structural cracking. Over the course of this research, a series of 26 sensors 

were mounted on structures in four different DC-9, B-757, and B-767 airplanes to validate the CVM sensors in 

actual operating environments. Another series of flight tests were also conducted on regional jets. Through the 

use of these in-situ CVM sensors, it was demonstrated that it is possible to remotely monitor the integrity of a 

structure in service by detecting onset incipient cracks before structural failures occur. A follow-on project to 

identify and streamline issues and technical challenges related to certification of SHM technologies for large 

transport airplanes will be conducted during FY 2012 and FY 2013. (Continued Airworthiness) 

Damage Containment using Advanced Integral-Stitched Structure: A team of FAA, NASA, and Boeing 

researchers conducted a structural integrity test at the FAA’s Full-Scale Aircraft Structural Test Evaluation and 

Research laboratory on September 21, 2011. This research was focused on the damage containment and arrest 

capabilities of the advanced stitched-composite technology concept of Pultruded Rod Stitched Efficient 

Unitized Structure (PRSEUS). Test results indicate that the PRSEUS concept is effective in arresting damage 

growth and improving the load carrying capacity. The panel was capable of sustaining loads exceeding the 

design ultimate load with a severe initial damage state consisting of a two-bay notch with the central stiffener 

severed. (Continued Airworthiness) 

Survey of Structural Repairs and Alteration in Transport Category Airplanes: FAA researchers completed a 

survey of structural repairs, alterations, and modifications (RAM) on transport airplanes to better understand the 

risks that RAMs may pose for developing widespread fatigue damage (WFD). They conducted surveys on 

retired airplanes at aircraft salvage locations and on in-service airplanes at the operator’s heavy maintenance 

locations. These will be compared to a similar survey conducted by the Airworthiness Assurance Working 

Group in the 1990s. Additionally, researchers acquired specimens from retired airplanes, performed in-depth 

teardown inspections to look for the presence of damage indicative of WFD, and developed a database to 

analyze the data for WFD risk assessments. Overall, the survey inspected 2,584 RAMs from 154 airplanes 

representing 16 models the U.S. domestic fleet of 5,014 aircraft. For the RAMs inspected, there was no 

evidence of WFD occurrence. The vast majority (99.0%) were installed properly and in good condition. There 

was limited number of questionable repairs (0.6%) that appeared deficient mainly due to poor workmanship. 

The database is currently being evaluated by FAA engineers to quantify safety risks that RAMs may pose for 

55 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

developing WFD. If the evaluation reveals that additional actions are needed to address risks for RAMs, the 

FAA will consider further rulemaking. (Continued Airworthiness) 

Fire Safety of Lithium Batteries: Guidance on lithium battery fire safety in a safety alert for operators (SAFO 

10017) was developed, issued, and documented in an FAA technical report (DOT/FAA/AR-10/31). Testing 

showed that halon will extinguish a fire caused by thermal runaway of a lithium ion battery, the more common 

rechargeable type of lithium battery. However, if the agent is dissipated, the fire will reoccur as thermal 

runaway propagates to adjacent batteries in a bulk shipment and the vented flammable electrolyte reignites. It 

was found that halon does not adequately cool down the batteries to prevent the spread of thermal runaway. 

Therefore, it was recommended that lithium ion batteries be shipped in Class C cargo compartments, which 

contain a halon system designed to maintain a prescribed concentration of halon throughout the flight, 

preventing re-ignition of the flammable electrolyte released from a battery in thermal runaway. Portable halon 

extinguishers cannot prevent lithium battery re-ignition because the agent will be dissipated. For this reason 

placing lithium ion batteries at a location accessible to the crew (e.g., in a Class E freighter main deck cargo 

compartment) is not recommended. It is recommended that lithium ion batteries be shipped in a container or 

package designed to contain the fire hazards of lithium ion batteries in thermal runaway. Tests showed that a 

container for safely shipping oxygen cylinders and generators (often called an overpack), compliant with 

hazardous material regulation HM224B previously developed by the FAA Fire Safety Team, successfully 

contained a lithium ion battery fire. HM224B was used as the basis for recommending a draft overpack 

performance standard for lithium ion batteries. Fire tests also showed that non-rechargeable or one-use type 

lithium batteries, called primary or metal batteries, are more hazardous than lithium ion batteries. Lithium 

metal battery fires involve burning lithium metal, which cannot be extinguished with halon, and create 

significantly higher pressure and smoke than lithium ion battery fires and molten metal fragments. Also, tests 

with sealed metal containers recommended by ICAO were ineffective because they failed due to overpressure, 

allowing the flaming lithium metal battery contents to be ejected large distances outside the container. 

Additional research is required to determine safe methods for the bulk shipment of lithium metal batteries that 

are currently prohibited from passenger carrying aircraft. (Fire Research and Safety) 

New Developments in Turbine Engine Component Risk Assessment Software: Over the past few decades, a 

number of uncontained aircraft engine failures have been traced to material anomalies in the rotating 

components of aircraft gas turbine engines. Since the occurrence rates of these anomalies are relatively small, a 

probabilistic approach is used to assess the risk of fracture including the potential risk reduction associated with 

non-destructive inspections. The associated risk of fracture can be predicted using DARWIN®, a probabilistic 

fracture mechanics software code developed by Southwest Research Institute under FAA R&D funding. New 

capabilities include automatic zone generation, time-dependent fatigue crack growth assessment, and parallel 

processing. In previous versions, human judgment was required to define zones and the orientation and 

boundaries of the associated fracture mechanics models, and risk results could vary considerably from analyst to 

analysis. The time-dependent assessment is especially important for components exposed to higher 

temperatures and longer mission times; and the parallel processing substantially reduces the computation time 

required for risk assessment of gas turbine engine components. Benefits will accrue in the form of a reduced 

risk of engine failures and fewer accidents, which in turn will lead to fewer injuries and fatalities. (Propulsion 

and Fuel Systems) 

Safety Management System: A systems-level approach was used to analyze the safety impact of introducing 

UAS into the NAS. Using Safety Management Systems (SMS) principles and existing regulatory structure, a 

methodology was defined to determine a mandatory safety baseline for Sense and Avoid (SAA) in the NAS. 

The developed mandatory safety baseline can be used to determine UAS specific hazards and causal factors for 

the SAA problem domain. The final report titled A Regulatory-Based Systems-Level Safety Analysis of Sense 

and Avoid for UAS (IFR Operations) was delivered to the sponsor (AFS-407) in July 2011. (Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research) 

Chapter 2 56 
 

 

2012 NARP

57 Chapter 2
Chapter 2

R&D Goal 7 

Separation Assurance 

A reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle operations in 

the air and on the ground 
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

R&D Target 

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

Method of Validation 

The approach includes conducting R&D to support the standards, procedures, training, and policy required to 

implement the NextGen OIs 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 R&D is 

sufficient for the initial policy and standards that are required to certify technology, procedures, and training 

needed to implement self-separation. 

Funding Requirements - R&D Goal 7 

Funding levels are listed for the current enacted (2012) and requested year (2013). Programs with zero funding listed support this goal 

with FAA staff resources only. 

2012 Enacted ($000) 2013 Request ($000) 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration

 Human Factors 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human

 Factors 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

3,500 

7,796 

A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors 

(100% of program) 

1A08F NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization Coordination Only 

59 Chapter 2 
	 

2012 NARP 

Milestones 

Surface/Runway Operations

Awareness 

Support procedures, equipage, training, 

and design to enable enhanced aircraft 

spacing for surface movements. (NextGen -

Self-Separation Human Factors) 

2012: Complete initial research to evaluate 

and recommend minimum display 

standards for use of enhanced and 

synthetic vision systems, as well as 

airport markings and signage, to 

conduct surface movements across a 

range of visibility conditions. 

2014: Evaluate and recommend minimum 

display standards and operational 

procedures for use of Cockpit Display 

of Traffic Information to support pilot 

awareness of potential ground conflicts 

and to support transition between taxi, 

takeoff, departure and arrival phases of 

flight. 

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. 

Reduced Separation 

Support procedures, equipage, training, 

and design to enable reduced separation. 

(NextGen - Self-Separation Human

Factors) 

2012: Complete initial research to evaluate 

the impact and potential risks 

associated with use of the Traffic Alert 

and Collision Avoidance System in 

NextGen procedures. 

2014: Complete research to identify likely 

human error modes and recommend 

mitigation strategies in closely spaced 

arrival/departure routings. 

2015: Complete research and provide human 

factors guidance to reduce arrival and 

departure spacing including variable 

separation in a mixed equipage 

environment. 

Delegated Separation 

Support procedures, equipage, training, 

and cockpit design to enable delegated 

separation. (NextGen - Self-Separation

Human Factors) 

2012: Complete initial research to evaluate 

and recommend procedures, equipage, 

and training to safely conduct oceanic 

and en route pair-wise delegated 

separation. 

2015: Enable reduced and delegated 

separation in oceanic airspace and en 

route corridors. 

Chapter 2	 60 
2012 NARP 

Progress in FY 2011: Separation Assurance 

Wake Turbulence Avoidance Automation: In FY 2011 CAASD research used existing wake turbulence, aircraft, 

and meteorological data to model estimated wake characteristics. This modeling capability was used to drive 

displays of wake information on the pilot CDTI. When combined with other advanced technologies like ADSB, potential improvements in situational awareness, safety, and capacity were defined. Three laboratory 

scenarios demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of incorporating wake information into a CDTI. 

Improvements to the wake displays identified during the additional applications of the display of wake 

information will be explored, including other capacity-enhancing concepts, incorporation of wake-avoidance 

alerts, and improvements that could be made to the NAS to more accurately predict wake turbulence. (Center 

for Advanced Aviation System Development) 

Analysis of Deviations During Simultaneous Independent Approaches: The FAA developed standards for the 

conduct of simultaneous independent approaches to two parallel runways in the 1960s and added in the 1990s 

standards for closely-spaced simultaneous approaches using the Precision Runway Monitor (PRM). Initial 

safety analyses for simultaneous approaches were based on controllers preventing collisions after one aircraft 

deviated, or blundered, off of final approach. Although blunders were known to have occurred, there were little 

or no data available to estimate either their severity or rate of occurrence. Between FY 2008 and FY 2011, 

CAASD researchers monitored radar, arrival, and weather data at 12 airports to estimate the number of 

simultaneous approaches, number of deviations from final during these approaches, and severity of the 

deviations occurring under less than visual approach conditions. CAASD investigated more than 1.4 million 

simultaneous approaches and observed a total of 60 deviations of aircraft from their final approach courses that 

penetrated or nearly penetrated a No Transgression Zone. As a result of this data collection and 2011 analyses, 

the FAA can demonstrate that the rate and severity of deviations from final approach during simultaneous 

independent approaches is much less than was assumed in earlier analysis. The results of the study are being 

used in current analyses of approaches to potentially reduce the required spacing between parallel runways or to 

reduce the equipment and procedures required for the approaches. CAASD data collection and analysis is 

ongoing into FY 2012. (Center for Advanced Aviation System Development) 

Human Factors Research in Support of Separation Assurance: The NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors 

Program is a multiyear effort comprised of two dozen research projects to support its objective. Key products 

include descriptions of research and operational experience for each of the ADS-B/CDTI application areas, 

technical information in specialized topic areas such as flight crew training for advanced NextGen flight deck 

automation, and identification of human factors challenges posed by the current implementation of charted and 

electronic depictions of Area Navigation / Required Navigation Performance instrument procedures, low 

visibility taxi charts, and the Navigation Reference System (NRS), a precursor waypoint grid system enabling 

trajectory operations under NextGen. In FY 2011, the research resulted in several products: 

Researchers completed a simulation and most of the planned flight test activities for a study of Low Visibility 

Operations using Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and Synthetic Vision Systems. The results of this 

study will support AVS rulemaking to provide operational credit for EFVS beyond the existing limit of 100 feet 

using EFVS for instrument approaches in low visibility conditions. The results of the research were published 

in the following report: Bailey, R.E. Awareness and Detection of Traffic and Obstacles Using Synthetic and 

Enhanced Vision Systems (NASA/TM-2012-217324). National Aeronautic and Space Administration, Langley 

Research Center: Hampton, VA, 2012. 

Researchers completed a project that compared alternatives for NRS waypoint naming based on human factors 

principles. The report was provided to the Performance Based Navigation Integration Group within the FAA 

Mission Support Services Group (AJV) as they evaluate the NRS to formulate a policy for its use in NextGen 

performance-based navigation. (NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors) 

61 Chapter 2 
62

R&D Goal 8 

Situational Awareness 

Common, accurate, and real-time information of aerospace operations, events,

crises, obstacles, and weather 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate common, real-time awareness of ongoing air operations, events, crises, and weather in all 

phases of flight and at all types of airports by pilots and controllers. 

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. 

Funding Requirements - R&D Goal 8 

Funding levels are listed for the current enacted (2012) and requested year (2013). Programs with zero funding listed support this goal 

with FAA staff resources only. 

12,995 

8,000 

4,500 

4,911 

3,207 

900 

10,221 

6,371 

4,826 

370 

2,898 

3,500 

2,878 

9,940 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration

 Human Factors 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human

 Factors 

A11.k Weather Program 

(41% of program) 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 

A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

(100% of program) 

A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory

 Facility 

(10% of program) 

1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction 

(100% of program) 

1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management

 Requirements 

1A08D NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers 

(100% of program) 

4A08A Center for Advanced Aviation System

 Development (CAASD)

 (16% of R&D program in FY 2012) 

NAS Weather Requirements 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Safety 

Airport Technology Research Program - Safety 

(65% of program) 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety 

2012 Enacted ($000) 2013 Request ($000) 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

63 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

Milestones 

Weather Situational 

Awareness Develop common situational awareness 

for weather. 

Weather Information Improvements 

(Weather Program) 

2010: Develop Continental U.S. ceiling, 

visibility, and flight category forecast 

capability. 

2012: Develop Continental U.S. ceiling and 

visibility forecast to merge with 

National Weather Service capability. 

2014: Transition in-flight icing Alaska 

forecast for implementation. 

2015: Demonstrate integrated FAA/National 

Weather Service ceiling and visibility 

forecast capability. 

Weather Technology in the Cockpit14 

(NextGen - Weather Technology in the 

Cockpit) 

2010: Assess bandwidth demand of 

graphical icing products (Current 

Icing Product and Forecast Icing 

Product) and graphical turbulence 

products (Graphical Turbulence 

Guidance) for potential delivery via 

existing and planned FAA data link 

services. 

2011: Identify, validate, and document 

datalink system attributes that may 

affect use of weather in the cockpit. 

2012: Simulate and evaluate the benefits 

and impacts of presenting impactoriented meteorological information 

in the cockpit in a collaborative 

decision environment. 

2013: Develop NextGen Part 121, 135, and 

Part 91 concepts of operation and user 

requirements for the provision, 

integration, and use of weather 

information in the cockpit. 

2013: Assess the impacts and benefits of 

mobile/portable devices for use in 

providing increased common 

meteorological situational awareness 

between the cockpit crew and ground 

based traffic managers. 

2014: Simulate, test, and evaluate cockpit 

use of weather decision support tools, 

including probabilistic forecasts. 

2014: Simulate, test, and evaluate fullyintegrated cockpit use of NextGen 

operational concepts, including 

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 among pilots, dispatchers, 

and air traffic controllers supported 

by NextGen air and ground 

capabilities. 

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. 

Chapter 2	 64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

Airports 

Ensure safe airport operations. 

2010: Develop system enhancements for 

runway status lights. (Runway 

Incursion Reduction Program) 

2010: Develop advisory material to install 

new visual guidance systems. 

(Airport Technology Research 

Program - Safety) 

2011: Continue development of Runway 

Status Lights system enhancements, 

install additional Low Cost Ground 

Surveillance pilot sites, and assess 

Runway Incursion mitigation 

programs via simulation. (Runway 

Incursion Reduction Program) 

2011: Develop performance standards for 

avian radar use on airports. (Airport 

Technology Research Program - 

Safety) 

2012: Develop guidance material for airport 

planning to ensure consistency from 

the operator’s perspective from 

airport to airport. (Airport 

Technology Research Program - 

Safety) 

Commercial Space 

Develop situational awareness for

commercial space transportation. 

(Commercial Space Transportation Safety) 

2009: Conduct a study to determine the 

need to develop a temporal wind 

database to support the launch of 

wind-weighted, unguided, suborbital 

rockets launched from nonfederal 

launch sites. 

2009: Review integrated operations of 

reusable launch vehicles (RLV) from 

spaceports, joint use airport and 

spaceports, as well as the airspace 

surrounding those facilities and 

provide recommendations on how to 

safely integrate and conduct routine 

RLV operations. 

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 to the radar wind 

profiler to obtain winds at greater 

altitudes than currently available. 

65	 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

Progress in FY 2011: Situational Awareness 

Advisory Circulars for Visual Guidance for Pilots: The program completed recommendations for an Advisory 

Circular (AC) for visual guidance that defines new light emitting diode (LED) lighting chromaticity boundaries 

for aviation white. These new definitions will improve the identification of a light source as "white" as 

compared with the incandescent light source which has been confused for many years with yellow at low 

intensity settings. (Airport Technology Research Program) 

Development of Performance Standards for Avian Radar Use On Airports: An FAA AC was published that 

provides performance standards for deploying avian radar systems on airports. The guidance in this AC is 

applicable to airport owners and operators and describes how airports can select, procure, deploy, and manage 

an avian radar system. Avian radar systems can be used by airports to supplement their existing Wildlife Hazard 

Management Plans by extending the detection capabilities of wildlife biologists during times of low visibility, at 

night, and at ranges far beyond the extent of the unaided human eye. Expected performance and necessary 

siting criteria are also covered in this AC. (Airport Technology Research Program) 

Very High Frequency Digital Link Mode 2 Demonstration: The program completed a hardware demonstration 

to verify the Very High Frequency Digital Link Mode 2 simulation data and results from FY 2010. The 

laboratory demonstration verified that the coverage ranges and error rates from the simulations were accurate, 

but showed that the data rates were lower than those assumed in the simulations. The demonstration results 

indicated that to send the Current Icing Product and Graphical Turbulence Guidance to the cockpit in a timely 

manner requires full channel utilization which is deemed to be unrealistic since that requires virtually no 

contention on the channel (contention meaning that nothing else is contending for the bandwidth and the 

channel’s bandwidth is completely allocated to the MET product). The benefit of this research is the 

verification of the bandwidth-intensive nature of sending these MET products in full to the cockpit. It also 

verified a paper analysis and some models that were used in that analysis. (NextGen - Weather Technology in 

the Cockpit) 

Increased Situational Awareness through Runway Incursion Reduction: The Runway Incursion Reduction 

Program made significant progress in the evaluation of various technologies developed to increase situational 

awareness for pilots and controllers and reduce the rate of runway incursion incidents. 

Runway Status Lights - Runway Intersection Lights were placed in operational evaluation (OpEval) status at 

Boston Logan International Airport (BOS). A successful OpEval report was published for BOS in February 

2011. OpEvals of Runway Entrance Lights (REL) at BOS, DFW, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), and 

San Diego International Airport (SAN) continued. In addition, OpEvals of Takeoff Hold Lights (THL) at BOS, 

DFW, and LAX were conducted. A new Field Lighting System at SAN was installed, and a pre-OpEval 

demonstration was performed using incandescent fixtures in March 2011. The incandescent fixtures have since 

been replaced with REL LEDs which are currently undergoing OpEval. A feasibility study was completed in 

September 2011 to determine whether Low Cost Ground Surveillance (LCGS) can operate as a potential sensor 

to drive the activation of Runway Status Lights (RWSL) safety logic, and initial results indicate that it can. 

RWSL system reliability monthly averages have been consistently above 95%, a marked increase over FY 2010 

averages. 

Low Cost Ground Surveillance - Four LCGS pilot sites were installed at Manchester Boston Regional Airport 

(MHT), Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC), Reno-Tahoe International Airport (RNO), and Long Beach 

Airport (LGB). The demonstration site at Spokane International Airport (GEG) was expanded to include 

displays in the airport traffic control tower, and a final user evaluation for GEG was completed in September 

2011. Technical evaluations were completed at MHT and SJC, and user evaluations are now underway. 

Technical evaluations have begun at RNO and LGB. 

Chapter 2 66 
2012 NARP 

Runway Safety Assessment – Methods were developed to mitigate confusion between THLs and the red lights 

of an ALSF-2 (High Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights) in a displace 

threshold. HITL testing of these newly-developed methods was performed and the data collection took place at 

MITRE in the summer of 2011. 

Enhanced Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal – Enhanced Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal 

hardware and software were developed for use with commissioned Precision Approach Path Indicator units and 

are undergoing an OpEval at DFW. (Runway Incursion Reduction Program) 

Ceiling and Visibility Analysis: The most deadly of GA encounters results from inadvertent flight into 

Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) by a Visual Flight Rules (VFR) pilot, or a poorly prepared IFR 

pilot, causing the most common type of weather accident. The FAA has developed a Ceiling and Visibility 

Analysis (CVA) capability that provides real-time analysis of current Ceiling and Visibility conditions, updated 

every five minutes with a 5 km grid, across the CONUS. In FY 2011 this capability underwent a successful 

scientific review as well as a safety assessment and is anticipated to be operationally implemented onto the 

web-based Aviation Digital Data Service (at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Aviation Weather Center in Kansas City) in FY 2012. As a safety tool to improve situational awareness, CVA 

targets the safety-of-operations needs of lower-end GA pilots. Further research by FY 2016 will entail 

collaboration with the National Weather Service. This will include the integration of a 1-12 hour CONUS 

ceiling, visibility, and flight category forecast capability with their Local Analysis MOS Product to form the 

basis of a gridded product. (Weather Program) 

Forecast Icing Product with Severity: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) data indicates that in-flight 

icing causes more than 25 accidents annually, with more than half resulting in fatalities and destroyed aircraft. 

This equates to $100 million in injuries, fatalities, and aircraft damage each year. To address this problem, the 

FAA has developed Current and Forecast Icing Products (CIP and FIP), which provide more accurate and timely 

diagnosis and forecasts of atmospheric conditions leading to ice accretion on aircraft during flight. In FY 2011, 

Forecast Icing Product with Severity (FIP-Severity) was implemented operationally on the web-based Aviation 

Digital Data Service at the NOAA Aviation Weather Center in Kansas City. FIP-Severity is an update to the 

original FIP (which only provided uncalibrated icing potential) and provides forecasts of the probability of 

encountering icing, its expected severity, and the likelihood of large droplet icing conditions. This capability is 

especially beneficial to aircraft without ice protection and those that fly at relatively low altitudes where they 

are more likely to encounter atmospheric conditions conducive to icing. Further enhancements by FY 2016 will 

include forecast and analysis capabilities for Alaska. These capabilities will enhance safety especially for 

Alaskan GA pilots. (Weather Program) 

67 Chapter 2 
68

Chapter 2

R&D Goal 9 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

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, efficiency, and environmental 

goals. Validation of the R&D target will include analysis, modeling, prototypes, and demonstrations using 

safety, capacity, efficiency, and environmental metrics. The evaluation efforts under this goal support the 

interim assessment of progress and validation of the R&D targets under the following: R&D Goal 1 - Fast, 

Flexible, and Efficient, R&D Goal 2 - Clean and Quiet, and R&D Goal 5 - Human Protection. 

Funding Requirements - R&D Goal 9 

Funding levels are listed for the current enacted (2012) and requested year (2013). Programs with zero funding listed support this goal 

with FAA staff resources only. 

464 

10,027 

1,500 

5,200 

3,500 

3,000 

8,122 

14,639 

8,123 

2,606 

1,650 

2,500 

500 

528 

11,345 

3,600 

5,600 

4,300 

6,100 

5,000 

7,500 

7,000 

2,339 

1,650 

2,500 

500 

A11.e Continued Airworthiness 

(4% of program) 

A11.h System Safety Management 

(100% of program) 

A11.j Aeromedical Research 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 

(30% of program) 

1A01B System Capacity, Planning and Improvement 

(100% of program) 

1A01C Operations Concept Validation 

(100% of program) 

1A01D Airspace Management Program 

(100% of program) 

1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation -

Validation Modeling 

(100% of program) 

1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management

 Transformation 

(100% of program) 

1A08H NextGen - Operational Assessments 

(100% of program) 

4A08A Center for Advanced Aviation System

 Development (CAASD)

 (13% of R&D program in FY 2012) 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Capacity 

(33% of program) 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Safety 

(50% of program) 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety 

(50% of program) 

2012 Enacted ($000) 2013 Request ($000) 

Coordination Only 

69 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

Milestones 

Information Analysis 

and Sharing 

Develop an information management 

system to serve as the foundation for the 

analysis of data trends and the 

identification of potential safety hazards 

before accidents occur. 

(NextGen - System Safety Management 

Transformation) 

2009: Evaluate current information 

protection and assurance models and 

evaluate potential conflicts with 

privacy and consumer advocacy 

groups. 

2012: Using the existing Aviation Safety 

Information Analysis and Sharing 

architecture, develop a proof-ofconcept and prototype for the sharing 

of aviation safety information among 

Joint Planning and Development 

Office member agencies, participants, 

and stakeholders. 

2013: Complete the Aviation Safety 

Information Analysis and Sharing 

system pre-implementation activities, 

including concept definition, with 

other Joint Planning and 

Development Office member 

agencies, participants, and 

stakeholders. 

Develop a system to increase safety of 

commercial operations. (System Safety

Management) 

2011: Develop automated tools to monitor 

databases for potential safety issues. 

2012: Demonstrate a working prototype of 

network-based integration of 

information extracted from diverse, 

distributed sources. 

Capacity and Efficiency 

Evaluation 

Develop methods, metrics, and models to

demonstrate that the modernized system 

can handle anticipated growth in traffic 

demand according to the Terminal Area 

Forecasts15 for incremental years leading 

to the far-term NextGen. This evaluation 

will compare the modernized system with 

the current system using capacity and 

efficiency metrics.16 

2008: Demonstrate capacity increase to 

130% of baseline levels17. (NextGen 

- Operations Concept Validation - 

Validation Modeling; Operations 

Concept Validation; System Capacity, 

Planning and Improvement) 

2011: Demonstrate an increase in capacity 

and efficiency at 2018 forecasted 

traffic levels. (Operations Concept 

Validation; NextGen - Operations 

Concept Validation - Validation 

Modeling; System Capacity, Planning 

and Improvement) 

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

data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2010-2030/ 

16 This supports demonstration of the R&D target under R&D Goal 1 - Fast, Flexible, and Efficient. 

17 The year 2004 was chosen as a baseline for consistency with the Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 

108-176) and the Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan submitted to Congress as required in that legislation. 

Chapter 2	 70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP 

2011: Develop a guidebook for airport 

operators and air cargo industry 

stakeholders that provides tools and 

techniques for measuring economic 

impacts of air cargo activities at the 

national, regional, and local level. 

(Airport Cooperative Research 

Program - Capacity) 

2012:	 Develop a user interface and trend 

analysis capability that monitors NAS 

performance with respect to failures, 

risks, impact on Air Traffic Control 

and other off-nominal occurrences. 

(System Safety Management) 

2012: Complete a pilot-in-the-loop 

evaluation of radius-to-fix turns 

during departure procedures. (System 

Safety Management) 

2012: Complete representative stall model 

for upset recovery training. (System 

Safety Management) 

2013: Demonstrate an increase in capacity 

and efficiency at 2021 forecasted 

traffic levels. (Operations Concept 

Validation; NextGen - Operations 

Concept Validation - Validation 

Modeling; System Capacity, Planning 

and Improvement) 

2016: Demonstrate an increase in capacity 

and efficiency at 2025 forecasted 

traffic levels. (Operations Concept 

Validation; NextGen - Operations 

Concept Validation - Validation 

Modeling; System Capacity, Planning 

and Improvement) 

2016: Complete an evaluation of the 

reported runway slipperiness 

condition from all potential runway 

surface conditions and airplane 

configurations. (System Safety 

Management) 

2016: Develop test criteria by varying 

motion characteristics to span the 

domain of the criteria and compare 

variations against subjective opinions 

of motion quality. (System Safety 

Management 

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) 

2011: Develop proof of concept for 

NextGen including a prototype to 

implement on a trial basis with 

selected participants that involve a 

cross-section of air service providers. 

(NextGen - System Safety 

Management Transformation) 

2011: Develop and validate a software tool 

to quantify risk and support 

engineering decision-making related 

to runway safety area requirements. 

(Airport Cooperative Research 

Program - Safety) 

2014:	 Complete the compilation of risk 

analysis data and/or statistical data 

into a format best suited for efficient 

use in transport airplane risk analysis. 

(System Safety Management) 

2014: Demonstrate a National Level System 

Safety Assessment capability that will 

proactively identify emerging risk 

across NextGen. (NextGen - System 

Safety Management Transformation) 

71	 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

Commercial Space 

Develop understanding of commercial 

space transportation system operations. 

(Commercial Space Transportation Safety) 

2010: Conduct a study with current 

information related to the state of the 

commercial suborbital transportation 

industry with a focus on market 

demand, safety, operability, and 

international coordination. 

2011: Release Commercial Space 

Transportation Research Road Map 

document, v1.0. 

Safety Evaluation18 

Develop methods and metrics to measure 

progress in significantly reducing the rate 

of fatalities and significant injuries. 

(System Safety Management) 

2010: Demonstrate a one-third reduction in 

the rate of fatalities and injuries. 

2012: Develop a quantitative and objective 

approach to prioritize new and 

evolving safety risks identified 

through analysis of multiple 

databases. 

2015: Expand the Aviation Safety 

Information Analysis and Sharing 

system safety analysis to other 

domains (e.g., general aviation, 

rotorcraft, corporate, military). 

2016: Establish safety metrics to align with 

NextGen system changes. 

Environmental Assessment 

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 significant growth in 

demand.19 

2009: Develop and implement NAS-wide 

regional environmental analysis 

capability within the Aviation 

Environmental Design Tool. 

(NextGen – Operational Assessments) 

2010: Implement weather effects in Aviation 

Environmental Design Tool 

environmental analyses. 

(NextGen - Operational Assessments) 

2013: Develop and implement NAS-wide 

demand forecasting, economic and 

environmental analysis capability 

with the Aviation Environmental 

Portfolio Management Tool. 

(NextGen - Operational Assessments) 

2013: Explore options to integrate 

environmental assessment capability 

with NextGen NAS models. 

(NextGen - Operational Assessments) 

2016: Employ the Aviation Environmental 

Design Tool and the Aviation 

Environmental Portfolio Management 

Tool for NAS-wide environmental 

analyses. (NextGen - Operational 

Assessments) 

18 For these milestones, demonstrate means to show that the methods and metrics developed are valid and that, with the system 

improvements planned, it is possible to reduce the rate of fatalities and injuries by the stated amounts. 

19 This supports demonstration of the R&D target under R&D Goal 2 - Clean and Quiet as it relates to the R&D target under R&D 

Goal 1 - Fast, Flexible, and Efficient. 

Chapter 2	 72 
2012 NARP 

Progress in FY 2011: System Knowledge 

Guidebook for Estimating the Economic Impact and Value of Air Freight Activities at Airports: The economic 

contribution of air cargo to airports and the communities they serve is significant. Therefore, it is important to 

provide effective tools and techniques to measure and value the contribution of air cargo activity to local, 

regional, and national economies, allowing improved response to changing global market conditions. The 

ACRP - Capacity has improved existing tools and techniques by developing a guidebook for use by airport 

operators and other air cargo industry stakeholders for measuring existing and future economic impacts of air 

cargo activities at a national, regional, and local airport level in the context of changing market, financial, 

security, and other conditions. Critical issues in measuring economic impacts of air cargo activity at a given 

airport include: (1) size of the air cargo market, (2) source and purpose of air cargo activity, (3) effect of 

changing fuel prices, (4) understanding complex linkages to changing economic conditions, (5) effect of 

increasing security requirements, and (6) availability and comparative cost of alternate cargo shipment modes. 

(Airport Cooperative Research Program) 

Improved Models for Risk Assessment of Runway Safety Areas: The ACRP – Safety has developed and 

validated a user-friendly software analysis tool that can be used by airport and industry stakeholders to quantify 

risk and support planning and engineering decisions when determining Runway Safety Area requirements to 

meet an acceptable level of safety for various types and sizes of airports. This research expands on the research 

presented in ACRP Report 3, Analysis of Aircraft Overruns and Undershoots for Runway Safety Areas, by using 

many variables, not just those referenced in Table 7, page 28, of the report. The tool is interactive and versatile 

in order to help users determine the risk based on various input parameters. Risk is defined, in this project, as 

the probability of hull damage to aircraft, aircraft occupant injury, third-party injury, and property damage, as 

referenced in ACRP Report 3, Appendix B, Table B1-1, FAA Severity Definitions. (Airport Cooperative 

Research Program) 

NAS-wide Environmental Impact Assessment for NextGen: This CAASD research project focused on bridging 

the gap between fast-time simulation tools and environmental models, to enable a more comprehensive NASwide benefits assessment capability. This research effort in FY 2011: (1) identified key research priorities for 

bridging the gap between fast-time NAS-wide simulation tools and environmental models; (2) proposed and 

tested solutions for bridging the gap; and (3) conducting a sample analysis to illustrate key findings. This 

research involved close collaboration with the FAA’s Office of Environment and Energy and the Aviation 

Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) development team at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 

Research priorities addressed in FY 2011 included improving the terminal area representation of flight paths 

from systemwideModeler and proposing delay absorption mechanisms for translating en route delay information 

from the systemwideModeler to the appropriate flight path information inputs for AEDT. The 

systemwideModeler trajectories were augmented by introducing radar paths in the terminal area and delay 

vectors in the en route area. A library of historical radar track data was developed to support terminal area 

trajectory enhancements. A sample analysis was conducted on a city-pair basis to illustrate the key assembly 

blocks required to conduct an environmental assessment of operational changes. (Center for Advanced Aviation 

System Development) 

Integrated Economy-Wide Modeling: NextGen has the potential to impact the U.S. economy beyond the air 

transport industry because productivity gains for cargo and passenger carriers are in part also realized, for 

example, as productivity gains to businesses that ship or move passengers via air. Most benefit studies to date 

have not attempted to capture this potential. In 2011 CAASD researchers completed work on a capability to 

connect operational modeling of congested NAS resources to the functioning of the U.S. economy. The ability 

to consistently model the relationship between efficiency gains in the NAS and the broader national economy 

opens the door to answering or informing a variety of important questions. This research was done in 

collaboration with Monash University, using the U.S. Applied General Equilibrium (USAGE) model. FY 2011 

research enhanced the USAGE model in several ways to make it suitable for analyzing economy-wide impacts 

73 Chapter 2 
 

2012 NARP 

originating from the air transport industry. By connecting operational models of the NAS to the U.S. economy 

using a Computable General Equilibrium approach, economic impacts can be calculated at the broader economy 

level (variables like gross output, gross domestic product, impact on import and export) through industry level 

activity (industries that ship by air, serve air travelers, or produce components of air transport). (Center for 

Advanced Aviation System Development) 

Commercial Space Transportation Research Road Map Document, v1.0: The final Commercial Space 

Transportation Research Road Map document was released before the end of 2011. Two workshops were held 

in support of this task, one in April on the campus of Stanford University and the second in August in 

Washington, DC. The document provides details of the four main research areas and a major by-product of this 

activity will be four R&D Research Plans (one for each of the four research areas) that will guide the R&D 

activities of the FAA. (Commercial Space Transportation Safety) 

Small Airplane Continued Operational Safety: Researchers collected fatigue data from specific configurations 

of small airplanes to study the effects of material and structural variability and load complexity on fatigue life 

predictions of those airplanes, which are consistent with SMS principles. The research efforts also included 

statistical quantification of scatter factors for fatigue life analysis using Miner’s rule and development of a 

methodology for safe life based probabilistic risk assessment and risk management for small airplanes. A Small 

Aircraft Risk Technology (SMART) software tool was developed. The methodology and SMART tool will 

assist in the development of fatigue management programs for small airplane owners, operators, and mechanics. 

The outcome of this research will promote early recognition of age-related safety issues and improve the 

continued operational safety decision-making process, which will lead to increased prevention and mitigation of 

age related accidents and incidents of the GA fleet. (Continued Airworthiness) 

Aviation Environmental Design Tool Beta Software Tool: The beta version of FAA’s first interdependent 

environmental analysis tool was completed. The inaugural AEDT beta software tool calculates aircraft 

performance and simultaneously computes the noise levels, fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and 

criteria pollutant emissions as one output. The AEDT software tool will be used to evaluate the environmental 

trade-offs associated with informing investment decisions for implementing NextGen technologies and 

procedural changes. The first public release of AEDT is planned for FY 2012. (Environment and Energy; 

NextGen - Operational Assessments) 

Coupling of Terminal Area Route Generation, Evaluation, and Traffic Simulation and Aviation Environmental 

Design Tool: The FAA’s Terminal Area Route Generation, Evaluation, and Traffic Simulation (TARGETS) tool 

was coupled with the FAA’s new AEDT software tool to allow the assessment of more efficient aircraft 

procedures being developed under NextGen. The coupling of TARGETS with AEDT results in a highly 

efficient process to determine environmental trade-offs and consequences of aircraft noise exposure, emissions, 

and fuel consumption at the early design phase. Early identification of environmental consequences streamlines 

the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which saves time and 

resources to comply with NEPA requirements. (NextGen - Operational Assessments) 

Future End-to-End Operational Concepts: A HITL simulation of Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) was 

conducted as part of a series of simulations validating the SNT concept. It examined the ability of cameras to 

augment visual information for supplemental operations and provide visual surveillance during contingency 

operations. As part of SNT at Small & Medium Airports (SMA), a cognitive walkthrough assessed required 

visual elements for controlling airport traffic in the SMA environment. Controller and flight deck-centric 

HITLs were executed in 2011, supporting three-dimensional Path Arrival Management efforts. Results will be 

used to develop procedures, concept of operations (CONOPS), benefits cases, and system requirements for the 

ground automation tool under development by NASA. In July the FAA-NASA Research Transition Team held 

Chapter 2 74 
 

2012 NARP 

a close-out meeting for Flow Based Trajectory Management (FBTM), a key part of a plan to integrate seamless 

trajectory management within the NAS. FBTM researchers conducted two major en route HITLs, with results 

showing that the FBTM concept is feasible and beneficial. The NextGen mid-term CONOPS for the NAS was 

updated to reflect comments by the JPDO, RTCA, and FAA stakeholders. Twenty-six Nominal Operational 

Scenarios describing the mid-term environment were developed and posted to the NAS Enterprise Architecture. 

The mid-term CONOPS is a stepping-stone in a transition from the current NAS to the NextGen System 

envisioned in the JPDO CONOPS. (NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling) 

NextGen Mid-Term Capacity and Efficiency Benefits: The Air Traffic Service Concept Development & 

Validation Group had a 2011 NARP goal to demonstrate an increase in capacity and efficiency due to NextGen 

at 2018 forecasted traffic levels. To fulfill this goal, current and NextGen mid-term operations were simulated 

in the NAS-wide fast-time simulation model SWAC (System Wide Analysis Capability) using 2018 traffic 

levels. NextGen mid-term operations were simulated using projected runway improvements and a subset of 

mid-term OIs. Simulation output data was compared to obtain results including increased airport throughput, 

additional operations, and reduced delays. Results clearly show an increase in capacity and efficiency due to 

NextGen OIs. The busiest airports will experience increased throughput in the NextGen mid-term. On average, 

the core 30 airports will gain 719 arrival flights and 748 departure flights per year in 2018. In the NAS, 

NextGen will allow 30,660 additional flights per year in 2018. NextGen will also increase the efficiency of the 

NAS. In 2018, NextGen will reduce the total delay per year by 35.8% or 42.4 million minutes. It is important 

to note that the forecast year chosen for this study differs from the forecast year used in a similar study to obtain 

the benefits estimation found in the NGIP; therefore, differences in the results of these two studies are expected. 

(Operations Concept Validation; NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling; System 

Capacity, Planning and Improvement) 

Staffed NextGen Towers Field Demonstration at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport: The final field 

demonstration of SNT at DFW provided controllers an opportunity to evaluate the SNT concept using the 

Tower Flight Data Manager prototype in shadow-mode using live traffic. The SNT concept improves capacity 

limitations during low visibility and night conditions; maintains safety; and provides for cost-effective 

expansion of services as future traffic demands increase. The concept represents a paradigm shift from using 

the out-the-window view as the primary means for providing tower services to using surface surveillance 

approved for operational use. The field demonstration evaluated the suitability and acceptability of using 

cameras to augment visual information for supplemental operations and obtained controller feedback on using 

cameras for contingency operations. There were many individual differences among controllers and overall 

mixed reception to the cameras due to camera control, tracking, and image resolution limitations. For 

Supplemental Operations, results showed consensus on camera use for viewing blind spots and benefit for 

monitoring intersections and departure thresholds. For Contingency Operations, some controllers saw potential 

benefit of cameras as a secondary source of (visual) surveillance. (NextGen – Staffed NextGen Towers) 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing System Phase 2: In April 2009, the JPDO Safety Working 

Group developed and published a CONOPS for Phase 2 of the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and 

Sharing (ASIAS) system. Phase 2 ASIAS is to expand the sharing and collaboration of Phase 1 to include other 

Federal government partner departments and agencies and additional industry stakeholders that volunteer to 

participate. In 2010, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) volunteered to demonstrate the value of processing and sharing 

data from JPDO agencies as the first step in JPDO participation in ASIAS. The USAF Safety Center entered 

into a Memorandum of Understanding with ASIAS to furnish digital flight data from VIP Special Air Mission 

flights so ASIAS could compute the same benchmarks that were currently computed for existing ASIAS 

commercial airline participants. The team investigated four current ASIAS benchmarks: Unstable Approach, 

TCAS Resolution Advisories, Terrain Awareness Warning System, and Risk of Controlled Flight Into Terrain. 

75 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

A final report of this activity was submitted in August 2011. (NextGen – System Safety Management 

Transformation) 

Comprehensive Analysis of General Aviation Accidents: Research identified and analyzed the trends, 

distributions, initiating events, and associations with contributing factors of GA accidents from 1982 to 2009. 

The NTSB accident data were first analyzed nationally and then analyzed in each of the FAA’s nine regions. 

The results from each region were compared with national results to identify the unique characteristics within 

each region. The trends and distributions of accidents over the time of day, month of year, phase of flight, and 

purpose of flight were identified, and top ten initiating events triggering the accidents were analyzed. The 

associations between accidents and pilot age, experience of pilots, as well as aircraft complexity were explored. 

Other factors contributing to the accidents were considered including light condition, flight phase, wind 

condition and aircraft characteristics, and so forth. The research provides a baseline for further GA safety 

improvement. Analysis was conducted for each FAA region and compared to the national results. For example, 

airspeed was determined to be the number one initiating cause in fatal accidents in both Eastern Region and 

nationwide. The top initiating causes of fatal GA accidents in Eastern region was found to be airspeed followed 

by VFR flight into IMC whereas the top initiating cause of fatal GA accidents at national level was airspeed 

followed by VFR flight into IMC. In addition, a statistical analysis of factors contributing to the fatal GA 

accidents, i.e., to find associations between factors contributing to fatal GA accidents on regional basis was 

conducted. (System Safety Management) 

Aircraft Upset Prevention and Recovery Simulation: Research has been conducted to develop effective means 

to inform flight simulator users when a maneuver has traversed outside the validated math model region and/or 

when the structural integrity of the aircraft or its components has been compromised. Appropriate scenarios 

from the Upset Recovery Training Aid were evaluated concerning terminal area safety. The research team also 

investigated new scenarios to improve the surprise/startle factor in the simulation. A demonstration of proposed 

enhancements was conducted in the FAA’s 737-800 full-flight simulator. Using the demonstration, members of 

the International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes reviewed ideas for improving 

simulators for upset recovery training, including a subjective assessment of stall model enhancements, 

instructor station feedback improvements, accident playback scenarios, and startle scenarios. The hands-on 

demonstration allowed for subjective evaluations of the proposed improvements to make further 

recommendations. (System Safety Management) 

General Aviation Flight Data Monitoring Demonstration Project: The accident and fatality rates in GA have 

remained higher and relatively unimproved over time when compared to the commercial aviation sector. Many 

commercial airlines have instituted Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) programs (known as Flight Operations 

Quality Assurance programs) and reported positive results. This research seeks to develop a prototype 

volunteer nationwide FDM safety assurance program, one of the underpinnings of SMS, for the diverse GA 

community. The GA FDM program will collect and analyze aggregate on-board flight data to identify accident 

precursors. Research issues for the GA FDM includes: low-cost flight recorders; willing operators; a 

centralized and useful data repository; privacy safeguards; usage protocols; design and deployment of online 

data analysis software; and maintenance necessary to accommodate widely disparate data input streams. The 

research team has upgraded the flight data recording capabilities for the integrated flight instrument system 

Garmin-1000 in eighty-three Cessna 172 aircraft, installed the Appareo Vision 1000 flight data recorders in two 

Cessna 172s and one Bell 206 helicopter, and is working to outfit two Cessna 172s with Alakai flight data 

recorders. To date, the prototype GA FDM program has captured over 20,000 hours of flight data and is 

collecting data at a rate of more than 70,000 flight hours annually. The research team has also released a 

document that details the data format and standard for 218 flight data parameters that can be tracked by the GA 

FDM to assist volunteers in the GA community who wish to contribute flight data. Efforts are underway to 

Chapter 2 76 
 

Chapter 2 

2012 NARP 

develop software tools for data analysis and to improve the GA FDM data server capabilities. 

(System Safety Management) 

NAS Technical Analysis Capability: Research was conducted to identify, define, test, and validate standardized 

safety data and metrics for NAS Technical Operations and ATC Operations. Data driven, risk-based models 

developed from this research will be used by the Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service to measure reliability of 

the NAS. In the first phase, a proof-of-concept software prototype was developed to demonstrate safety 

indicators and the trend analysis capability. As part of this effort, research identified a set of facility operations 

safety measures (e.g., interruptions and down time). The safety data were extracted, evaluated, and analyzed. 

Sample data from January 1, 2008 through August 31, 2011 were used in the prototype. The next phase calls 

for the prototype to evolve into a facility and equipment operations module that includes a collection of 

information that provides a view of NAS equipment maintenance functions, combined with ATC baseline data, 

specific to NAS safety assessment. In addition, such a module will allow for the FAA to understand the impacts 

that facility service changes have on safety, as related to the general state of the NAS and the evolving NextGen 

plan and systems. (System Safety Management) 

77 77
78

Chapter 2

R&D Goal 10 

World Leadership 

A globally recognized leader in aerospace technology, systems, and 

operations 
.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 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 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, 

reviewing past and current research collaboration, and conducting analyses. The research results listed under 

the subheading of Products are outputs of the other nine goals in this plan. The purpose of this goal is to help 

plan the use of these products in international partnering activities to produce the highest value. The respective 

goal for each product provides a method of validation for the individual research results. 

Funding Requirements - R&D Goal 10 

Funding levels are listed for the current enacted (2012) and requested year (2013). Programs with zero funding listed support this goal 

with FAA staff resources only. 

2012 Enacted ($000) 2013 Request ($000) 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety 

A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence 

A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors 

A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

A13.a Environment and Energy 

A13.b NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics 

A14.a System Planning and Resource Management 

(100% of program) 

1A08A NextGen - ATC/Technical Operations Human 

Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground

 Integration)

 1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management

 Requirements 

1A08F NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization 

1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management

 Transformation 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Environment 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

Coordination Only 

1,717 

1,757 

79 Chapter 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

2012 NARP 

Milestones 

Management 

Manage ongoing research. (System 

Planning and Resource Management) 

2008: Publish the NARP, which documents 

the annual R&D budget portfolio, 

describes the activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and contains 

the FY 2008-2013 FAA R&D plan. 

2009: Publish the NARP, which documents 

the annual R&D budget portfolio, 

describes the activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and contains 

the FY 2009-2014 FAA R&D plan. 

2010: Publish the NARP, which documents 

the annual R&D budget portfolio, 

describes the activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and contains 

the FY 2010-2015 FAA R&D plan. 

2011: Publish the NARP, which documents 

the annual R&D budget portfolio, 

describes the activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and contains 

the FY 2011-2016 FAA R&D plan. 

2012: Publish the NARP, which documents 

the annual R&D budget portfolio, 

describes the activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and contains 

the FY 2012-2017 FAA R&D plan. 

Leverage international research 

collaboration. (System Planning and 

Resource Management) 

2010: Determine criteria for assessing the 

benefits of the international research 

collaboration. 

2011: Develop a strategic mapping for 

international research collaboration. 

2011: Identify a process to measure quality, 

timeliness, and value of international 

research collaboration. 

2012: Measure quality, timeliness, and value 

of international research 

collaboration. 

2012: Conclude final value of international 

research collaboration. 

2016: Determine final value of international 

research collaboration. 

Products 

Leverage research results.20 

2008: Modify procedures to allow use of 

closely spaced parallel runways for 

arrival operations during non-visual 

conditions. (NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence) 

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) 

2011: Provide comprehensive guidance on 

lithium battery fire safety. 

(Fire Research and Safety) 

2011: Determine how aviation-generated 

particulate matter and hazardous air 

pollutants impact local health, 

visibility, and global climate. 

(Environment and Energy; NextGen - 

Environmental Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics; 

Airport Cooperative Research 

Program - Environment) 

20 These milestones were selected from the other nine goals to show international collaboration. 

Chapter 2	 80 
2012: Using the existing Aviation Safety 2015: Together with the European 

Information Analysis and Sharing Organisation for the Safety of Air 

architecture, develop a proof-of- Navigation, deliver a more capacityconcept and prototype for the sharing efficient set of wake separation 

of aviation safety information among standards to the International Civil 

Joint Planning and Development Aviation Organization (LeaderOffice member agencies, participants, Follower Pair-Wise Static). (NextGen 

and stakeholders. (NextGen - System - Wake Turbulence - ReSafety Management Transformation) categorization) 

2014: Complete development and field a 2015: Enable reduced and delegated 

fully validated suite of tools, separation in oceanic airspace en 

including the Aviation Environmental route corridors. (NextGen - SelfDesign Tool and the Aviation Separation Human Factors) 

Environmental Portfolio Management 2015: Demonstrate the integration of Tool. (Environment and Energy; navigation information and flight Airport Cooperative Research information, including weather Program - Environment) information, into cockpit decisionmaking and shared situational 

awareness amongst pilots, 

dispatchers, and air traffic controllers 

supported by NextGen air and ground 

capabilities. (NextGen - Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit) 

2012 NARP 

81 Chapter 2 
2012 NARP 

Progress in FY 2011: World Leadership 

R&D Portfolio: The program provided guidance on the FAA FY 2013 R&D portfolio in October 2010. The 

R&D Executive Board developed the proposed FY 2013 R&D portfolio between November 2010 and February 

2011. The five REDAC subcommittees reviewed the portfolio in March 2011, and the full REDAC provided its 

final review of the FY 2013 R&D portfolio during the meeting on April 20, 2011. REDAC recommendations 

were provided to the Administrator on June 8, 2011. The FAA provided a response to the REDAC 

recommendations on September 21, 2011. (System Planning and Resource Management) 

National Aviation Research Plan: As required by Congressional direction, the 2011 NARP, along with the R&D 

Annual Review, was submitted to Congress in May 2011. The NARP describes the FAA five-year R&D 

portfolio that addresses the near-, mid-, and far-term research needs of the aviation community. The R&D 

Annual Review highlights the 2011 R&D accomplishments of the FAA and is a companion document to the 

NARP. (System Planning and Resource Management) 

Evaluation Criteria for International Research Collaborations: This process started with obtaining all 

international travel records and international agreements within the Office of Aviation Research and Technology 

Development. International travelers and agreement leads were surveyed to collect data to measure the benefits 

of participation in international initiatives. The survey collected information such as objective of the activity or 

meeting, level of participation (exchange, coordinate, or collaborate), participation category, and benefits to the 

FAA. The data will be used to determine the value of international research collaboration. (System Planning 

and Resource Management) 

FAA/EUROCONTROL Joint Initiative to Revise Outdated and Capacity Inefficient ICAO Wake Mitigation 

Separation Standards: The last review of ICAO wake separation standards currently applied worldwide by 

ANSPs occurred nearly 20 years ago in the early 1990’s. These current wake separation minima are safe but are 

outdated due to the dramatic change in the aircraft fleet mix at major world hub airports, major advances in 

knowledge of aircraft wake transport and decay, and the development of air traffic control decision support tools 

that enable application of more capacity efficient wake separation processes. In 2010, a FAA/ 

EUROCONTROL workgroup provided ICAO a recommendation for replacing the current standards with a 

single standard with six categories for wake separation minima. In 2011, the FAA/EUROCONTROL work 

group met with the ICAO Study Group tasked with the review of the six category wake standard 

recommendation, clarified and enhanced the recommendation’s benefit and safety documentation as requested 

by the ICAO Study Group, and further refined the types of aircraft assigned to each of the six wake categories. 

Assessments have shown that the adoption of the six category recommendation will yield an average of seven 

percent increase in the number of landings and take-offs that can be supported at U.S. capacity-constrained 

airports; and, a three to four percent capacity increase at European capacity-constrained airports. (NextGen -

Wake Turbulence - Re-Categorization) 

Chapter 2 82 
 

 

2012 NARP

83 Chapter 2
84

Chapter 3

Chapter Three 

Alignment with NextGen 
2012 NARP 

The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is improving our NAS to make air travel more 

convenient and dependable, while ensuring flights are as safe, secure, and hassle-free as possible. The mission 

of NextGen is to realize the future vision of aviation by providing integrated strategies and solutions that 

achieve national and international goals. 

The NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP) is the FAA’s primary outreach document for updating the aviation 

community, Congress, the flying public, and other NextGen stakeholders on progress, while providing a 

summary overview of plans for the future. The NGIP, particularly the appendices, provides operators and 

airports with necessary information for NextGen deployments. The NGIP further offers partners in the 

international aviation community a summary of planning timelines in support of the agency’s global 

harmonization efforts. The NGIP, which is updated annually, draws upon and informs a number of FAA 

planning documents, including the NAS Enterprise Architecture, NAS Capital Investment Plan, 

and Destination 2025. 

NextGen Solution Sets 

The NGIP provides an overview of the FAA’s ongoing transition to NextGen, explaining the agency’s vision for 

NextGen now and into the mid-term. The plan defines NextGen’s seven cross-cutting solution sets, summarized 

below. 

Initiate Trajectory-Based Operations: The Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) solution set focuses primarily on 

high-altitude cruise operations in en route airspace. The TBO solution set will provide the capabilities, 

decision-support tools, and automation to manage aircraft movement by trajectory. This shift from clearancebased to trajectory-based air traffic control will enable aircraft to fly negotiated flight paths necessary for full 

Performance Based Navigation, taking both operator preferences and optimal airspace system performance into 

consideration. 

Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports: The Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports (HD) 

solution set provides capabilities that improve arrival and departure capacity for multiple airports and runways 

in high-demand airspace. The combination of precision procedures, decision support tools, enhanced surface 

management, and improved coordination and information sharing will allow for maximum usage of all runways 

and airspace at close-proximity airports. The HD solution set takes advantage of performance based navigation, 

traffic-flow management capabilities in the Collaborative Air Traffic Management (CATM) solution set, and 

builds on the capabilities of the Flexible Terminals and Airports solution set. 

Increase Flexibility in the Terminal Environment: The Flexibility in the Terminal Environment (FLEX) solution 

set provides capabilities necessary to increase access to and manage the separation of aircraft in the terminal 

environment at and around all airports – large and small. The FLEX solution set addresses initial surface 

management capabilities, procedures that improve access to runways in low-visibility, and new automation that 

will support and maximize the use of available data to enable surface trajectory operations. These capabilities 

will improve safety, efficiency, and overall capacity in reduced visibility. 

Improve Collaborative Air Traffic Management: The CATM solution set covers strategic and tactical flow 

management, including interactions with operators to mitigate situations when the desired use of capacity 

cannot be accommodated. The CATM solution set includes traffic flow programs and collaboration on 

procedures that will shift demand to alternate resources (e.g. routings, altitudes, and times). The CATM 

solution set also includes the foundational information elements for managing NAS flights. These elements 

85 Chapter 3 
 

2012 NARP 

include development and management of aeronautical information, management of airspace reservation, and 

management of flight information from pre-flight to post-analysis. 

Reduce Weather Impact: The Reduce Weather Impact solution set supports the integration of a broad range of 

weather information into air traffic decision making. In the mid-term, new operational improvements and 

technologies will mitigate the effects of weather resulting in safer and more efficient and predictable day-to-day 

NAS operations. 

Increase Safety, Security, and Environment: Improving safety, security, and the environment (SSE) is an 

inherent part of the FAA’s overall mission and is embedded in the activities of individual programs agencywide. The SSE solution set involves activities directly related to ensuring that NextGen systems steadily 

contribute to reducing risks to safety and information security while mitigating adverse effects on the 

environment and ensuring environmental protection that allows sustained aviation growth. 

Transform Facilities: The Transform Facilities (FAC) solution set focuses on capabilities that enable a network 

of integrated facilities designed to support the delivery of safer and more efficient system-wide operations. 

It enables a facilities infrastructure that supports NextGen capabilities as they are integrated into the current 

system and as they mature over time. Business continuity is built into the system and provides for a more 

resilient infrastructure, better contingency operations, and a higher degree of service. The FAC solution set 

includes multi-discipline laboratories and test beds to support NextGen requirements development and riskmitigation efforts. 

FAA NextGen R&D Portfolio 

The FAA NextGen R&D portfolio supports NextGen by working to increase capacity and efficiency, reduce 

aviation’s impact on the environment, and improve safety. It provides concepts and technologies to enable 

greater capacity and efficiency in air traffic operations, including new operational concepts to increase capacity, 

human factors to help define the changing roles and responsibilities of pilots and controllers, weather 

information to enhance common situational awareness, and revised wake turbulence separation standards to 

increase capacity. It works to reduce aviation’s impact on the environment using alternative fuels, new 

equipment and operational procedures, and more precise flight paths to make flying quieter, cleaner, and more 

fuel-efficient and to lessen its impact on the climate and reduce the amount of noise that communities 

experience. It provides proactive safety management, allowing analysis of trends to uncover problems early on, 

so that preventive measures are put in place before any accident can occur. 

Funded by both Research, Engineering & Development (RE&D) and Facilities and Equipment (F&E) 

appropriations, the FAA NextGen R&D portfolio is a subset of the FAA R&D portfolio, as reported in the 

NARP, and also the FAA NextGen portfolio, as reported in the NGIP. The FAA NextGen R&D portfolio 

represents 40 percent of the total requested R&D budget reported in the NARP for FY 2013, and it represents 10 

percent of the FAA NextGen portfolio. The FAA R&D portfolio includes the entire RE&D contribution to 

NextGen, but only part of the F&E contribution to NextGen. 

Table 3.1 describes how the FAA NextGen R&D portfolio supports the mid- and far-term operational 

improvements (OIs) in the NextGen solution set timelines. These OIs are identical to the OIs displayed in the 

NAS Enterprise Architecture’s service roadmaps, and an R&D program may support more than one NGIP OI. 

Table 3.2 provides the FAA NextGen R&D portfolio five-year budget plan by line item and appropriation. 

Chapter 3 86 
2012 NARP 

NextGen - System Development 

The FAA maintains a System Development budget line (1A08) in the F&E appropriation to fund projects that 

have broad applicability across the solution sets and to NextGen overall. These projects, as described in the 

NGIP, form the F&E portion of the FAA NextGen R&D portfolio. The projects are listed in Table 3.2 and 

summarized in Chapter 4. 

NextGen Research, Engineering and Development Programs 

In addition to the System Development budget line item (BLI) under F&E, the FAA NextGen R&D portfolio 

includes seven BLIs under the RE&D appropriation. The seven programs or BLIs under RE&D are listed in 

Table 3.2 and summarized in Chapter 4. 

87 Chapter 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

Table 3.1: Mapping of FAA NextGen R&D Portfolio to the NextGen Solution Sets NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation NextGen - Wake Turbulence NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit NextGen Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements NextGen - Operational Concept Validation - Validation Modeling NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management System and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization

NextGen - System Safety ManagementTransformationNextGen - Operational Assessments 

OI# 

Far-term

Operational Improvements/Capabilities 

A11.m

A12.bA12.cA12.dA12.eA13.b

1A08A

1A08B1A08C

1A08D

1A08E

1A08F

1A08G

1A08H 

101103 * Provide Interactive Flight Planning from Anywhere X 

102108 Oceanic In-trail Climb and Descent X X X X 

102114 Initial Conflict Resolution Advisories 

102117 * Reduce Horizontal Separation Standards, En Route - 3 Mile X X X X 

102118 Delegated Responsibility for In-trail Separation X X X X 

102136 * Reduced Oceanic Separation and Enhanced Procedures X X X X X X 

102137 Automation Support for Separation Management X X X 

102146 * Flexible Routing X X 

102147 * Self Separation Airspace - Oceanic X 

102148 * Self Separation Airspace Operations 

104102 Flexible Entry Times for Oceanic Tracks 

104105 * Automated Support for Trajectory Negotiation X X X 

104120 Point-in-Space Metering X X X X 

104121 * Automated Negotiation/Separation Management X X X 

104126 * Trajectory Based Management Gate-to-Gate X X 

104127 * Automated Support for Conflict Resolution 

108105 * Flow Corridors - Level 1 Static 

108106 * Flow Corridors - Level 2 Dynamic 

108206 Flexible Airspace Management X X 

108209 Increase Capacity and Efficiency using RNAV and RNP X X X X X X 

108213 * Dynamic Airspace Performance Designation 

102141 Improved Parallel Runway Operations X X X X X X X 

102142 * Efficient Metroplex Merging and Spacing X X 

102143 * Delegated Responsibility for Horizontal Separation (Lateral and 

Longitudinal) X X 

102149 * Delegated Separation - Complex Procedures X 

102150 * Reduce Separation - High Density Terminal Less Than 3 Miles 

102153 * Limited Simultaneous Runway Occupancy 

104117 * Improved Management of Arrivals/Surface/Departure Flow Operations X X X X 

104122 Integrated Arrival/Departure Airspace Management X X 

104123 Time-Based Metering using RNAV and RNP Route Assignments X X X 

104125 * Integrated Arrival/Departure and Surface Traffic Management for 

Metroplex 

104128 Time-Based Metering in the Terminal Environment X X 

104206 * Full Surface Traffic Management with Conformance Monitoring X X X X 

104208 * Enhanced Departure Flow Opeations X X X X 

104209 Initial Surface Traffic Management X X X 

102138 Expanded Radar-Like Services to Secondary Airports 

102140 Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures: Wind-Based Wake 

Procedures X X X 

102144 Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Arrivals: CSPRs X 

102145 * Single Runway Arrival Wake Mitigation X X 

102151 * Single Runway Departure Wake Mitigation X 

102152 * Dynamic, Pairwise Wake Turbulence Separation X 

102154 Wake Re-Categorization 

102406 Provide Full Surface Situation Information X 

102409 * Provide Surface Situation to Pilots, Service Providers and Vehicle 

Operators for Near-Zero Visibility Surface Operations X 

103207 Improved Runway Safety Situational Awareness for Controllers X X X 

103208 Improved Runway Safety Situational Awareness for Pilots X X X 

104124 Use Optimized Profile Descents X X X X X 

104207 Enhanced Surface Traffic Operations 

107107 Ground Based Augmentation System Precision 

Approaches X X 

107115 Low Visibility/Ceiling Takeoff Operations X X X X 

107116 Low Visibility/Ceiling Departure Operations X X X X 

107117 Low Visibility/Ceiling Approach Operations X X X X 

107118 Low Visibility/Ceiling Landing Operations X X X X 

107202 Low Visibility Surface Operations X X X X 

Increase Flexibility in the Terminal Environment 

FAA NextGen R&D Budget Lines 

Initiate Trajectory Based Operations Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports 

Chapter 3 88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

Table 3.1 (continued) 

NextGen - Alternative Fuels for GeneralAviationNextGen - Wake TurbulenceNextGen - Air Ground Integration HumanFactorsNextGen - Self-Separation Human FactorsNextGen - Weather Technology in theCockpitNextGen Environmental Research -Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and MetricsNextGen - Air Traffic Control/TechnicalOperations Human Factors (ControllerEfficiency and Air Ground Integration)NextGen - New Air Traffic ManagementRequirementsNextGen - Operational Concept Validation -Validation ModelingNextGen - Staffed NextGen TowersNextGen - Environment and Energy -Environmental Management System andAdvanced Noise and Emissions ReductionNextGen - Wake Turbulence -Re-categorizationNextGen - System Safety ManagementTransformationNextGen - Operational Assessments 

A11.m

A12.bA12.cA12.dA12.eA13.b

1A08A

1A08B1A08C

1A08D

1A08E

1A08F

1A08G

1A08H

Operational Improvements/Capabilities 

Far-term

OI# 

X Provide Full Flight Plan Constraint Evaluation with Feedback 101102 

On-Demand NAS Information 103305 

X X X X X Full Collaborative Decision Making * 105207 

X X X Continuous Flight Day Evaluation 105302 

X X Improved Management of Special Activity Airspace 108212 

X X Traffic Management Initiatives with Flight Specific Trajectories 105208 

Initial Improved Weather Information from Non-Ground Based Sensors 103116 

X Initial Integration of Weather Information into NAS Automation and 

Decision Making 103119 

X Full Improved Weather Information and Dissemination * 103121 

X Full Improved Weather Sensor Network * 103122 

X Full Integration of Weather Information into NAS Automation and Decision 

Making * 103123 

X Enhanced Emergency Alerting 106202 

X X Safety Information Sharing and Emergent Trend Detection 109303 

X Enhanced Safety Information Analysis and Sharing 109304 

X X Improved Safety for NextGen Evolution 109305 

Increased International Cooperation for Aviation Safety 109306 

X X Improved Safety Across Air Tansportation System Boundaries 109307 

X X Automated Safety Information Sharing and Analysis Scope and 

Effectiveness 109308 

Operational Security Capability for Threat Detection and Tracking, NAS 

Impact Analysis and Risk-Based Assessment 109302 

Operational Security Capabilitity with Dynamic Flight Risk Assessment for 

Improved Security Airspace Planning and Management * 109317 

X X Implement EMS Framework - Phase II 109310 

X X Implement NextGen Environmental Engine and Aircraft Technologies - 

Phase I 109315 

X X Increased Use of Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels - Phase I 109316 

X X Implement NextGen Environmental Engine and Aircraft Technologies - 

Phase II 109318 

X X X Environmentally & Energy Favorable Air Traffic Management Concepts 

and Gate-to-Gate Operational Procedures - Phase I 109319 

X X NextGen EMS Framework Implementation - Phase III * 109320 

X X Increased Use of Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels - Phase II 109321 

X X Environmentally & Energy Favorable Air Traffic Management Concepts 

and Gate-to-Gate Operational Procedures - Phase II 109322 

X X Increased Use of Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels - Phase III * 109323 

X X Implement NextGen Environmental Engine and Aircraft Technologies - 

Phase III * 109324 

X X Environmentally & Energy Favorable Air Traffic Management Concepts 

and Gate-to-Gate Operational Procedures - Phase III * 109325 

NAS Wide Sector Demand Prediction and Resource Planning 105104 

X X Remotely Staffed Tower Services 109402 

X Automated Virtual Towers * 109404 

Business Continuity Services * 109405 

Transform 

Facilities 

FAA NextGen R&D Budget Lines 

Improve Collaborative 

Air Traffic Management Reduce Weather Impact Safety Increase Safety, Security, and Environmental Performance Security Environment 

89 Chapter 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

Table 3.2 – NextGen R&D Funding Levels 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Project FY 2013 Enacted Request Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate R&D 

Number BLI Program ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) Goals 

NextGen - System Development Programs 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors G1M.02-01 1A08A 8,122 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 3 (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) 

G1M.02-02 1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 26,444 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 29,000 1 

G1M.02-03 1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling 8,122 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 9 

G3M.04-01 1A08D NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers 4,911 3,500 2,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 8 

NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management G6M.02-01 1A08E 12,183 9,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 2 Systems and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction 

G6M.02-02 1A08F NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization 2,456 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 3,000 1 

G7M.02-01 1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 14,639 7,500 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 9 

G7M.02-02 1A08H NextGen - Operational Assessments 8,123 7,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 9 

F&E TOTAL 85,000 61,000 61,500 65,500 65,500 74,000 

NextGen RE&D Programs 

111-160 A11.m NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation 2,071 1,995 2,026 2,069 2,099 2,142 6 

027-110 A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 5,000 12,000 12,226 12,510 12,738 13,024 1,9 

111-130 A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence 10,674 10,350 10,516 10,742 10,907 11,132 1 

111-110 A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors 7,000 10,172 10,332 10,552 10,711 10,930 4 

111-120 A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors 3,500 7,796 7,920 8,089 8,213 8,381 7 

111-140 A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit 8,000 4,826 4,912 5,022 5,109 5,220 8 

NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, 111-150 A13.b 23,500 19,861 20,185 20,622 20,946 21,382 2 and Metrics 

RE&D TOTAL 59,745 67,000 68,117 69,606 70,723 72,211 

NextGen R&D Programs TOTAL 144,745 128,000 129,617 135,106 136,223 146,211 

R&D Goals Key 

1 Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

2 Clean and Quiet 

3 High Quality Teams And Individuals 

4 Human-Centered Design 

5 Human Protection 

6 Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

7 Separation Assurance 

8 Situational Awareness 

9 System Knowledge 

10 World Leadership 

Chapter 3 90 
 

 

2012 NARP

91 Chapter 3
Chapter Four 

Research Business Management 
2012 NARP 

This chapter summarizes the FAA R&D portfolio according to its FY 2013 budget submission. The chapter 

explains what the FAA is doing (programs), how much it is spending (budget), how it leverages capabilities 

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

Sponsors 

The FAA R&D portfolio supports regulation, certification, and standards development, modernization of the 

NAS, and policy and planning. To support FAA goals, R&D addresses the specific needs of sponsoring 

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

NextGen, and Policy, International Affairs and Environment. The Research and Development Management 

Division (ANG-E4) under the Assistant Administrator for NextGen manages the FAA R&D portfolio for the 

Agency. 

Programs 

Four appropriation accounts fund the R&D portfolio: Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D); 

Facilities and Equipment (F&E); Airport Improvement Program (AIP); and Operations (Ops). In general, the 

RE&D account funds R&D programs that improve the NAS by increasing its safety, security, productivity, 

capacity, and environmental compatibility to meet the expected air traffic demands of the future.21 R&D 

programs funded under the F&E account include R&D concept development and demonstration prior to an 

FAA investment decision. The AIP provides grants to local and state airport authorities to help ensure the 

safety, capacity, and efficiency of U.S. airports. Through the AIP, the agency funds a range of activities to assist 

in airport development, preservation of critical facilities, economic competitiveness, and environmental 

sustainability.22 It also funds administrative and technical support costs for the Office of Airports. The Ops 

account funds commercial space transportation R&D. 

The programs summarized below are in the FY 2013 R&D President’s Budget Request, grouped by funding 

account. Appendix A of the NARP provides detailed information for each program including: the program’s 

funding request and its planned accomplishments, a description of activities and performance linkages, the need 

for the program, the criteria for success, and justification for the requested funding. 

Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D) 

Fire Research and Safety (A11.a): The program develops technologies, procedures, test methods, and fire 

performance criteria that can prevent accidents caused by hidden cabin or cargo compartment in-flight fires and 

fuel tank explosions and improve survivability during a post-crash fire. Fire safety focuses on near-term 

improvements in fire test methods and materials performance criteria, fire detection and suppression systems, 

fuel tank explosion protection, and identification of hazardous materials. Fire research addresses fundamental 

issues of combustion toxicity, the impact of flame retardant chemicals, health hazards of cabin materials, the 

impact of materials flammability on the initiation of in-flight fires, and post-crash survivability. Far-term 

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

21 FAA Order 2500.8B, Funding Criteria for Operations, Facilities and Equipment (F&E), and Research, Engineering and 

Development (RE&D) Accounts, dated October 1, 2006 

22 FAA FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission, Section 3D – Grants-in-Aid for Airports, page 11 

93 Chapter 4 
2012 NARP 

Propulsion and Fuel Systems (A11.b): The program develops technologies, procedures, test methods, and 

criteria to enhance the airworthiness, reliability, and performance of civil turbine and piston engines, propellers, 

fuels, and fuel management systems. 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety (A11.c): The program ensures the safety of civil aircraft by assessing the 

safety implications of composites, alloys, and other advanced materials, and associated structures and 

fabrication techniques that can help to reduce aviation fatalities. The program also increases the ability of 

passengers to survive aviation accidents by developing advanced methodologies for assessing aircraft 

crashworthiness. 

Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety (A11.d): The program develops and tests technologies that detect frozen 

contamination, predict anti-icing fluid failure, and ensure safe operations in atmospheric icing conditions. The 

program also develops new guidelines for testing, evaluating, and approving digital flight controls, avionics, 

and other systems for the certification of aircraft and engines. 

Continued Airworthiness (A11.e): The program promotes the development of technologies, procedures, 

technical data, and performance models to prevent accidents and mitigate accident severity related to civil 

aircraft failures as a function of their continued operation and usage. The program focuses on longer term 

maintenance of the structural integrity of fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft, continued safety of aircraft engines, 

development of inspection technologies, and the safety of electrical wiring interconnect systems and mechanical 

systems. 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research (A11.f): The program develops technologies and methods to 

assess risk and prevent occurrence of potentially catastrophic defects, failures, and malfunctions in aircraft, 

aircraft components, and aircraft systems. The program also uses historical accident data and National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations to examine and investigate turbine-engine 

uncontainment events and other engine-related impact events. 

Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors (A11.g): The program provides the human factors 

research for guidelines, handbooks, advisory circulars, rules, and regulations that ensure safe and efficient 

aircraft operations. It improves task performance and training for aircrew, inspectors, and maintenance 

technicians; develops and applies error management strategies to flight and maintenance operations; and 

ensures that certification of new aircraft and design or modification of equipment considers human factors. 

System Safety Management (A11.h): The program develops risk management methods, prototype tools, 

technical information, and Safety Management System procedures and practices. In addition, the program 

develops an infrastructure that enables the free sharing of de-identified, aggregate safety information derived 

from government and industry sources in a protected manner. It also conducts research to leverage new 

technologies and procedures that enhance pilot, aircraft and operational safety in terminal and en route domains. 

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (A11.i): The program emphasizes the concept of 

human-system integration (HSI) and safety aspects of the functions performed by air traffic controllers and 

technical operations personnel. The HSI concept will address the interactions between workstation design, 

personnel selection and training, and human error and human safety. 

Aeromedical Research (A11.j): The program identifies pilot, flight attendant, and passenger medical conditions 

that indicate an inability to meet flight demands, both in the absence and in the presence of emergency flight 

conditions. It also defines cabin air quality and analyzes requirements for occupant protection and aircraft 

decontamination. 

Chapter 4 94 
2012 NARP 

Weather Program (A11.k): The program develops new and enhanced algorithms to improve weather 

information required for integration with decision-support tools to reduce the impact of adverse weather in the 

nation’s aviation system. The improved weather information enhances capacity and increases safety by 

supporting better operational planning by air traffic management, dispatchers, and pilots. 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research (A11.l): The program conducts research to ensure the safe integration of 

unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the NAS by providing information to support certification procedures, 

airworthiness standards, operational requirements, maintenance procedures, and safety oversight activities for 

UAS civil applications and operations. Research activities focus on new technology assessments, methodology 

development, data collection and generation, laboratory and field validation, and technology transfer. 

NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation (A11.m): The program addresses the use of alternative and 

renewable fuels for general aviation (GA) to lessen aviation environmental impacts on air and water quality. 

The program develops data and methodologies to support certification of alternative aviation fuels for GA 

aircraft. 

Joint Planning and Development Office (A12.a): The program addresses far-term imbalances in aviation 

capacity and demand while ensuring a future operating environment that is safe, well managed, environmentally 

responsible, and harmonized with international standards. 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence (A12.b): The program conducts research to increase airport runway capacity 

safely by reducing aircraft wake separation minima under certain conditions and to address wake turbulence 

restrictions in today’s terminal and en route airspace and in the future NextGen airspace designs. 

NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors (A12.c): The program addresses flight deck and air traffic 

service provider (ATSP) integration for NextGen operational capabilities. It focuses on human factors issues 

that primarily affect the pilot side of the air-ground integration challenge (i.e., the challenge of ensuring that 

pilots receive the right information at the right time, for decision-making and collaboration with Air Navigation 

Service Provider (ANSP) personnel to operate in the NAS safely and efficiently). Using modeling, simulation, 

and demonstration, the program assesses interoperability of tools, develops design guidance, determines 

training requirements, and verifies procedures for ensuring effective and efficient human system integration in 

transitions of NextGen capabilities. 

NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors (A12.d): The program addresses human performance and 

coordination requirements for pilots and ANSPs through development of the initial standards and procedures 

that will lead to an operational capability for separation assurance. It assesses the human factors risks and 

requirements associated with self-separation policies, procedures, and maneuvers, including interim operational 

capabilities for reduced and delegated separation and high-density airport traffic operations in reduced visibility 

using advanced flight deck technologies. Research results will provide the technical information and data 

needed to support the development of standards, procedures, and training by the Flight Standards service to 

implement enhanced spacing and separation operations. 

NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit (A12.e): The program executes research projects to develop, 

verify, and validate requirements to support airworthiness standards for enabling availability and improving the 

quality and quantity of meteorological (MET) information to the aircraft for the support of NextGen operational 

improvements. When enabled, this shared and relevant MET information will enhance common situational 

awareness. The research performed by this program also results in the development of policies and standards 

on hardware and software requirements, including guidelines and procedures for testing, evaluating, and 

qualifying weather systems for certification and operation on aircraft. The research also addresses human 

95 Chapter 4 
2012 NARP 

factors issues in developing policies, standards, and guidance, including training, procedures, and error 

management. 

Environment and Energy (A13.a): This program characterizes aircraft noise, emissions, and their 

environmental impacts and provides guidance on their mitigation. The program provides fundamental 

knowledge, and develops and validates methodologies, models, metrics, and tools. It analyzes and balances the 

interrelationships between noise and emissions, considers local to global impacts, and determines economic 

consequences. The program also reduces scientific uncertainties related to aviation environmental issues to 

support decision-making. 

NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics (A13.b): The program develops 

solutions to mitigate aviation environmental impacts in absolute terms and increase fuel efficiency. It matures 

aircraft technologies through the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) Program to reduce 

noise and emissions at the source level. It assesses, demonstrates, and supports qualification of alternative 

aviation fuels that reduce emissions that impact air quality and climate change. Availability of alternative 

aviation fuels also increases energy security. The program also supports research to determine the appropriate 

goals and metrics to manage NextGen aviation environmental impacts needed to support environmental 

management systems (EMS). 

System Planning and Resource Management (A14.a): The program manages the R&D portfolio to meet 

customer needs, to increase program efficiency, and to reduce management and operating costs. It works to 

increase customer and stakeholder involvement in FAA R&D programs and foster acceptance of U.S. standards 

and technology to meet global aviation needs. 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility (A14.b): The William J. Hughes Technical Center 

sustains and supports the Human Factors Research and Development Laboratory, Airborne Laboratories, and 

Simulation Laboratories that 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 separations responsibilities and controller efficiencies, 

and analysis, evaluation, and validation of R&D milestones. 

Facilities and Equipment (F&E) 

Runway Incursion Reduction (1A01A): The program minimizes the chance of injury, death, damage, or loss of 

property caused by runway accidents or incidents. It selects and evaluates technologies, validates technical 

performance and operational suitability, and develops a business case to support program implementation. It 

improves pilot situational awareness with airport visual aids such as runway status lights, final-approach 

runway occupancy signals, and other enhanced airport lighting technologies. 

System Capacity, Planning and Improvement (1A01B): The program delivers products and services to alleviate 

traffic congestion, system delays, and operational inefficiencies in the aviation system through the development 

of new runways, new technologies, and modified operational procedures. It also develops performance metrics; 

implements performance measurement tools; and collects, processes, and analyzes data to measure and report 

performance on a routine basis. 

Operations Concept Validation (1A01C): The program develops and validates operational concepts that are key 

to the air traffic modernization programs and NextGen. The work includes developing and maintaining detailed 

second level concepts that support validation and requirements development. These concepts identify the 

Chapter 4 96 
2012 NARP 

personnel and functional changes to provide customer service in ways that increase productivity and reduce net 

cost. 

Airspace Management Program (1A01D): The program investigates and demonstrates new airspace concepts 

and procedures to increase national aviation system capacity. It focuses on the nation’s major metropolitan 

areas to shorten flight distances, to provide more fuel-efficient routes, and to reduce arrival and departure 

delays. 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground 

Integration) (1A08A): The program addresses human system integration and human performance issues related 

to improving controller efficiency to yield greater traffic throughput without a commensurate increase in the 

number of ANSP personnel. It examines how ANSP personnel can achieve higher efficiency levels through the 

integration of automation, decision support tools, workstation displays, and procedures. It also addresses the 

ATSP perspective and works together with the flight deck human factors program to address the 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 Requirements (1A08B): The program supports new procedures and 

technologies to increase efficiency in the national airspace system and to significantly increase 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 - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling (1A08C): The program develops and validates 

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 

identifies procedures that can decrease workload and increase reliance on automation for routine tasking to 

increase efficiency of the NAS. 

NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (1A08D): The Staffed NextGen Tower (SNT) concept provides for a shift 

from using the out-the-window view as the primary means for providing tower control services to using surface 

surveillance approved for operational use. SNT is planned for high density airports as these airports are likely 

to have the surveillance infrastructure and most aircraft equipped with avionics that will support SNT 

operations. 

NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management System and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction (1A08E): The program supports development and implementation of the NextGen EMS. The EMS 

will dynamically manage NextGen environmental impacts and help to define and identify optimum mitigation 

actions and their benefits. The program also evaluates the benefits of aviation environmental mitigation options 

and identifies ways to integrate them into the NAS infrastructure and demonstrate any NAS adaptation required 

to realize their full benefits. These options include new CLEEN aircraft technologies, alternative fuels, 

environmental and energy-efficient operational policies and procedures, environmental standards, and marketbased measures. 

97 Chapter 4 
2012 NARP 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization (1A08F): The program develops enhanced methods to define 

wake turbulence separation between aircraft safely. It develops wake characterization models to include various 

aircraft design parameters for defining wake vortices. It evaluates enhanced wake turbulence separation 

standards and procedures through field measurements, analyses, and human-in-the-loop simulations. 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation (1A08G): The program develops a safety information 

analysis and sharing environment for NextGen to serve as the foundation for trend analysis and the 

identification and mitigation of potential safety hazards before incidents occur. It also produces guidelines for 

developing processes and technologies to implement a safety management system across NextGen. 

NextGen - Operational Assessments (1A08H): The program conducts research and development to assess 

system-wide NAS performance, safety, and environmental impacts. The transition to NextGen requires the 

conduct of operational assessments to ensure that new capabilities include safety, environmental, and system 

performance considerations, enabling an integrated implementation of NextGen. 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) (4A08A): The program identifies and tests new 

technologies for application to air traffic management, navigation, communication, separation assurance, 

surveillance, and system safety; and conducts R&D and high-level system engineering to meet FAA’s far-term 

requirements. 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - 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 Program - Environment: The program examines the impact an airport has on the 

surrounding environment and advances the science and technology for creating an environmentally friendly 

airport system. Projects include the study of airport specific aviation noise and emissions and their 

environmental impacts, developing strategies and guidance for green airports via reduction in noise and 

emissions, infrastructure, and benefits of alternative aviation fuels at airport facilities, deicing management, and 

advanced noise and emissions databases. 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - 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 Program - Capacity: The program provides better airport planning, designs, and 

improves runway pavement design, construction, and maintenance. It ensures that new pavement standards will 

be ready to support safe international operation of next-generation heavy aircraft and makes pavement design 

standards available to users worldwide. 

Airport Technology Research Program - Environment: This program will establish up-to-date exposureresponse relationships for community annoyance and sleep disturbance in the U.S. by collecting extensive data 

covering a wide variety of airport types and geographic locations. The results will help guide national aviation 

noise policy, determinations of community noise impacts, land use guidelines around airports, and mitigation 

funding. 

Chapter 4 98 
2012 NARP 

Airport Technology Research Program - Safety: The program increases airport safety by conducting research to 

improve airport lighting and marking, reduce wildlife hazards near airport runways, improve airport fire and 

rescue capability, and reduce surface accidents. 

Operations (Ops) 

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. 

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 enacted budget for FY 2012, the FY 2013 

President’s Budget request and planned funding for FY 2014 through 2017, which are estimates and subject to 

change. 

Appropriation Account: Table 4.1 shows the FAA R&D enacted budget for FY 2012, budget request for FY 

2013, and the four-year plan through FY 2017, grouped by appropriation account. The previous section 

described the programs in each of the four appropriation types. The F&E budget in Table 4.1 includes three 

main line items: Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping (ATD&P), 1A01; NextGen - System 

Development, 1A08; and the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD), 4A08A. The 

ATD&P and NextGen - Systems Development line items have several programs under them, as shown in the 

tables. Both the F&E and the Ops appropriations have programs that are not part of the R&D portfolio; the 

NARP only presents R&D. 

Sponsoring Organization: Table 4.2 shows the FAA R&D enacted budget for FY 2012, budget request for FY 

2013, and the four-year plan through FY 2017, grouped by sponsoring organization. Sponsoring organizations 

include Aviation Safety; Air Traffic Organization; Airports; Commercial Space Transportation; and Policy, 

International Affairs, and Environment. 

R&D Category: The FAA R&D portfolio includes both applied research and development as defined by the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-1123. Table 4.3 shows the FAA R&D portfolio according 

to these categories with the percent of applied research and development for FY 2012 through 2017. 

Performance Goal: Table 4.4 shows the FAA R&D budget by the performance goals defined in Exhibit II of the 

FAA budget request for FY 2013. The R&D programs apply to three performance goals – safety, economic 

competitiveness, and environmental sustainability. Programs may support more than one goal; however, each 

program is listed only once under its primary goal for budget purposes. The table provides information on 

contract costs, personnel costs, and other in-house costs planned for FY 2013. 

23 OMB Circular A-11, “Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget,” August 18, 2011, section 84, pages 11-12 

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

99 Chapter 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

Table 4.1: Planned R&D Budget by Appropriation Account 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Project FY 2013 Appropriation 

Number BLI Program Account Enacted Request Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate /1 

($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) 

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

061-110 A11.a Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 7,158 7,667 7,822 8,009 8,167 8,358 

063-110 A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems R,E&D 2,300 2,882 2,935 3,002 3,055 3,123 

062-110/111 A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R,E&D 2,534 2,569 2,614 2,672 2,716 2,776 

064-110/111 A11.d Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety R,E&D 5,404 6,644 6,749 6,893 6,998 7,141 

065-110 A11.e Continued Airworthiness R,E&D 11,600 13,202 13,404 13,686 13,886 14,165 

066-110 A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research R,E&D 1,147 1,691 1,717 1,753 1,779 1,815 

081-110 A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors R,E&D 6,162 5,416 5,542 5,685 5,817 5,965 

060-110 A11.h System Safety Management R,E&D 10,027 11,345 11,512 11,750 11,914 12,149 

082-110 A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors R,E&D 10,364 10,014 10,232 10,486 10,711 10,972 

086-110 A11.j Aeromedical Research R,E&D 11,000 9,895 10,117 10,372 10,602 10,865 

041-110 A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 16,043 15,539 15,722 16,020 16,193 16,480 

069-110 A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research R,E&D 3,504 5,901 5,977 6,094 6,166 6,280 

111-160 A11.m NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation R,E&D 2,071 1,995 2,026 2,069 2,099 2,142 

027-110 A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) R,E&D 5,000 12,000 12,226 12,510 12,738 13,024 

111-130 A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence R,E&D 10,674 10,350 10,516 10,742 10,907 11,132 

111-110 A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors R,E&D 7,000 10,172 10,332 10,552 10,711 10,930 

111-120 A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors R,E&D 3,500 7,796 7,920 8,089 8,213 8,381 

111-140 A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit R,E&D 8,000 4,826 4,912 5,022 5,109 5,220 

091-110/111/116 A13.a Environment and Energy R,E&D 15,074 14,776 14,979 15,280 15,477 15,773 

111-150 A13.b NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, 

and Metrics R,E&D 23,500 19,861 20,185 20,622 20,946 21,382 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 1,717 1,757 1,775 1,810 1,827 1,859 

011-140 A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility R,E&D 3,777 3,702 3,786 3,882 3,969 4,068 

R,E&D TOTAL R,E&D 167,556 180,000 183,000 187,000 190,000 194,000 

Facilities & Equipment (F&E) /2 

S09.02-00 1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction F&E 4,500 2,898 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

M08.28-00 1A01B System Capacity, Planning and Improvement F&E 5,200 5,600 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,500 

M08.29-00 1A01C Operations Concept Validation F&E 3,500 4,300 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 

M08.28-04 1A01D Airspace Management Program F&E 3,000 6,100 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

M08.27-01 NAS Weather Requirements F&E 900 0 0 0 0 0 

Subtotal Line 1A01 17,100 18,898 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,500 /3 

G1M.02-01 1A08A NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) F&E 8,122 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

G1M.02-02 1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements F&E 26,444 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 29,000 

G1M.02-03 1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling F&E 8,122 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

G3M.04-01 1A08D NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers F&E 4,911 3,500 2,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 

G6M.02-01 1A08E NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management 

Systems and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction F&E 12,183 9,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 

G6M.02-02 1A08F NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization F&E 2,456 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 3,000 

G7M.02-01 1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation F&E 14,639 7,500 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

G7M.02-02 1A08H NextGen - Operational Assessments F&E 8,123 7,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

Subtotal Line 1A08 85,000 61,000 61,500 65,500 65,500 74,000 /4 

M03.02-00 4A08A Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) F&E 20,045 17,990 19,275 19,275 19,275 19,275 /5 

F&E TOTAL F&E 122,145 97,888 100,775 104,775 104,775 113,775 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research Program - Capacity AIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 /6 

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

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Capacity AIP 12,025 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 /7 

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Environment AIP 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Safety AIP 15,725 15,293 15,293 15,293 15,293 15,293 

AIP TOTAL AIP 44,250 44,300 44,300 44,300 44,300 44,300 

Operations (Ops) 

-- -- Commercial Space Transportation Safety Ops 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

Ops TOTAL Ops 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

GRAND TOTAL $334,951 $323,188 $329,075 $337,075 $340,075 $353,075 

Notes: 

/1 The funding levels listed for years 2014 to 2017 are estimates and subject to change. 

/2 The amounts shown for F&E programs reflect only R&D activities: they do not include acquisition, operational testing, or other non-R&D activities. 

/3 The four programs in the ADT&P line (1A01) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/4 The eight programs in the NextGen - Systems Development line (1A08) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/5 The amount shown for CAASD includes only the R&D portion of the total CAASD line item amount. R&D represents 25.7% in FY 2012. 

/6 The three programs in the Airport Cooperative Research Program (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/7 The three programs in the Airport Technology Research Program (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

Chapter 4 100 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

Table 4.2: Planned R&D Budget by Requesting Organization 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Project FY 2013 Appropriation Program Enacted Request Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate /1 Number BLI Account ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) 

Aviation Safety (AVS) 

061-110 A11.a Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 7,158 7,667 7,822 8,009 8,167 8,358 

063-110 A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems R,E&D 2,300 2,882 2,935 3,002 3,055 3,123 

062-110/111 A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R,E&D 2,534 2,569 2,614 2,672 2,716 2,776 

064-110/111 A11.d Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety R,E&D 5,404 6,644 6,749 6,893 6,998 7,141 

065-110 A11.e Continued Airworthiness R,E&D 11,600 13,202 13,404 13,686 13,886 14,165 

066-110 A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research R,E&D 1,147 1,691 1,717 1,753 1,779 1,815 

081-110 A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors R,E&D 6,162 5,416 5,542 5,685 5,817 5,965 

060-110 A11.h System Safety Management R,E&D 10,027 11,345 11,512 11,750 11,914 12,149 

086-110 A11.j Aeromedical Research R,E&D 11,000 9,895 10,117 10,372 10,602 10,865 

069-110 A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research R,E&D 3,504 5,901 5,977 6,094 6,166 6,280 

Subtotal R,E&D 60,836 67,212 68,389 69,916 71,100 72,637 

G7M.02-01 1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation F&E 14,639 7,500 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

AVS TOTAL 75,475 74,712 76,389 77,916 79,100 80,637 

Air Traffic Organization (ATO) 

082-110 A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors R,E&D 10,364 10,014 10,232 10,486 10,711 10,972 

041-110 A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 16,043 15,539 15,722 16,020 16,193 16,480 

027-110 A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) R,E&D 5,000 12,000 12,226 12,510 12,738 13,024 

111-130 A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence R,E&D 10,674 10,350 10,516 10,742 10,907 11,132 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 1,717 1,757 1,775 1,810 1,827 1,859 

011-140 A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility R,E&D 3,777 3,702 3,786 3,882 3,969 4,068 

111-160 A11.m NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation R,E&D 2,071 1,995 2,026 2,069 2,099 2,142 

111-110 A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors R,E&D 7,000 10,172 10,332 10,552 10,711 10,930 

111-120 A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors R,E&D 3,500 7,796 7,920 8,089 8,213 8,381 

111-140 A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit R,E&D 8,000 4,826 4,912 5,022 5,109 5,220 

Subtotal R,E&D 68,146 78,151 79,447 81,182 82,477 84,208 

S09.02-00 1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction F&E 4,500 2,898 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 /3 

M08.28-00 1A01B System Capacity, Planning and Improvement F&E 5,200 5,600 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,500 

M08.29-00 1A01C Operations Concept Validation F&E 3,500 4,300 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 

M08.28-04 1A01D Airspace Management Program F&E 3,000 6,100 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

M08.27-01 NAS Weather Requirements F&E 900 0 0 0 0 0 

G1M.02-01 1A08A NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) F&E 8,122 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 /4 

G1M.02-02 1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements F&E 26,444 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 29,000 

G1M.02-03 1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling F&E 8,122 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

G3M.04-01 1A08D NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers F&E 4,911 3,500 2,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 

G7M.02-02 1A08H NextGen - Operational Assessments F&E 8,123 7,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

G6M.02-02 1A08F NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization F&E 2,456 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 3,000 

M03.02-00 4A08A Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) F&E 20,045 17,990 19,275 19,275 19,275 19,275 /5 

Subtotal F&E 95,323 80,888 82,775 86,775 86,775 95,775 /2 

ATO TOTAL 163,469 159,039 162,222 167,957 169,252 179,983 

Airports (ARP) 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research Program - Capacity AIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 /7 

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

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Capacity AIP 12,025 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 /6 

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Environment AIP 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Safety AIP 15,725 15,293 15,293 15,293 15,293 15,293 

ARP TOTAL 44,250 44,300 44,300 44,300 44,300 44,300 

Policy, International Affairs, and Environment (APL) 

091-110/111/116 A13.a Environment and Energy R,E&D 15,074 14,776 14,979 15,280 15,477 15,773 

G1M.02-01 A13.b NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, 

and Metrics R,E&D 23,500 19,861 20,185 20,622 20,946 21,382 

Subtotal R,E&D 38,574 34,637 35,164 35,902 36,423 37,155 

G6M.02-01 1A08E NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management 

Systems and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction F&E 12,183 9,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Subtotal F&E 12,183 9,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 /2 

APL TOTAL 50,757 44,137 45,164 45,902 46,423 47,155 

Commercial Space Transportation (AST) 

-- -- Commercial Space Transportation Safety Ops 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

AST TOTAL 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

GRAND TOTAL $334,951 $323,188 $329,075 $337,075 $340,075 $353,075 

Notes: 

/1 The funding levels listed for years 2014 to 2017 are estimates and subject to change. 

/2 The amounts shown for F&E programs reflect only R&D activities: they do not include acquisition, operational testing, or other non-R&D activities. 

/3 The four programs in the ADT&P line (1A01) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/4 The eight programs in the NextGen - Systems Development line (1A08) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/5 The amount shown for CAASD includes only the R&D portion of the total CAASD line item amount. R&D represents 25.7% in FY 2012. 

/6 The three programs in the Airport Technology Research Program (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/7 The three programs in the Airport Cooperative Research Program (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

101 Chapter 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP 

Table 4.3: Planned R&D Budget by Research Category 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Project FY 2013 Appropriation Program Enacted Request Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate /1 Number BLI Account ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) 

Applied Research 

061-110 A11.a Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 7,158 7,667 7,822 8,009 8,167 8,358 

063-110 A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems R,E&D 2,300 2,882 2,935 3,002 3,055 3,123 

062-110/111 A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R,E&D 2,534 2,569 2,614 2,672 2,716 2,776 

064-110/111 A11.d Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety R,E&D 5,404 6,644 6,749 6,893 6,998 7,141 

065-110 A11.e Continued Airworthiness R,E&D 11,600 13,202 13,404 13,686 13,886 14,165 

066-110 A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research R,E&D 1,147 1,691 1,717 1,753 1,779 1,815 

081-110 A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors R,E&D 6,162 5,416 5,542 5,685 5,817 5,965 

060-110 A11.h System Safety Management R,E&D 10,027 11,345 11,512 11,750 11,914 12,149 

082-110 A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors R,E&D 10,364 10,014 10,232 10,486 10,711 10,972 

086-110 A11.j Aeromedical Research R,E&D 11,000 9,895 10,117 10,372 10,602 10,865 

041-110 A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 16,043 15,539 15,722 16,020 16,193 16,480 

069-110 A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research R,E&D 3,504 5,901 5,977 6,094 6,166 6,280 

111-160 A11.m NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation R,E&D 2,071 1,995 2,026 2,069 2,099 2,142 

027-110 A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) R,E&D 5,000 12,000 12,226 12,510 12,738 13,024 

111-130 A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence R,E&D 10,674 10,350 10,516 10,742 10,907 11,132 

111-110 A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors R,E&D 7,000 10,172 10,332 10,552 10,711 10,930 

111-120 A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors R,E&D 3,500 7,796 7,920 8,089 8,213 8,381 

111-140 A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit R,E&D 8,000 4,826 4,912 5,022 5,109 5,220 

091-110/111/116 A13.a Environment and Energy R,E&D 15,074 14,776 14,979 15,280 15,477 15,773 

111-150 A13.b NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, 

and Metrics R,E&D 23,500 19,861 20,185 20,622 20,946 21,382 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 1,717 1,757 1,775 1,810 1,827 1,859 

011-140 A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility R,E&D 3,777 3,702 3,786 3,882 3,969 4,068 

Subtotal R,E&D 167,556 180,000 183,000 187,000 190,000 194,000 

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

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

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Capacity AIP 12,025 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 /3 

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Environment AIP 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Safety AIP 15,725 15,293 15,293 15,293 15,293 15,293 

Subtotal AIP 44,250 44,300 44,300 44,300 44,300 44,300 

-- -- Commercial Space Transportation Safety Ops 500 500 500 500 500 500 /4 

Subtotal Ops 500 500 500 500 500 500 

Applied Research TOTAL 212,306 224,800 227,800 231,800 234,800 238,800 

Applied Research PERCENT 63.4% 69.6% 69.2% 68.8% 69.0% 67.6% 

Development 

S09.02-00 1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction F&E 4,500 2,898 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 /5 

M08.28-00 1A01B System Capacity, Planning and Improvement F&E 5,200 5,600 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,500 

M08.29-00 1A01C Operations Concept Validation F&E 3,500 4,300 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 

M08.28-04 1A01D Airspace Management Program F&E 3,000 6,100 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

M08.27-01 NAS Weather Requirements F&E 900 0 0 0 0 0 

G1M.02-01 1A08A NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) F&E 8,122 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 /6 

G1M.02-02 1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements F&E 26,444 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 29,000 

G1M.02-03 1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling F&E 8,122 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

G3M.04-01 1A08D NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers F&E 4,911 3,500 2,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 

G6M.02-01 1A08E NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management 

Systems and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction F&E 12,183 9,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 

G6M.02-02 1A08F NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization F&E 2,456 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 3,000 

G7M.02-01 1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation F&E 14,639 7,500 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

G7M.02-02 1A08H NextGen - Operational Assessments 8,123 7,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 

M03.02-00 4A08A Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) F&E 20,045 17,990 19,275 19,275 19,275 19,275 /7 

Subtotal F&E 122,145 97,888 100,775 104,775 104,775 113,775 /8 

-- -- Commercial Space Transportation Safety Ops 500 500 500 500 500 500 /4 

Subtotal Ops 500 500 500 500 500 500 

Development TOTAL 122,645 98,388 101,275 105,275 105,275 114,275 

Development PERCENT 36.6% 30.4% 30.8% 31.2% 31.0% 32.4% 

GRAND TOTAL $334,951 $323,188 $329,075 $337,075 $340,075 $353,075 

Notes: 

/1 The funding levels listed for years 2014 to 2017 are estimates and subject to change. 

/2 The three programs in the Airport Cooperative Research Program (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/3 The three programs in the Airport Technology Research Program (AIP) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/4 The Commercial Space Transportation Safety Program is 50 percent applied research and 50 percent development. 

/5 The four programs in the ADT&P line (1A01) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/6 The eight programs in the NextGen - Systems Development line (1A08) are combined into a single narrative write-up in Appendix A. 

/7 The amount shown for CAASD includes only the R&D portion of the total CAASD line item amount. R&D represents 25.7% in FY 2012. 

/8 The amounts shown for F&E programs reflect only R&D activities; they do not include acquisition, operational testing, or other non-R&D activities. 

Chapter 4 102 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP 

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

FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2013 Project FY 2013	 Appropriation Personnel Other Total Program /1	 Contract Number BLI	 Account Costs In-house Request Costs ($000) ($000) Costs ($000) ($000) 

1. Safety 

061-110 A11.a Fire Research and Safety R,E&D 3,694 3,673 300 7,667 

063-110 A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems R,E&D 1,683 1,099 100 2,882 

062-110/111 A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R,E&D 1,604 841 124 2,569 

064-110/111 A11.d Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety R,E&D 4,723 1,748 173 6,644 

065-110 A11.e Continued Airworthiness R,E&D 9,770 3,070 362 13,202 

066-110 A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research R,E&D 1,248 399 44 1,691 

081-110 A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors R,E&D 1,698 3,459 259 5,416 

060-110 A11.h System Safety Management R,E&D 8,742 2,343 260 11,345 

082-110 A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors R,E&D 3,978 5,671 365 10,014 

086-110 A11.j Aeromedical Research R,E&D 3,590 5,970 335 9,895 

041-110 A11.k Weather Program R,E&D 14,445 748 346 15,539 

069-110 A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research R,E&D 5,122 664 115 5,901 

111-160 A11.m NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation R,E&D 1,919 34 42 1,995 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 439 6 8 954 /2 

011-140 A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility R,E&D 415 732 47 2,507 /2

 Subtotal R,E&D 63,070 30,458 2,880 98,221 

S09.02-00 1A01A Runway Incursion Reduction F&E 2,898 0 0 2,898 

Subtotal F&E 2,898 0 0 2,898 /4 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research Program - Safety AIP 4,889 111 0 5,000 

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Safety AIP 13,143 2,150 0 15,293 

Subtotal AIP 18,032 2,261 0 20,293 

-- -- Commercial Space Transportation Safety Ops 1,000 0 0 1,000 

Subtotal Ops 1,000 0 0 1,000 

1. Safety TOTAL	 85,000 32,719 2,880 122,412 

2. Economic Competitiveness 

027-110 A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) R,E&D 9,219 2,448 333 12,000 

111-130 A12.b NextGen - Wake Turbulence R,E&D 9,657 345 348 10,350 

111-110 A12.c NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors R,E&D 9,671 300 201 10,172 

111-120 A12.d NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors R,E&D 7,275 329 192 7,796 

111-140 A12.e NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit R,E&D 3,885 746 195 4,826 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 440 6 10 454 /2 

011-140 A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility R,E&D 415 732 47 1,195 /2 

Subtotal R,E&D 40,562 4,907 1,325 46,793 

M08.28-00 1A01B System Capacity, Planning and Improvement F&E 5,600 0 0 5,600 

M08.29-00 1A01C Operations Concept Validation F&E 4,300 0 0 4,300 

M08.28-04 1A01D Airspace Management Program F&E 6,100 0 0 6,100 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors G1M.02-01 1A08A	 F&E 5,000 0 0 5,000 (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) 

G1M.02-02 1A08B NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements F&E 22,000 0 0 22,000 

G1M.02-03 1A08C NextGen - Operations Concept Validation - Validation Modeling F&E 5,000 0 0 5,000 

NextGen - Environment and Energy - Environmental Management G6M.02-01 1A08E	 F&E 9,500 0 0 9,500 Systems and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction 

G6M.02-02 1A08F NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization F&E 1,500 0 0 1,500 

G7M.02-01 1A08G NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation F&E 7,500 0 0 7,500 

G7M.02-02 1A08H NextGen - Operational Assessments F&E 7,000 0 0 7,000 

M03.02-00 4A08A Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) F&E 17,990 0 0 17,990 /3 

Subtotal F&E 91,490 0 0 91,490 /4 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research Program - Capacity AIP 4,889 111 0 5,000 

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Capacity AIP 10,748 1,759 0 12,507 

Subtotal AIP 15,637 1,870 0 17,507

 2. Economic Competitiveness TOTAL 147,690 6,777 1,325 155,790 

4. Environmental Sustainability 

091-110/111/116 A13.a	 Environment and Energy R,E&D 12,192 1,883 701 14,776 

NextGen - Environmental Research - Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, 111-150 A13.b	 R,E&D 18,201 1,182 478 19,861 and Metrics 

011-130 A14.a System Planning and Resource Management R,E&D 338 5 6 349 /2 

Subtotal R,E&D 30,731 3,070 1,185 34,986 

G3M.04-01 1A08D NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers F&E 3,500 0 0 3,500 

Subtotal F&E 3,500 0 0 3,500 /4 

-- -- Airport Cooperative Research Program - Environment AIP 4,889 111 0 5,000 

-- -- Airport Technology Research Program - Environment AIP 1,289 211 0 1,500 

Subtotal AIP 6,178 322 0 6,500 

4. Environmental Sustainability TOTAL	 40,409 3,392 1,185 44,986 

GRAND TOTAL 273,099 42,888 5,390 323,188 

Notes: 

/1 Many R&D programs apply to more than one goal area; however, for budgeting purposes most programs are included in only one goal area. 

/2 System Planning and Resource Management is considered part of Mission Support for the R,E&D program and is pro-rated across the three 

goal areas as follows: Safety at 54.3%; Economic Competitiveness at 25.9%; and Environmental Sustainability at 19.8%. William J. Hughes 

Technical Center is considered part of Mission Support; it is pro-rated between Safety at 67.7% and Mobility at 32.3%. 

/3 The amount shown for CAASD includes only the R&D portion of the total CAASD base funding amount. R&D represents 25.7% in FY 2012. 

/4 The amounts shown for F&E programs reflect only R&D activities. They exclude acquisition, operational testing, and other non-R&D activities. 

103	 Chapter 4 
2012 NARP 

Partnerships 

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

academic organizations using a variety of acquisition tools, such as cooperative agreements, grants, and 

contracts. These research mechanisms help leverage resources and critical national capabilities to ensure the 

FAA attains its R&D goals. 

Federal Government 

Other federal departments and agencies conduct aviation-related R&D that directly or indirectly support the 

FAA goals and objectives. To leverage this R&D, the FAA uses cooperative agreements, such as memoranda of 

understanding/agreement (MOU/MOA) and international agreements. The establishment of the multi-agency 

JPDO shows how government can leverage the R&D capabilities of multiple agencies to transform the nation’s 

air transportation system. 

Memoranda of Understanding/Agreement: MOU/MOA support joint research activities between departments 

or agencies. An MOU is a high-level agreement describing a broad area of research that fosters cooperation 

between departments or agencies and develops a basis for establishing joint research activities. An MOA is an 

agreement describing a specific area of research under a broader MOU. An MOA may include interagency 

agreements (IAs) or written agreements between the FAA and other agencies in which the FAA agrees to 

receive or exchange supplies or services with the other agency. Appendix B lists FAA MOUs, MOAs, and IAs 

that were active in FY 2011. 

Joint Planning and Development Office: The JPDO provides government-wide planning and coordination for 

NextGen. The JPDO members include the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Transportation 

(DOT), the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce, the FAA, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Its 

mission is to coordinate federal aviation R&D and focus 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 the FAA is aligned with partner government agencies and other stakeholders that 

contribute to NextGen. For more information, see http://www.jpdo.gov/. 

National Science and Technology Council: The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), established 

by Executive Order 12881 on November 23, 1993, is a cabinet-level Council and the principal means within the 

executive branch to coordinate science and technology policy across the diverse entities that make up the 

federal research and development enterprise. Chaired by the President, the NSTC includes the Vice President, 

the Director of OSTP, Cabinet Secretaries, and Agency Heads with significant science and technology 

responsibilities, and other White House officials. For more information, see 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc/. 

Global Earth Observation System of Systems: The Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) 

provides an umbrella for 15 federal departments and agencies and several White House offices to work 

collaboratively to address a wide range of environmental issues, including those pertaining to aviation. These 

include enhanced weather observation, modeling, and forecasting and air and water quality monitoring, 

modeling, and emissions. Under GEOSS, 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/. 

The U.S. Global Change Research Program: The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) began as a 

presidential initiative in 1989. It was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 

101-606), which called for “a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist 

Chapter 4 104 
 

2012 NARP 

the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of 

global change.” Thirteen federal departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP including DOT. The 

FAA contributes by assessing and identifying potential measures to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse 

gas emissions and by conducting research to support USGCRP Goal 2, leveraging research with other U.S. 

Government agencies to reduce uncertainties surrounding aviation emissions and their effect on climate change. 

For more information, see http://www.globalchange.gov/. 

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 groups and mechanisms: 

Commercial Aviation Safety Team: Founded in 1998, the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) has 

developed an integrated, data-driven strategy to reduce the commercial aviation fatality risk in the United States 

and promote new government and industry safety initiatives throughout the world. The CAST charters working 

group stakeholders to conduct in-depth analysis of the top accident categories in commercial aviation for which 

safety enhancements are identified. Successes of CAST prove that the concept of industry and government 

working together on common commercial air travel accident prevention strategies is highly effective. Members 

of CAST (not all-inclusive) include Airbus, Boeing, GE Aviation, Air Line Pilots Association, Allied Pilots 

Association, International Civil Aviation Organization, Flight Safety Foundation, International Air Transport 

Association, European Aviation Safety Authority, FAA, NASA, National Air Traffic Controllers Association, 

Regional Airline Association, Transport Canada Civil Aviation, and DoD. 

General Aviation Joint Steering Committee: As part of the Safer Skies Focused Safety Agenda launched in 

1998, the FAA and the GA community agreed to a goal of reducing the overall GA fatal accident rate. The 

General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC), co-chaired by the FAA and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA) Air Safety Institute, is the primary conduit for government and aviation industry 

cooperation, communication, and coordination for aircraft accident mitigation. The GAJSC conducts its 

activities through three working groups: personal/sport aviation, technically advanced aircraft/automation, and 

turbine aircraft operations. Members of GAJSC include the FAA, AOPA, AOPA Air Safety Institute, 

Experimental Aircraft Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Helicopter Association 

International, National Air Transportation Association, National Business Aviation Association, NTSB, and the 

National Weather Service. 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements: A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 

(CRDA) is collaborative in nature and allows FAA to share facilities, equipment, services, intellectual property, 

personnel, and other resources with private industry, academia, and state and local government agencies. 

Appendix B provides a list of active CRDAs for FY 2011. For more information, see 

http://www.faa.gov/go/ttp/. 

Contracts and Cooperative Agreements: The FAA awards contracts and cooperative agreements to conduct 

applied research studies and to develop, demonstrate, test, and develop prototypes of new hardware and 

software. The FAA also awards contracts to small businesses in compliance with the terms of the Small 

Business Innovation Research Program. 

105 Chapter 4 
2012 NARP 

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. 

Inventions, including those protected by patents, are one of the most transferred type of intellectual property. 

Appendix B provides a list of current patents. 

Academia 

The FAA has an extensive program to foster research and innovative aviation solutions through the nation’s 

colleges and universities. By doing so, it leverages the nation’s significant investment in basic and applied 

research and helps to build the next generation of aerospace engineers, managers, and operators. The FAA 

efforts include the following: 

Joint University Program: This cooperative research partnership among three universities (Ohio University, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Princeton University) conducts scientific and engineering research 

on technical disciplines that contribute to civil aviation, including air traffic control theory, human factors, 

satellite navigation and communications, aircraft flight dynamics, avionics, and meteorological hazards. The 

FAA and NASA benefit directly from the results of the research, and, less formally, from valuable feedback 

from university researchers regarding the goals and effectiveness of government programs. An additional 

benefit is the creation of a talented cadre of engineers and scientists who will form a core of advanced 

aeronautical experts in industry, academia, and government. For more information, 

see http://u2.princeton.edu/~jup/. 

Aviation Research Grants: Public Law 101-508 Section 9205 authorizes the FAA to establish research grant 

programs that encompass a broad spectrum of aviation research activities. These programs encourage and 

support innovative and advanced research with potential benefit to the FAA mission. All colleges, universities, 

and other non-profit research institutions qualify for research grants. This FAA program also supports the longterm growth of the aviation industry by encouraging academic institutions to establish and nurture aviation 

research programs that increase the talent-base in aviation. Appendix B provides a summary of grants issued in 

FY 2011. 

Air Transportation Centers of Excellence: Public Law 101-508 Section 9209 authorizes the Administrator to 

establish and operate air transportation centers of excellence (COEs). Through these collaborative, long-term, 

cost-sharing partnerships, government, academia, and industry teams leverage their resources to advance the 

technological future of the nation’s aviation community. The FAA operates six COEs through cooperative 

agreements with academic institutions to assist in mission-critical research in the areas of commercial space 

transportation, airliner cabin and inter-modal transport environment, advanced materials, noise and emissions 

mitigation, general aviation, and airport technology. Appendix B provides a summary of the grants awarded in 

FY 2011 for COE activities. For more information, see http://www.faa.gov/go/coe/. 

Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute: The Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute is a cooperative industry, 

government, and academic venture for investigation and standardization of aerospace vehicle systems to reduce 

life-cycle cost and accelerate development of systems, architectures, tools, and processes. For more 

information, see http://www.avsi.aero/. 

Chapter 4 106 
2012 NARP 

International 

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

in aviation safety and Air Traffic Management (ATM) modernization programs and to leverage research 

activities that harmonize operations and promote a seamless and safe air transportation system worldwide. 

The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation: The European Organisation for the Safety of Air 

Navigation (EUROCONTROL) is a civil and military organization with the goal of developing a seamless, panEuropean ATM system. In 1986, EUROCONTROL and FAA established the first memorandum of cooperation 

(MOC), which they updated in 1992 and again in 2004. The aim of the MOC and its governance structure is to 

broaden the scope of the cooperation between the two organizations and their respective partners in the areas of 

ATM research, strategic ATM analysis, technical harmonization, operational harmonization, and safety and 

environmental factor harmonization. For more information, see http://www.eurocontrol.int/. 

Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions: Established in 2007, the Atlantic Interoperability 

Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE) provides a foundation for cooperation between the FAA and the 

European Commission to promote and harmonize environmental initiatives and procedures in European and 

North American airspace. In addition to facilitating transatlantic interoperability between aviation authorities 

and industry partners, such as aircraft manufacturers, air operators, and providers of aviation navigation 

services, AIRE promotes information sharing and demonstration of procedures and practices that reduce noise 

and environmental emissions. Demonstrations have occurred annually since 2008 and include optimizations in 

all phases of flight: airport surface, terminal area, and en route oceanic. Demonstrations have resulted in fuel 

savings and emissions across all three of these domains. For more information, see: http://www.faa.gov/ 

nextgen/portfolio/trans_support_progs/aire/. 

Transport Canada: In the spring of 2004, Transport Canada joined FAA and NASA as a sponsor of the 

PARTNER (Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction) Center of Excellence. 

Transport Canada has studied and will continue to study air quality at Canadian airports to develop and 

implement practices that reduce air pollution from airports. Canada, as a member state of the International Civil 

Aviation Organization, works 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. 

The Asia and Pacific Initiative to Reduce Emissions: The Asia and Pacific Initiative to Reduce Emissions 

(ASPIRE), established in 2008, is a partnership of Asia and Pacific ANSPs focused on environmental 

stewardship in the Pacific Ocean region. Under ASPIRE, current and future partners pledge to adopt and 

promote best practices to reduce fuel consumption and engine emissions. ASPIRE demonstrations have 

consisted of green flights which use existing efficiency procedures in an ideal, unconstrained air traffic 

environment. As a result of these successful demonstration flights, ASPIRE-Daily was launched in 2011 to 

promote the utilization of best practices such as user-preferred routing, Dynamic Airborne Reroute Procedures, 

and optimizations during arrival and departure between selected city pairs to promote daily fuel-savings. For 

more information, see: http://www.aspire-green.com/. 

International Helicopter Safety Team: Attendees at the 2005 International Helicopter Safety Symposium agreed 

upon the need to reduce the helicopter accident rate by 80% by 2016. To achieve this goal, the attendees agreed 

to form an independent group modeled after the CAST - known as the International Helicopter Safety Team 

(IHST). To facilitate a data-driven approach to safety, the IHST initiates joint government and industry teams to 

analyze accidents, conduct causal analyses, and recommend intervention implementation strategies. 

107 Chapter 4 
 

2012 NARP 

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. The FAA conducts evaluation through formal and informal reviews by internal and 

external groups. 

Internal Portfolio Reviews 

The FAA R&D portfolio receives continuous internal review to ensure that it meets customer needs, high 

quality standards, and management excellence. 

Process Improvements and Quality Management: The FAA uses methods such as International Organization for 

Standards 9000 and models like the Integrated Capability Maturity Model to manage quality and evaluate and 

improve processes. 

Program Planning Teams: To ensure effective engagement with research stakeholders, the Research and 

Development Management Division uses Program Planning Teams comprised of internal sponsors and 

researchers to review program outcomes and outputs, prioritize and plan research efforts, recommend research 

priorities and programs, and prepare research portfolios. 

R&D Executive Board: When R&D portfolio formulation is complete, the FAA R&D Executive Board (REB) 

provides portfolio approval. The REB includes senior executives representing the major FAA R&D sponsors. 

This process helps FAA establish research priorities to meet its strategic goals and objectives. 

Joint Resources Council: The Joint Resources Council (JRC) is FAA’s corporate-level acquisition decisionmaking body that provides strategic guidance to the R&D portfolio process and ensures that the research 

requirements support the FAA NAS program. The JRC reviews and approves the proposed R&D portfolio. 

External Portfolio Reviews 

The FAA R&D portfolio receives periodic external review from advisory committees to ensure that it meets 

customer needs and is technically sound. The FAA also seeks feedback from the National Academies and 

through user surveys and discussion groups. Researchers present their progress reports at public forums and 

science reviews, publish and present technical papers, obtain formal peer validation of science, and maintain 

and share lessons learned. 

Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee: Established in 1989, the Research, 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) advises the Administrator on R&D issues and 

assists in ensuring FAA research activities are coordinated with other government agencies and industry. The 

REDAC considers aviation research needs in five areas: NAS operations, airport technology, aircraft safety, 

human factors, and environment and energy.24 A maximum of 30 members can serve on the REDAC and 

represent corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and government agencies. 

During 2011, the REDAC held two committee meetings and nine subcommittee meetings and produced two 

reports. Appendix C provides the recommendations from these reports and the Agency responses. For more 

information, see http://go.usa.gov/aQW/. 

24 Aviation Safety Research Act of 1988, Public Law Number 100-591, November 3, 1988, and FAA Research, Engineering and 

Development Authorization Act of 1990, Public Law Number 101-508, November 5, 1990. 

Chapter 4 108 
2012 NARP 

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee: Established in 1984, the Commercial Space 

Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) advises the FAA Administrator and the U.S. DOT on matters 

relating to the U.S. commercial space transportation industry, including R&D activities. Currently, the 

Committee has twenty-five members. The Administrator recommends members to the Secretary of 

Transportation, who appoints them. Each member serves a two-year term. Members represent commercial 

launch providers of expendable and reusable launch vehicles, rocket propulsion, commercial launch site 

operations, satellite manufacturing and operations, space policy and education, space law, insurance and 

finance, state government and economic development, space advocacy, and space business and technical 

associations. The COMSTAC provides annual recommendations for commercial space transportation R&D 

projects and periodically reviews FAA commercial space R&D reports and activities. 

During 2011, the COMSTAC held two full committee meetings and eight working group meetings, as well as 

several teleconferences. The Committee produced one set of recommendations and several findings at its May 

2011 meeting. The recommendations focused on export controls and urged FAA to communicate to the State 

Department COMSTAC's support for export control reform and public release of Commodity Jurisdiction 

requests and advisory opinions. For more information, see http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/ 

headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/. 

Transportation Research Board: The National Research Council established the Transportation Research Board 

(TRB) in 1920 as the National Advisory Board on Highway Research. In 1974, the Board was renamed TRB to 

reflect its expanded services to all modes of transportation. The TRB mission is to promote innovation and 

progress in transportation through research. It fulfills this mission through the work of its standing committees 

and task forces. The TRB manages the 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 2012 projects in August 2011. The 29 projects will 

examine 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. For 

more information, see http://www.trb.org/ACRP/Public/. 

109 Chapter 4 
2012 NARP 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Acronym Definition 

A 

AC Advisory Circular 

ACER Airliner Cabin Environment Research 

ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool 

AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

AIP Airport Improvement Program Appropriation 

AIRE Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions 

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider 

AOPA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

ASIAS Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing 

ASPIRE Asia and South Pacific Initiative to Reduce Emissions 

AST Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

ATA Air Transport Association 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

ATD Anthropomorphic Test Dummy 

ATD&P Advanced Technology and Development and Prototyping 

ATM Air Traffic Management 

ATSP Air Traffic Service Provider 

AVS Aviation Safety 

B 

BLI Budget Line Item 

BOS Boston Logan International Airport 

C 

CAASD Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 

CAMI Civil Aerospace Medicine Institute 

CAST Commercial Aviation Safety Team 

CATM Collaborative Air Traffic Management 

CDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic Information 

CH4 Methane 

CIP Capital Investment Plan 

CIP Current Icing Product 

CLEEN Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

COE Center of Excellence 

COMSTAC Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 

CONOPS Concept of Operations 

CONUS Continental United States 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 110 
2012 NARP 

Acronym Definition 

CRDA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 

CVA Ceiling and Visibility Analysis 

CVM Comparative Vacuum Monitoring 

D

DARWIN® Design Assessment Of Reliability With Inspection 

DFW Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

E

EA Enterprise Architecture 

EFB Electronic Flight Bag 

EFVS Enhanced Flight Vision Systems 

EMAS Engineered Material Arresting System 

EMS Environmental Management System 

EUROCONTROL European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation 

F

F&E Facilities and Equipment Appropriation 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FAC Transform Facilities 

FBTM Flow Based Trajectory Management 

FDM Flight Data Monitoring 

FIP Forecast Icing Product 

FIP-Severity Forecast Icing Product with Severity 

FLEX Flexible Terminals and Airports 

FLM Front Line Manager 

FY Fiscal Year 

G 

GA General Aviation 

GAJSC General Aviation Joint Steering Committee 

GE General Electric 

GEG Spokane International Airport 

GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GPS Global Positioning System 

H 

HART Human Automation Relationship Taxonomy 

HD High Density 

HEFA Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids 

HITL Human-in-the-Loop 

HSI Human-System Integration 

I 

111 Acronyms and Abbreviations 
2012 NARP 

Acronym Definition 

IA Interagency Agreement 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

IFR Instrument Flight Rule 

IHST International Helicopter Safety Team 

IIV Interior Intervention Vehicle 

IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions 

J

JPDO Joint Planning and Development Office 

JRC Joint Resources Council 

L

LAX Los Angeles International Airport 

LCGS Low Cost Ground Surveillance 

LED Light Emitting Diode 

LGB Long Beach Airport 

LOSA Line Operations Safety Audit 

M

MET Meteorological 

MHT Manchester Boston Regional Airport 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOC Memorandum of Cooperation 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

N

NARP National Aviation Research Plan 

NAS National Airspace System 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NAS EA National Airspace System Enterprise Architecture 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System 

NGIP NextGen Implementation Plan 

NSTC National Science and Technology Council 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOx Nitrogen Oxide 

NRS Navigation Reference System 

NSTC National Science and Technology Council 

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board 

N2O Nitrous Oxide 

O 

OI Operational Improvement 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

Opeval Operational Evaluation 

Ops Operations Appropriation 

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy 

P 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 112 
2012 NARP 

Acronym Definition 

PARTNER Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction 

PCT Potomac Consolidated TRACON 

PRM Precision Runway Monitor 

PRSEUS Pultruded Rod Stitched Efficient Unitized Structure 

Q 

QRG Quick Reference Guide 

R 

R&D Research and Development 

RAM Repairs, Alterations, and Modifications 

RE&D Research, Engineering and Development Appropriation 

REB Research and Development Executive Board 

REDAC Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee 

REL Runway Entrance Lights 

RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle 

RNO Reno-Tahoe International Airport 

RTCA Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics 

RWSL Runway Status Lights 

S 

SAA Sense and Avoid 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

SAN San Diego International Airport 

SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride 

SHM Structural Health Monitoring 

SJC Mineta San Jose International Airport 

SMA Small & Medium Airports 

SMART Small Aircraft Risk Technology 

SMS Safety Management System 

SNT Staffed NextGen Towers 

SSE Safety, Security, and the Environment 

SWAC System Wide Analysis Capability 

T 

TARGETS Terminal Area Route Generation, Evaluation, and Traffic Simulation 

TBO Trajectory-Based Operations 

TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 

TFM Traffic Flow Management 

THL Takeoff Hold Lights 

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility 

TRB Transportation Research Board 

U 

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System 

USAF United States Air Force 

USAGE U.S. Applied General Equilibrium 

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

113 Acronyms and Abbreviations 
2012 NARP 

Acronym Definition 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C United States Code 

V 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

W 

WFD Widespread Fatigue Damage 

WTIC Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 114 
2012 NARP

March 2012

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

the United States Congress pursuant to Section 44501(c) of Title 49 of the United States Code. 

The NARP is available on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/go/narp.

2012 

National Aviation Research Plan 

(NARP) 

Appendices 

A - Program Descriptions 

B - Partnership Activities 

C - R,E&D Advisory Committee 

D - NARP Milestone Status 

E - Appendices Acronyms and Abbreviations 

March 2012 

Report of the Federal Aviation Administration to 

the United States Congress pursuant to Section 

44501(c) of Title 49 of the United States Code 
 

 

2012 NARP Appendix A 

Appendix A: Program Descriptions 

Table of Contents 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety.................................................................................................. A-1 

A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems ........................................................................................... A-7 

A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety ........................................................................... A-10 

A11.d Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety .............................................................................. A-15 

A11.e Continued Airworthiness................................................................................................ A-21 

A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research ........................................................ A-27 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors ........................................ A-31 

A11.h System Safety Management ........................................................................................... A-35 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors ............................................. A-41 

A11.j Aeromedical Research .................................................................................................... A-46 

A11.k Weather Program ........................................................................................................... A-52 

A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research ........................................................................... A-58 

A11.m NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation ...................................................... A-61 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office ........................................................................ A-66 

A12.b NextGen – Wake Turbulence ......................................................................................... A-72 

A12.c NextGen – Air Ground Integration Human Factors ....................................................... A-77 

A12.d NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors ................................................................... A-82 

A12.e NextGen – Weather Technology in the Cockpit ............................................................ A-87 

A13.a Environment and Energy ................................................................................................ A-92 

A13.b NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics ....... A-99 

A14.a System Planning and Resource Management .............................................................. A-105 

A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility ........................................... A-108 

1A01 Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping ................................................. A-112 

1A08 Next Generation Transportation System (NextGen) – System Development .............. A-116 

4A08A Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development .............................................. A-125 

Airport Cooperative Research Program.................................................................................. A-128 

Airport Technology Research Program .................................................................................. A-130 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety .............................................................................. A-138 

A-i 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Fire Research and Safety 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.a Fire Research and Safety $7,158,000 $7,158,000 $7,667,000 +$509,000 

For FY 2013, $7,667,000 is requested for Fire Research and Safety. Major activities and accomplishments planned 

include: 

Improve Aircraft Fire Protection and Occupant Fire Survivability 

	 Define fire safety performance criteria for cargo containers used for the bulk shipment of lithium batteries. 

	 Determine the effectiveness of Halon 1301 in controlling bulk shipments of rechargeable lithium batteries 

under full-scale cargo compartment fire test conditions. 

	 Develop a standard test procedure for lithium battery fire suppression in the Minimum Performance 

Standard (MPS) for halon replacement agents in cargo compartments. 

	 Evaluate the effectiveness of FAA certification criteria to prevent cockpit smoke build-up during an in-flight 

fire. 

Improved Flammability Standards for Aircraft Materials 

	 Develop a flammability test method for seat structure incorporating potentially combustible materials such 

as magnesium alloys. 

	 Upgrade Aircraft Materials Fire Test Handbook in support of rulemaking to revamp FAA flammability 

regulations. 

For FY 2013, FAA research continues to focus on in-flight fire safety in both freighter (all cargo) and passengercarrying aircraft. In freighter aircraft, work will continue on the development of a practical and cost-effective fire 

detection and suppression system. Also, the safe transportation of lithium batteries will be emphasized by the 

evaluation of available agents and systems to extinguish lithium battery fires and the development of fire-hardened 

containers to ship lithium batteries. Work will continue to meet deadlines proposed by the International Civil Aviation 

Association (ICAO) to ban halon – an ozone depleting and global warming chemical – used extensively in aircraft fire 

extinguishing systems. Particular emphasis will be placed on the evaluation of environmentally-friendly replacement 

agents under full-scale fire test conditions in cargo compartments – by far, the largest and most challenging 

application for halon. 

FAA will continue to develop and standardize new flammability tests to reduce the risk from an uncontrollable inflight fire, improve existing flammability tests, and develop new tests for novel applications of material that may 

impact fire safety. This work supports unprecedented FAA rulemaking activity to improve and simplify the 

flammability requirements for materials. Effective fire tests and performance criteria are needed for hidden area 

materials (wiring, ducting), fuselage structural composites, and the novel application of magnesium alloy in seat 

structure. 

Research in support of improving the flammability standards for aircraft materials will focus on the development of 

computational models to predict the impact of material substitutions and ultra-fire resistant materials on cabin fire 

safety and occupant survivability. Researchers will also continue to develop and evaluate non-hazardous ultra-fire 

resistant materials for a fire proof cabin. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-1 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

2. What Is This Program? 

The FAA issues aircraft fire safety rules that govern material selection, design criteria, and operational procedures. 

The new test methods, reports, and journal publications produced by the Fire Research and Safety Program describe 

the technical basis for these regulations and offer guidance for regulatory compliance. We provide industry with 

state-of-the-art safety products and information as a result of our ongoing research and produce publications and 

government-owned patents on new materials, fire test instrumentation, and analytical methodologies. 

The program develops technologies, procedures, test methods, and fire performance criteria that can prevent 

accidents caused by hidden cabin or cargo compartment in-flight fires and fuel tank explosions, and improve 

survivability during a post-crash fire. Systems fire protection and materials fire safety focuses on near-term 

improvements in fire test methods and materials performance criteria, fire detection and suppression systems, and 

hazardous materials fire safety. Fire research addresses fundamental issues of combustion toxicity, the impact of 

flame retardant chemicals on the fire and health hazards of cabin materials, and the impact of materials flammability 

on the initiation of in-flight fires and post-crash survivability. 

The Fire Research and Safety Program works with the following industry and government groups: 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

(REDAC) – These representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review 

the program’s research activities. 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support new rule making and development of alternate means of compliance 

for existing rules. 

	 Aircraft manufacturers (U.S. and foreign), airlines, foreign airworthiness authorities, chemical companies, 

material suppliers, and aircraft fire safety equipment manufacturers meet regularly to share information on 

interior material fire tests and improvement of fire detection and suppression systems and jointly funded 

university research on ultra fire resistant materials. 

	 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) – FAA works with and supports NTSB on in-flight fire incidents, 

on-site accident investigations, and related testing. 

	 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) – FAA works with PHMSA to cooperatively 

develop requirements/guidelines for the safe transport of hazardous materials (current focus is on lithium 

batteries). 

	 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) – FAA provides expertise on the development of a mandate 

by ICAO to require the replacement of halon in civil aviation by specific dates. 

	 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) - FAA works with ASTM to update and maintain a new 

flammability test method based on the FAA microscale combustion calorimeter, codified as ASTM D7309. 

Fire Research and Safety Program R&D partners include: 

	 FAA-sponsored International Systems Fire Protection Working Group – R&D involves lithium battery fire 

hazards, freighter aircraft safety, hidden fire safety, fire and smoke detectors, halon replacement, and fuel 

tank protection. 

	 FAA-sponsored International Aircraft Materials Fire Test Working Group – R&D involves development and 

standardization of improved material fire tests. 

	 Memorandum of Cooperation with the British Civil Aviation Administration – R&D involves a variety of fire 

safety research efforts. 

	 Cabin Safety Research Technical Group – cooperates in and coordinates cabin safety research conducted 

and/or sponsored by international regulatory authorities. 

	 Research consortia with Fortune 100 companies and other agencies to share cost of developing new fireresistant materials and numerical fire models. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-2 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Improve Aircraft Fire Protection and Occupant Fire Survivability 

	 Completed tests in engine fire simulator to determine the fire extinguishing effectiveness and performance 

criteria for novel, environmentally friendly dry powder agent. 

	 Developed a cost-effective halon (an ozone depleting and global warming chemical) replacement system for 

hand-held extinguishers. 

	 Evaluated the effectiveness and safety (toxicity) of hand-held extinguishers discharging contaminated halon. 

	 Determined the capability of existing airline hazardous materials containers for preventing the hazards of a 

lithium battery fire from spreading outside of the containers. 

	 Studied novel agents and systems for the suppression of cargo fires in freighter aircraft. 

	 Extended the FAA ThermaKin burning model to two-dimensional burning of layered and structural composite 

materials. 

	 Down-selected computational fluid dynamics models for full-scale aircraft cabin fire model. 

	 Validated and implemented National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) computational fluid 

dynamics model for cargo compartment fires to assess fire detection, suppression and mitigation (flight 

plan) strategies. 

	 Determined the effect of altitude (pressure) and oxygen concentration (partial pressure) on burning rate of 

plastics in order to develop mitigation strategies (e.g., flight plan, inerting) for in-flight cargo fires. 

	 Developed a probabilistic model for flame (Bunsen burner) and fire (rate of heat release apparatus) test 

results using FAA microscale combustion calorimeter data to predict compliance with test criteria (pass/fail). 

Improved Flammability Standards for Aircraft Materials 

	 Defined composite fuselage fire safety design criteria. 

	 Developed an improved next generation burner test method for the fireworthiness of engine components. 

Research continued on in-flight fire safety in both freighter (all cargo) and passenger-carrying aircraft. Related to 

freighter aircraft, fire extinguishing tests were conducted with promising agents toward the development of a 

practical and cost-effective suppression system. Also, fire tests evaluated available agents and systems to extinguish 

lithium battery fires and supported the development of a fire-hardened container to ship lithium batteries. This work 

was driven by proposed rulemaking by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), in 

consultation with FAA, to improve the fire safety aspects of the transportation of lithium batteries. In addition, 

because of deadlines proposed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), more full and large-scale tests 

were conducted on engine, hand-held, and cargo compartment applications to replace halon with practical and 

effective agents that are environmentally acceptable in terms of ozone depletion and global warming. Also, discovery 

of contamination in recycled halon required testing to determine the effect on extinguishment effectiveness and 

safety (toxicity). 

The FAA also continued its research on the improvement of existing flammability tests and the development of new 

tests for novel applications of materials that may impact fire safety. A next generation oil burner was adapted for 

powerplant component fire tests because the existing antiquated burner produces variable results. Also, new fire 

tests and performance criteria were developed for structural composite fuselages, such as the new Boeing 787. 

Work will be continued on the development of computational models to predict the effect of material substitutions 

and ultra-fire resistant materials on aircraft fire safety and occupant survivability. 

Fire Research and Safety is an in-house program that supports the DOT’s strategic goal of increasing aviation safety 

by reducing the number of accidents associated with aircraft fires and by mitigating the effects of a post-crash 

ground fire. 

FAA will work to reduce the number of accidents and incidents caused by in-flight fire in both passenger-carrying and 

all-cargo (freighter) aircraft, to prevent fuel tank explosions, and to improve survivability during a post-crash fire. 

Near-term research will focus on improved fire test standards for interior materials; new fire tests for novel material 

applications such as composite fuselage structure and magnesium seats; high energy lithium battery fire safety; 

Research, Engineering and Development A-3 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

supporting the replacement of halon, in FAA-required fire extinguishing systems; and new or improved fire detection 

and extinguishment systems. Long term research will be conducted to support near term improvements and develop 

computational models to support the enabling technology for a fireproof aircraft cabin. 

The following goals directly support the ultimate strategic goals of in-flight fire prevention, fuel tank explosion 

prevention, and improved post-crash fire survivability: 

	 By FY 2013, define performance criteria for cargo containers for the safe shipment of lithium batteries. 

	 By FY 2014, use full-scale cabin fire models to demonstrate the effects of material improvements and 

substitutions on post-crash fire survivability and the likelihood of in-flight fires. 

	 By FY 2014, determine viable and environmentally safe agents/systems to replace halon in cargo 

compartment fire suppression systems. 

	 By FY 2016, demonstrate the effectiveness of an integrated fire suppression system using nitrogen available 

from a fuel tank inerting system. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The consequences of fire in commercial aviation are great – the large loss of life in accidents either caused by fire 

(in-flight fire and explosions) or as a consequence of fire (post-crash fire), and the destruction of the aircraft. It is an 

awesome challenge to prevent accidents caused by in-flight fire or fuel tank explosions and to improve survivability 

by mitigating the effects of a post-crash fire when one considers the following: the passengers are in a densely 

populated and confined space; the wings are laden with tens of thousands of gallons of flammable jet fuel; the cabin 

is furnished and lined with plastic materials; tens of miles of wiring and cable are routed behind the cabin walls, 

ceiling and floor; and below the floor in the cargo compartment is flammable passenger luggage and cargo. To 

prevent or mitigate the effects of fire, the majority of the research is directed toward the development of new or 

improved fire tests for interior materials and cost-effective fire extinguishing systems. 

The FAA Fire Research and Safety Program is largely driven by accidents, NTSB recommendations, new technology, 

new fire threats, and environmental concerns. In the 1980’s and early 1990’s the emphasis was on improved postcrash fire survivability. However, three catastrophic accidents in the 1990’s have driven research priorities over the 

past decade: ValuJet (1995, 110 fatalities), TWA 800 (1995, 230 fatalities) and Swiss Air (1998, 229 fatalities). 

Currently, fire safety research is addressing destructive freighter fires and the continuing threat of in-flight fire (e.g., 

over 900 incidents of odor and smoke occur each year in the United States in large transport aircraft); structural 

composite fuselage fire resistance (e.g., B787) and other proposed new interior materials such as magnesium alloys; 

fuel tank flammability in composite wings; the growing threat of lithium batteries in cargo shipments, passenger 

personal electronic devices and in aircraft emergency power systems; and the need for environmentally-acceptable 

and practical replacements for halon extinguishing agents. 

As described earlier, there are very significant opportunities for a serious fire in a large transport aircraft. Although 

the likelihood of such a fire is rare, the consequences can be great. For example, the most catastrophic in-flight fire 

in the history of aviation caused 301 fatalities (Saudia L-1011, 1980). The goals of the Fire Research and Safety 

Program are to prevent in-flight fires and fuel tank explosions, and to improve survivability in the event of a 

postcrash fire. Saving lives and preventing property losses are the obvious benefits of this program. Practically 

every major fire safety improvement implemented in transport aircraft throughout the world over the past 30 years 

has been a product of this program. Over the years these improvements have undoubtedly saved many lives. For 

example, on August 2, 2005 an Airbus A340 with 297 passengers and 12 crewmembers landing at Toronto 

International Airport during a thunderstorm, ran off the end of the runway, came to a stop in a ravine and was 

destroyed by an ensuing fire. Similarly, on December 20, 2008 a Continental 737 with 110 passengers and 5 

crewmen veered off the runway at Denver International Airport during attempted take-off in a strong crosswind, 

experienced a postcrash fire and was extensively damaged. Although there were some injuries, none of the 424 

occupants of the two airplanes involved in these very serious accidents were killed, likely due at least in part to fire 

safety improvements that were products of the Fire Safety and Research Program. 

In an attempt to quantify the improvement in fire safety over the past 40 years, 672 world-wide survivable accidents 

involving large transport turbojet and turboprop airplanes were analyzed from 1968 to 2007. It was determined that 

survivability improved markedly over the study period with a greater proportion of accidents being survivable and a 

marked increase in the proportion of occupants surviving the accident. In fact, the probability of dying in an aircraft 

Research, Engineering and Development A-4 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

fire has been reduced (improved) by a factor of three. The study is described in the FAA report, “Trends in Accidents 

and Fatalities in Large Transport Aircraft”, which is accessible at 

http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/reports/listresults.asp?searchList=DOT%2FFAA%2FAR-10%2F16&listSubmit=Submit. 

If the program were not funded potential future improvements in fire safety may not be realized. The large number 

of unknown smoke and odor incidents – over 900 annually in the United States – continues to be a great concern. 

New technologies such as composite structure or magnesium seat components would be introduced without 

adequate safeguards. In addition, the risk of a fire caused by the shipment of hazardous cargo such as lithium 

batteries would be greater. The major aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing and Airbus do not have programs to 

increase aircraft fire safety. However, they closely monitor and are dependent upon the FAA’s fire safety research 

and work cooperatively with FAA to evaluate and develop improvements. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

Over the past 30 years, every major improvement in aircraft fire safety that has been implemented by FAA through 

the regulatory and advisory process was a product of this program. As previously discussed, a recent analysis of 

world-wide accidents has shown that the probability of dying in an aircraft fire has been reduced (improved) by a 

factor of three. Major recent examples of these regulatory products are (1) in-flight fire resistant thermal acoustic 

insulation (effective 9/2/05), (2) explosion prevention fuel tank inerting systems (effective 9/19/08), and (3) 

burnthrough resistance thermal acoustic insulation (effective 9/2/09). The future benefit of the first two rules was 

projected by FAA to be the prevention of two to three catastrophic aircraft accidents, which would have caused many 

hundreds of fatalities. Also, in 2010, based on FAA fire safety R&D, (1) a Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) was 

issued entitled “Risks in Transporting Lithium Batteries in Cargo by Aircraft”, (2) a proposed revised advisory circular 

“Hand-Held Fire Extinguishers for use in Aircraft’ was published in the Federal Register, and (3) a final rule became 

effective for the fire-safe shipment of oxygen cylinders and generators. 

Almost all of the work is conducted in-house by internationally recognized experts in aircraft fire safety and research. 

The FAA operates the world’s most extensive aircraft fire test facilities. The vast majority of the work is directed 

toward the improvement by FAA fire safety regulations. In addition, FAA certification engineers receive training in 

these facilities on the material flammability test standards developed by this program that are now FAA regulations. 

At the request of the NTSB, program personnel participate in major fire accident and incident investigations. The 

Fire Research and Safety Program annually publishes over two dozen reports and papers (available to the public 

online at http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/reports/reports.asp) highlighting research results that have led to major 

improvements in aircraft safety. In addition, the results of FAA’s research is often published in peer-reviewed 

scientific journals, presented at technical conferences, and/or discussed at technical workshops. In 2009, 17 

publications were authored by fire safety researchers, which accounted for about 30% of the publications by 

researchers at the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center. 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure that FAA’s program goals 

and priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the 

Research and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to 

best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. The Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety (SAS), 

in particular, is the arm of the REDAC that oversees and critiques the FAA’s aircraft safety R&D programs. Over the 

years the SAS has been complimentary and supportive of the Fire Research and Safety Program. The following SAS 

commentary illustrates the generally positive assessment of this program by the SAS: “The Safety Subcommittee 

believes that fire facility and personnel at the Tech Center are truly world-class, and it continues to provide 

meaningful benefits to the FAA, industry, and traveling public. The Safety Subcommittee believes that the FAA needs 

to ensure that this research capability is retained in the future and that its facilities are identified and maintained as 

critical national resources. The Ultra-fire Resistant Polymer program appears to be producing amazing results for 

very little resource expenditure. This is an excellent example of a proactive research approach and capability 

development.” 

Research, Engineering and Development A-5 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

The Fire Research and Safety Program develops the enabling technology to improve fire safety in transport aircraft. 

The products of the research are implemented into aviation by rulemaking, advisory materials and technology 

transfer. It is the only comprehensive program of this type and the researchers are recognized throughout the world 

as the experts in aircraft fire safety. Reductions in funding could would delay the implementation of fire safety 

improvements and increase the risk of an accident caused or accompanied by fire and the likelihood of fire fatalities. 

Specific items in the program that could be impacted by a reduction in funding, depending on the actual level, that 

have a direct bearing on aircraft fire safety include the following: 

	 Performance criteria for lithium battery shipment containers. 

	 Efficacy of Halon 1301 in controlling a large shipment of rechargeable lithium batteries. 

	 Development of a cost effective fire suppression system for the main cargo compartments of freighter 

aircraft. 

	 Effectiveness of current aircraft design and operational procedures in preventing the accumulation of 

visibility-impairing smoke in the cockpit during an in-flight fire. 

	 Flammability test method for magnesium alloy seat structure. 

	 Standardization of more stringent and realistic fire test methods for aircraft wiring and ducting. 

	 Development of computational cabin fire models for predicting the impact of material substitutions on cabin 

fire safety and survivability. 

	 Determining the impact of a proposed ban on a class of fire retardants on the ability of industry to adhere to 

current material flammability regulations. 

Identification of environmentally acceptable halon replacement agents, through full-scale fire testing, that effectively 

extinguish, suppress, or control in-flight fires (should the availability of halon in the near future become problematic 

to the aviation community). 

Research, Engineering and Development A-6 
 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – A11.b Propulsion and Fuel Systems 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.b Propulsion and Fuel 

Systems $2,301,000 $2,300,000 $2,882,000 +$582,000 

For FY 2013, $2,882,000 is requested for Propulsion and Fuel Systems. Major activities and accomplishments 

planned include: 

Incorporate Damage Tolerance into the Safe Life Rotor Design Process 

	 Release an enhanced version of DARWIN® (Design Assessment of Reliability with Inspection), the 

probabilistic rotor design and life management code. 

The Probabilistic Design for Rotor Integrity (PDRI) program continues to address material and manufacturing 

anomalies that can increase the risk of failure of critical rotating turbine engine parts by advancing DARWIN®, the 

probabilistically-based turbine engine rotor design and life management code in order to enhance its predictive 

capability. These enhancements map directly to future Advisory Circulars (ACs) planned by the Engine and Propeller 

Directorate (ANE), and benefits will accrue in the form of a reduced risk of engine failures and fewer accidents, which 

in turn will lead to fewer injuries and fatalities. 

The PDRI program also continues to develop advanced damage tolerance methods for turbine rotor disks through 

experimentation and modeling to address the effects of complex time-temperature stress histories, small crack sizes, 

anomalies in nickel alloys, crack geometries, and surface residual stress on fatigue crack growth life. The program 

also contributes to the continued airworthiness of turbine engines by developing additional fleet assessment 

capabilities within DARWIN®. 

2. What Is This Program? 

FAA establishes rules for the certification and operation of aircraft engines, fuels, and airframe fuel management 

systems. The Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program provides the technical information, R&D resources, and technical 

oversight necessary for the agency to enhance the airworthiness, reliability, and performance of propulsion and fuel 

systems. The agency uses the results of this research to generate ACs and various other forms of technical 

information detailing acceptable means of compliance to guide certification and airworthiness specialists and 

inspectors. 

The Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program supports the FAA Flight Plan 2009-13 Goal 1 (Increased Safety), Objective 

1 (Reduce commercial air carrier fatalities). 

The Propulsion and Fuel Systems program develops technologies, procedures, test methods, and criteria to enhance 

the airworthiness, reliability, and performance of civil turbine and piston engines, propellers, fuels, and fuel 

management systems. To improve safety, the program conducts research needed to develop tools, guidelines, and 

data to support improvements in turbine engine certification requirements. 

The Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program works with the following industry and government groups: 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – 

representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review the program’s 

activities. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-7 
 

	 

	 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups (TCRGs) – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to 

ensure the program’s research projects support new rulemaking and development of alternate means of 

compliance for existing rules. 

	 The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) – working subcommittees on rotor integrity and rotor 

manufacturing. 

Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program R&D partners include: 

	 PDRI Program – Southwest Research Institute has teamed with Pratt and Whitney, General Electric, 

Honeywell, and Rolls Royce to develop DARWIN®, the probabilistic-based rotor life and risk management 

certification tool. 

	 The AIA working subcommittees on rotor integrity and rotor manufacturing. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Incorporate Damage Tolerance into the Safe Life Rotor Design Process 

	 Continued the enhancement of the DARWIN® probabilistic rotor design code. 

The main research area within the Propulsion and Fuel Systems Program is to ensure the structural integrity and 

durability of critical rotating engine parts in turbine engines throughout their service life. This research is providing 

analytical tools to meet the requirements of AC 33.14-1, “Damage Tolerance for High Energy Turbine Engine Rotors,” 

allowing aircraft turbine engine manufacturers to assess the risk of fracture and manage the life of rotor disks. The 

research goal is: 

	 By FY 2015, develop a certification tool that will predict the risk of failure of rotor disks containing material 

and manufacturing anomalies. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

In spite of a history of safe turbine engine operation in commercial aviation, the threat of an engine failure is always 

present and the potential consequences are enormous – the large loss of life in accidents and the destruction of the 

aircraft. Although they are few, accidents such as United Airlines Flight 232 on July 19, 1989 in Sioux City, Iowa, and 

Delta Airlines Flight 1288 on July 6, 1996 in Pensacola, Florida are noteworthy because they were caused by the 

failure of turbine engine components that caused catastrophic loss of life and aircraft. Turbine engine research is 

conducted to study the causes of failures and determine how to prevent them in the future. 

FAA Propulsion and Fuel Systems research, conducted in conjunction with the manufacturers, has shown that the 

primary inherent failure modes in these accidents result from the presence of material and manufacturing anomalies 

that can degrade the structural integrity of high energy turbine rotors. The primary failure mode of the Sioux City 

accident was a fatigue crack that originated from an undetected titanium alloy melt-related defect. From the 

research, the FAA made recommendations related to the improvement of titanium metallurgical quality, 

nondestructive inspection, and turbine rotor structural design and lifing standards. This research has yielded a 

probabilistic damage tolerant rotor design and life management code (DARWIN®) to determine the risk of fracture of 

turbine engine rotor disks containing undetected material anomalies which is used by many of the major engine 

manufacturers. The goal of the research continues to be the prevention of turbine engine related accidents. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

Research, Engineering and Development A-8 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

The initial version of the DARWIN® code was developed to address the subsurface defect known as hard alpha and 

to meet the requirements of a new AC on “Damage Tolerance for Turbine Engine Rotors”, 33.14-1. Another version 

of DARWIN® addressed surface damage in bolt holes and provided the basis for AC 33.70-2, “Damage Tolerance of 

Hole Features in Turbine Engine Rotors”. DARWIN® is an acceptable means of compliance to both of these new ACs. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction would delay implementation of new ACs on surface damage in blade slots and on turned surfaces of 

turbine engine rotors, due to the fact that new versions of DARWIN® will provide the basis and an acceptable means 

of compliance to these new ACs. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-9 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.c Advanced Materials/Structural Safety 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Advanced Materials/Structural Safety 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.c Advanced 

Materials/Structural Safety $2,534,000 $2,534,000 $2,569,000 +$35,000 

For FY 2013, $2,569,000 is requested for Advanced Materials/Structural Safety. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned include: 

Advanced Materials 

	 Damage Tolerance of Composite Structures 

−	 Characterize and quantify the threats to composite aircraft structures while at the service gate and on 

the flight line. 

−	 Document accepted certification methodology for damage tolerance and fatigue, including full-scale test 

and analysis protocols for repeated loads and damage threats. 

	 Composite Maintenance Practices 

−	 Develop training and conduct workshops to review progress in damage tolerance, adhesive joints, and 

maintenance. 

	 Environmental and Aging Effects for Composite Structures 

−	 Develop information on the effect of environmental and heat exposure on structural properties and 

durability of composite structures. 

	 Structural Integrity of Adhesive Joints 

−	 Provide detailed background research addressing gaps testing and validation of durability of bonded 

structures. 

−	 Gain consensus from industry and regulators from around the world on standard durability 

substantiation methodology certification and continued airworthiness. 

In Advanced Materials, the program will continue to focus on damage tolerance and fatigue issues of composite 

structures, including the assessment of impact damage threats (e.g., in-flight hail, ground vehicle collisions), and the 

aging of composite materials. Composite control surfaces degradation on transport airplanes will be explored and 

linked to aircraft safety issues. Quality control procedures will be studied for adhesive joints. Important field 

variables will be evaluated for bonded and bolted repairs. Properties of new materials and applications, which are 

used in primary aircraft structures, will be studied and evaluated. Safety awareness trainings in structural 

engineering for advanced composite materials have been developed and provided to related workforce. Work will 

continue supporting the composite safety awareness training development for a manufacturing course. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program provides technical support for rule making and develops guidance 

to help the aviation industry comply with agency regulations. This program is divided into two related structural 

research areas: Advanced Materials and Structural Safety. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-10 
 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Advanced Materials 

FAA establishes rules for the certification of safe and durable materials for use in aircraft construction. While the 

rules are the same for composite or metal structures, different behavioral characteristics of structural materials call 

for different means of compliance. Although Advisory Circular (AC) 20-107B, “Composite Aircraft Structure,” has 

been recently published, advances in technologies and materials require periodic updates and expansion of safety 

information. These updates are contained in research workshops and reports which provide immediate information 

to the aviation community and a suite of policy and guidance documents pertaining to composite structures that are 

under constant revision. The FAA Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor disseminates current technical information 

developed in this program to regulatory personnel through technical reports, handbooks, guidance, policy, and 

related training courses. This data exchange allows regulatory processes to keep pace with industry advances and 

benefit from state-of-the-art technology and design. This efficiently provides safety and certification information to 

the FAA certification service and industry. 

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 regulatory guidance, material data contained in this handbook are acceptable for 

use in the certification process. The FAA research is also coordinated with SAE standards organizations for advanced 

materials (e.g., Committee P-17 for composite materials specifications, the Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair 

Committee (CACRC), ASTM, and Society for the Advancement of Material & Process Engineering). 

The Interagency Advanced Structures Working Group, which consists of FAA, NASA and the Department of Defense, 

was established in FY 2010. This working group will coordinate all current and future advanced composite research 

programs between federal agencies to ensure effective research efforts by interchanging information, identifying and 

filling technical gaps, and avoiding duplication. 

The FAA has established an Interagency Agreement with NASA to collaborate on safety issues for composite 

research. 

Structural Safety 

FAA revises or updates crashworthiness-related Federal Aviation Regulations to accommodate new information for 

overhead stowage bins, auxiliary fuel tanks and fuel systems, aircraft configurations, seat and restraint systems, and 

human tolerance injury criteria. FAA, through this program, is developing alternative methods to streamline the 

certification process (i.e., certification by analysis and component tests in lieu of full-scale tests). 

The program maintains cooperative interagency agreements in the structural safety area with the U.S. Army and in 

the analytical modeling area with the U.S. Navy. 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. 

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. In addition, the Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program helps FAA achieve its strategic 

goals in international leadership and organizational excellence by providing a developmental basis in aircraft 

certification guidance and training in all areas of study that can be used throughout the world. 

The Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program complies with or cooperates with the following legislation and 

industrial and government groups: 

	 The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee – this FAA committee and its subcommittees help to ensure 

the effectiveness of the agency’s rulemaking by identifying R&D requirements and priorities, providing 

guidance for the update of documents, such as AC 20-107B and encouraging industry’s full participation in 

implementing new rules. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-11 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

– representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review the program’s 

activities. 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support new rule making and development of alternative means of compliance 

for existing rules. 

	 The Joint Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials and Structures led by Wichita State University and the 

University of Washington – The Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program benefits from a close working 

relationship with the Center. The research performed under this program is leveraged by the monetary and 

intellectual contributions of its partners including many major commercial aviation companies. 

	 Interagency Agreement with NASA – The FAA is collaborating with NASA on safety issues for composite 

research. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Advanced Materials 

	 Damage Tolerance of Composite Structures 

−	 Conducted a study for the types of threats to composite aircraft structures while at the service gate and 

on the flight line. 

−	 Documented an accepted certification methodology for damage tolerance and fatigue, including fullscale test and analysis protocols for repeated loads and damage threats. 

	 Composite Maintenance Practices 

−	 Expanded developments in composite training with the initial emphasis on levels of safety awareness 

for structural engineering and manufacturing. 

−	 Developed training and conducted workshops to review progress in damage tolerance, adhesive joints, 

and maintenance. 

	 Advanced Materials and Processes 

−	 Evaluated the safety of new material forms (e.g., discontinuous fiber composites) that have found 

application in primary aircraft structures. 

Structural Safety 

	 Crash Impact Response 

−	 Developed analytical modeling protocols and methodologies of aircraft structures crash conditions for 

certification use. 

−	 Developed standards and methods to characterize dynamic properties of composite material systems. 

−	 Supported new rulemaking and guidance development for Part 25 composite and metallic aircraft 

crashworthiness for structural substantiation certification. 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing transportation related 

injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. To prevent accidents associated with the 

airframe use of advanced materials and to improve the crashworthiness of airframes in the event of accidents, the 

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. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-12 
 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

 By FY 2013, develop criteria for damage tolerance assessments of stiffened laminated composite structures. 

 By FY 2013, generate methodology for demonstrating aircraft structure crashworthiness certification by 

analysis. 

 By FY 2014, evaluate field bonded and bolted repair practices to update related guidance and training for 

composite aircraft structures. 

 By FY 2015, evaluate existing and emerging bonded airframe technology to update guidelines and 

standards. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The use of new materials, processes and forms on aircraft continues to push the knowledge base for certification to 

provide safe aircraft for civilian applications. In the last decade, this has been accelerated due to the rapid expansion 

of the use of composites in increasingly large structures. Dominating the rapid expansion has been the use of fiberreinforced polymers to provide lighter, fuel efficient airframe components including, in recent applications, full 

fuselage barrels and wings. The understanding of these emerging technologies is paramount to assuring the safety 

of the civil aviation and the flying public. The current certification process for many advanced materials and 

structures were established for smaller, less critical components and service conditions. As the current certification 

protocols are applied to the larger structures, uncertainty exists in the applicability which has to be demonstrated for 

these aircraft products. In addition to operational issues, these changes in materials, construction methods, and 

processes have altered the response of these structures to dynamic crash events. The difference in structural 

characteristics needs to be understood and incorporated in certification and operational plans to assure safety for 

new aircraft that incorporate these advances. 

FAA Advanced Materials/Structural Safety research requirements are driven by industry advancements in construction 

of airframes and related components presented for certification. The FAA must assure that the changes maintain an 

equivalent or improve the level of safety compared to that achieved with currently operational aircraft. Requests 

from the Aircraft Certification Offices and from the aircraft manufacturers seeking Type Certification (TC) approval 

are major influences that shape research requirements, as the FAA seeks to evaluate the safety of planned new 

concepts using advanced materials, processes and forms. Additional requirements are developed from assessments 

of existing techniques, protocols, and service histories of previous advanced products to determine if modifications 

are required for the ever expanding materials, processes, and forms that are being introduced on civil aircraft. The 

National Transportation Safety Board review of accidents (AA587, R22, etc.) involving these structures provides 

additional focus for the information and research required to understand these emerging technologies. Currently the 

program is researching the damage tolerance and fatigue of composite structures; bonded structures; maintenance 

and repair of composite structures; and aging and environmental effects. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The REDAC reviews and evaluates all programs in the FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. 

Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link 

between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at 

the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace 

System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also 

examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its subcommittee 

structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. 

Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year 

terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in funding to the Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Program would decrease funds to the work done 

in Environmental and Aging Effects for Composite Structures. It would extend the schedule by several months. This 

Research, Engineering and Development A-13 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

estimate of the delay is contingent on restoring expected funding levels in subsequent years. While this delay is 

small, the availability of information on current structural certification protocols adequacy to assure safe design of 

type certificate applicant data will not be available, possibly allowing less safe designs though the certification 

process. Furthermore, this would stop the work and extend the schedule for investigation of aging effects and 

certification requirement adequacy in addressing the aging effects on currently operational composite structures, for 

approximately 15 months. This impact is a combination of work stoppage and restart which would be required after 

a year without activity on that project. It is expected that the investigators would not be available after the layoff 

period requiring additional training for the new investigators. The availability of information on current structural 

certification protocols adequacy to assure safe design of TC applicant data would be delayed an extended period of 

time, possibly allowing less safe designs through the certification process. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-14 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.d Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.d Aircraft Icing/Digital 

System Safety $6,534,000 $5,404,000 $6,644,000 +$1,240,000 

For FY 2013, $6,644,000 is requested for Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety. Major activities and accomplishments 

planned include: 

Aircraft Icing 

	 Research on Ice Crystal and Other Appendix C Exceedance Conditions 

−	 Conduct full field campaign out of Darwin, Australia to collect atmospheric data necessary for high 

fidelity facility and analytical simulation of High Ice Water Content (HIWC) ice crystal conditions (Note: 

Funding under A11.d supplements funding provided under the A11.k Weather Program. Effective 

simulation, the primary goal of the activity listed here, is not possible without high quality atmospheric 

data, so the two efforts are intimately intertwined.) 

	 Safe Operations and Take-off in Aircraft Ground Icing Conditions 

−	 Complete data and information package needed to update annual winter notice providing guidance for 

formulation of ground de-icing plans as required by airlines in CFR 121.629. 

	 Simulation Methods Development/Validation to Support Appendix C Icing Certification and Continued 

Operational Safety 

−	 Complete development of 3D model for testing of ice accretion/aerodynamic effects of ice on 3-D lifting 

surfaces. 

	 Rotorcraft Flight in Known Icing Compliance Criteria 

−	 Identify candidate minimum required icing instrumentation requirements, flight and wind tunnel test 

points required for verification of ice protection systems on rotorcraft. 

The major activity planned for FY 2013 is the HIWC ice crystal field campaign out of Darwin, Australia. The data 

collected will be used in the development and evaluation of facility and analytical simulation tools and in the 

assessment and possible improvement of the proposed ice crystal regulatory atmospheric envelopes. The ground 

icing research results are incorporated into the annual winter notice needed by the airlines. The rotorcraft research 

is a new initiative which is expected to be completed by FY 2014, resulting in improved guidance to the industry on 

certification of rotorcraft for icing conditions. 

Digital System Safety 

	 Onboard Network Security and Integrity 

−	 Provide initial (Phase 1) input for the development of RTCA SC-216 Subgroup 3 Aircraft Systems Cyber 

Vulnerability-Prevention Recommended Practices. 

−	 Perform an additional phase of work in the development of the airborne network security simulator that 

integrates industry and government aeronautical simulators to assess and identify network security 

threats in an airborne network environment. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-15 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Software Development Techniques and Tools 

−	 For Phase 2, determine assurance case applicability to digital systems by examining previously 

developed assurance cases in various regulated sectors for approaches, successes, failures, and 

providing a comparison to existing development assurance standards (e.g., RTCA/DO-178B and 

RTCA/DO-254). 

−	 For Phase 1, assess, validate, and clarify DO-178C criteria for model-based development. 

	 Airborne Electronic Hardware Techniques and Tools 

−	 Investigate airborne electronic hardware (AEH) design assurance in the initial category of commercial 

off-the-shelf (COTS) electronic hardware. 

−	 Assess alternative approaches to electronic hardware design assurance for complex custom microcoded devices and identify candidate approaches for further study. 

Digital System Safety researchers will continue to evaluate onboard network security and integrity, system 

considerations for complex digitally intensive systems, software development techniques and tools, and integrity, 

AEH design techniques and tools, and COTS reliability and continued operational safety. 

2. What Is This Program? 

FAA establishes rules for the certification and operation of aircraft that encounter icing conditions as well as rules for 

the use of digital systems. The agency uses the research results to generate Advisory Circulars (ACs) and various 

other forms of technical information detailing acceptable means for meeting requirements, to guide government and 

industrial certification and airworthiness specialists and inspectors. 

The Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety Program develops and tests technologies that detect frozen contamination, 

predict anti-icing fluid failure, and ensure safe operations both during and after flight in atmospheric icing conditions. 

To improve digital system safety, researchers are proactive in ensuring the safe operation of emerging, highly 

complex software-based digital flight controls and avionics systems. 

A major goal of the program is to reduce aviation’s vulnerability to all in-flight icing hazards through the application 

of its research to improve certification criteria. Commercial airplanes are not yet certified to fly in icing conditions to 

an icing envelope that includes supercooled large droplet (SLD) and ice crystal icing conditions. The program’s 

researchers have contributed to the development of technical data and advisory materials to correct this omission. A 

study by the Engine Harmonization Working Group indicates that over 100 in-service engine events, many resulting 

in power loss and at least six in multiple engine flameouts, occurred in HIWC environments from 1988 to 2003. A 

current collaborative research effort addresses this issue. 

The program will develop new guidelines for testing, evaluating, and approving digital flight controls, avionics, and 

other systems for the certification of aircraft and engines. Additionally, the program supports development of policy, 

guidance, technology, and training needs of the Aircraft Certification Service and Flight Standards Service that will 

assist and educate FAA and industry specialists in understanding digital system safety and assessing how it may be 

safely employed in systems such as fly-by-wire, augmented manual flight controls, navigation and communication 

equipment, and autopilots. 

The Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety Program collaborates with a broad segment of the aviation community to 

improve aircraft certification, inspection, and maintenance, including: 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – 

representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review the activities of 

the Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety Program. 

	 The Aerospace Industries Association Ice Crystal Consortium – this is a private sector working group that 

coordinates ice crystal ground facility research testing with the FAA. 

	 SAE G-12 Aircraft Ground Deicing Committee– this subcommittee assists in updating holdover time 

guidelines and establishing standards for de/anti-icing methodologies, deicing fluids, and ground ice 

detection. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-16 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 SAE AC-9C Aircraft Icing Technology Committee – this subcommittee assists in establishing guidance and 

standards for icing test and simulation methods. 

	 Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) – members of this U.S. Federal Advisory Committee 

and its special committees (SC) help to ensure the effectiveness of the agency’s rulemaking in aviation 

areas, such as digital systems. 

	 Certification Authorities Software Team – a group of international certification software and AEH specialists 

who collaborate and make recommendations to regulatory authorities for digital systems. 

	 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center – the Center is leading cyber security research in 

aeronautical system security that supports the onboard network security and integrity goal. 

The program maintains a number of cooperative relationships: 

 NASA Glenn Research Center - includes various cooperative efforts on aircraft icing activities. 

 Transport Canada - based on an international agreement on research on aircraft ground deicing issues. 

 Environment Canada - based on an international memorandum of cooperation for research on in-flight icing 

conditions. 

 National Research Council of Canada - based on an international memorandum of cooperation for research 

on engine and airframe icing. 

 Australian Bureau of Meteorology - partner in field campaign in Darwin, Australia to obtain data in HIWC 

environments. 

 Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute - cooperative industry, government, and academia venture for 

investigation and standardization of aerospace vehicle systems. 

 NASA Langley Research Center – includes cooperative efforts on digital systems. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Aircraft Icing 

 Research on Ice Crystal and Other Appendix C Exceedance Icing Conditions in Support of Rulemaking 

− Continued experimental work on the physics of engine icing in high ice water content (HIWC) 

environments. 

− Completed first phase of fundamental research work on ice crystal physics studies to determine physical 

parameters of importance for ice crystal accretion formation mechanisms that will support simulating 

these conditions inside engine compressors. 

 Simulation Methods Development/Validation to Support Appendix C Icing Certification and Continued Operational 

Safety 

− Continued research on aerodynamic effects of ice on 3-D lifting surfaces. 

 Safe Operations and Take-off in Aircraft Ground Icing Conditions 

− Continued the development of improved methods for simulation of ice pellet and mixed conditions for 

determination of fluid failure and holdover times and allowance times. 

− Continued evaluation of Remote Onboard Ground Ice Detection System (ROGIDS) for pre-takeoff 

contamination check and other applications, including data package for Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) spec and advisory material. 

Digital System Safety 

 Onboard Network Security and Integrity 

− Pursued efforts to cover cyber security effects on aircraft network security, such as Phase 6 onboard 

network security and integrity work on insuring consistency with aircraft safety and certification. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-17 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

−	 Identified certification issues, including security vulnerabilities introduced by network connectivity to 

multiple aircraft systems, and potential mitigation techniques. 

	 Software Development Techniques and Tools 

− Researched software development techniques and tools, such as verification of adaptive systems. 

	 Airborne Electronic Hardware Design Techniques and Tools 

−	 Investigated airborne electronic hardware (AEH) design techniques and tools, such as AEH design 

assurance. 

	 System Considerations for Complex Digitally Intensive Systems 

−	 Evaluated systems considerations for complex intensive systems, such as system architecture virtual 

integration. 

	 COTS Reliability and Continued Operational Safety 

−	 Studied commercial off-the-shelf reliability and continued operational safety, such as obsolescence and 

life cycle maintenance of avionics. 

−	 Developed COTS electronic hardware reliability prediction tools and techniques for the latest generation 

of the COTS electronic components. 

Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing transportation related 

injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. To reduce the number and severity of 

accidents, or potential accidents, associated with icing and failures to software-based digital flight controls and 

avionics systems, the program develops and assesses ways to ensure airframes and engines can safely operate in 

atmospheric icing conditions and while using digital systems. 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

Aircraft Icing 

	 By FY 2014, complete second phase of fundamental research work on ice crystal physics studies to 

determine physical parameters of importance for ice accretion formation mechanisms that will support 

simulating these conditions inside engine compressors. 

	 By FY 2014, complete processing and primary analysis of the ice crystal cloud data from field campaigns and 

provide ice crystal cloud parameters in a format that will allow for their evaluation as an updated 

engineering standard for convective weather ice crystal icing conditions. 

	 By FY 2015, develop data and methods for guidance material for the airworthiness acceptance criteria and 

test methods for engines in simulated HIWC environments. 

Digital System Safety 

	 By FY 2013, identify safety issues and propose mitigation approaches when software development 

techniques and tools are used in airborne systems. 

	 By FY 2014, identify safety issues and propose mitigation approaches when airborne electronic hardware 

techniques and tools are used in airborne systems. 

	 By FY 2014, evaluate approaches to AEH COTS component design assurance. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Aircraft Icing 

Aircraft icing due to the freezing of supercooled water on aircraft surfaces is a continuing concern in all realms of 

aviation, due to the insidious nature of icing problems for takeoff, cruise, holding, and landing. Fatal accidents fall 

into two major categories: takeoff accidents due to failure to properly de-ice or anti-ice prior to takeoff, and 

accidents due to accretion of ice while in-flight. The latter class affects all phases of flight, but particularly holding 

and approach and landing. Since 1980, takeoff icing accidents have claimed many hundreds of fatalities, while inResearch, Engineering and Development A-18 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

flight icing accidents have claimed at least 200 fatalities. Icing problems due to flight in ice crystals in HIWC 

environments were not fully recognized as posing a serious safety hazard until recent years. Although ice crystals 

bounce off aircraft surfaces, when ingested into engine cores and pitot tubes, the crystals have resulted in serious 

events. The FAA, working with industry, has identified 140 ice crystal turbine engine power loss events in reviewing 

16 years of recent data (a power-loss event is a surge, stall, rollback, or flameout of one or more engines). There 

were also 11 total power loss events from flameout and 1 forced landing due to ice crystals. The FAA has also 

received recent feedback on pitot tube ice crystal events where the probe stopped working. 

Digital System Safety 

The goal of the Software and Digital Systems (SDS) research is to improve and maintain manned and unmanned 

aircraft safety and prepare for the FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System by conducting research in the 

area of advanced, airborne digital systems (software-based and programmable logic-based), such as fly-by-wire flight 

controls, navigation and communication equipment, autopilots, and other aircraft and engine functions. Software 

and digital systems are concerns in aviation due to the large quantity of aircraft computer software code and AEH 

used to implement the software code. Also, the field of digital systems continues to change rapidly and is becoming 

increasingly more complex and pervasive within aircraft. More importantly, the effect of software and AEH upon the 

ultimate safety of the aircraft in which this equipment resides is yet to be fully determined. The SDS research 

focuses the research on areas that will help prevent normal equipment failures (faulty software code and AEH) and 

abnormal equipment failures through security vulnerabilities exposed by cyber security threats. This research 

supports the aircraft certification process that includes work to assure digital systems function properly and safely. 

The results of the research are technical data, reports, compliance methods, verification methods, and certification 

techniques that can be used to develop policy, guidance, and training materials, and to enforce aircraft continued 

airworthiness. The research assists both the FAA and industry in meeting their safety objectives. Although there 

have been no aircraft accidents directly attributable to the failure of software or AEH, it is prudent to take research 

and development actions that will prevent such accidents. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

Ground icing research is used each year in the development of guidance is published annually in the FAA’s ground 

deicing notice, which is needed by airlines to formulate their required ground icing plans for the coming winter. Inflight atmospheric research was used in the development of the envelopes included in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking which was published in June 2010 for supercooled large drop (freezing drizzle and freezing rain aloft in 

and out of clouds and at the surface) conditions. A final rule is anticipated in the first half of 2012. A GAO report 

entitled Improved Planning Could Help FAA Address Challenges Related to Winter Weather Operations was published 

in July 2010. This report covered all aspects of the FAA’s policies and activity in the area of aircraft icing, and a 

portion was devoted to research. The report praised the FAA’s research investment strategy with its icing research 

partners, NASA and NCAR in particular. 

The SDS research has provided numerous inputs to the certification authorities in the development of policy, 

guidance, rules, and regulations. Object oriented technology research provided input to RTCA Special Committee205/WG-71 for DO-178C development and object oriented technology in aviation handbook development, training 

input, and handbook tools. Research on COTS avionics and software provided inputs for FAA ACs and orders. 

Research on Data Network Evaluation Criteria and Ethernet-Based Aviation Databuses provided handbook tool and 

input to databus evaluation criteria that was used by industry. For Flight Critical Data Integrity Assurance for 

Ground-Based COTS Components, provided input to Rotorcraft Directorate level for knowledge and security-related 

items in LANs in aircraft research and RTCA SC-216. For Software Development Tools and Software Verification 

Research, Engineering and Development A-19 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Tools, research provided input to DO-178C. Research into Networked Local Area Networks in Aircraft Safety, 

Security, and Certification Issues, and Initial Acceptance Criteria provided input to RTCA SC-216. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Any reduction in funding would restrict the full HIWC ice crystal field campaign in Darwin, Australia. This would likely 

take the form a shortened campaign or less support from our research partners, who are partially dependent on FAA 

for funding support for their participation. This could result in a substantially smaller ice crystal atmospheric 

database than is needed to develop high fidelity facility and analytical simulation tools. 

A reduction could also adversely impact the testing to determine ground anti-icing allowance times and other 

guidance for ice pellet conditions, including ice pellets mixed with other forms of precipitation. Guidance is published 

annually in the FAA’s ground deicing notice, which is needed by airlines to formulate their required ground icing plans 

for the coming winter. This is an area where there are issues that have led to strong expression of concern by some 

airlines, concerns that need to be resolved. 

If funding for Digital Systems Safety were reduced, the ability of the FAA and industry to evaluate emerging, highlycomplex, digital hardware and software for use in advanced flight controls and aircraft systems would be negatively 

impacted. Consequently, certification specialists would find it difficult to properly assess proposed aircraft and 

systems designs which employ this technology for flight-essential and flight-critical applications. Further, the FAA 

would not be able to determine if certification policy, criteria, or training would be needed to accommodate new 

technologies or methodologies. A further risk of not performing this research is the reduced ability to develop, 

validate, and improve certification methods and the inability to reduce time and cost to both FAA and industry in 

certifying aircraft employing advanced digital airborne systems. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-20 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.e Continued Airworthiness 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Continued Airworthiness 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.e Continued Airworthiness $10,632,000 $11,600,000 $13,202,000 +$1,602,000 

For FY 2013, $13,202,000 is requested for Continued Airworthiness. Major activities and accomplishments planned 

include: 

Health Monitoring of Structures and Complex Flight Critical Systems 

 Evaluate the safety impact and other potential benefits related to the more wide-spread application of 

health usage monitoring technology across all air vehicle systems. 

Stall Departure Identification, Recognition, and Recovery 

 Develop criteria to categorize and quantify stall departure characteristics for transport category airplanes. 

Envelope Awareness and Protection Legacy Transport Airplanes 

 Gather incident, accident, and research data, to quantify the required timeliness of low speed alerting 

system, necessary for in flight recovery of transport category airplanes... 

Advanced Nondestructive Inspection (NDI) Methods for Composite Structures 

 Develop and publish the protocol for the validation of legacy and advanced NDI methods for detection of 

hidden flaws in complex, solid composite laminates. 

Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) for Critical Engines Components 

 Develop AMS specification for industrial ultrasonic forging inspection for critical engine components. 

Rotorcraft Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) 

 Develop methods with direct and indirect evidence approaches guided by Advisory Circular 29-2 MG15 for 

the certification of HUMS for rotorcraft usage credits. 

Advanced Control Systems 

 Investigate and define new and unique rotorcraft hazards associated with advanced control systems 

incorporating non-traditional control methodologies. 

Risk Assessment and Risk Management Methods for Small and Transport Airplane Continued Operational Safety 

(COS) 

 Publish a report on feasibility/applicability of Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) approach for transport airplane 

corrosion problems. 

 Develop data and methodologies for structural life evaluation of small airplanes. 

Development of Control Surface and Stabilizer Freeplay Limits to Preclude Flutter 

 In collaboration with other aerospace stakeholders, including USAF, NASA, Navy and Industry, develop a 

joint research plan to establish modern freeplay limits. 

Emerging Technology – Active Flutter Suppression 

 Initiate a survey of flutter and aeroservoelastic research involving active flutter suppression systems, 

including military application of the technology and NASA/industry research. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-21 
 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

MMPDS Support and Design Values for Emerging Materials 

	 Lead the Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS) steering group in 

updating the metallic materials properties handbook. 

Damage Tolerance and Durability Issues for Emerging Technologies 

	 Continue survey and testing to assess application of advanced aluminum-lithium alloys for aircraft primary 

structure. 

	 Continue testing and analysis to assess environmental durability of bonded repair technology. 

In FY 2013, the above planned major activities and accomplishments focus on six technical areas: Electrical Systems 

(ES); Flight Controls and Mechanical Systems (FCMS), Maintenance and Inspections (M&I), Propulsion Systems (PS), 

Rotorcraft Systems (RS), and Structural Integrity Metallic (SIM). 

Research in the ES will be focused on health monitoring of structures and complex flight critical systems, which will 

enable the insertion of health monitoring (HM) technologies of structural, mechanical, and electric systems in 

commercial transport airplanes for current and future applications. The research will be done in collaboration with 

other technical areas in this Program such as SIM, FCMS, and PS. 

In the FCMS effort, the study on stall departure identification, recognition, and recovery will leverage existing 

industry and NASA data and available methods to generate technical information to support the development of 

guidance and means of compliance to prevent stall departure. Research in envelope awareness and protection 

legacy transport airplanes will focus on supporting standard development and rulemaking on envelope awareness 

and protection for new and legacy transport airplanes. 

Maintenance and Inspection (M&I) research will develop advanced NDI methods for composite structures. It will 

include validation of NDI methodology to determining bond strength; generation of reliability data on capabilities of 

various NDI methods, and support updating training materials as required by relevant parts of the rules for 

maintenance and repairs. Research activities will be coordinated and in collaboration with the SIM research effort as 

well as the Advanced Materials and Structure Safety Program. 

NDE research effort in the PS technical area will develop and evaluate inspection methods for critical engine 

component. It will generate technical information to support the development, validation, and issuance of standards 

for various NDE techniques to improve inspection and monitoring capabilities on manufacturing induced anomalies on 

critical high energy rotating components. 

The RS technical area has two separate efforts: HUMS and advanced controls. In the HUMS effort, research will be 

focusing on the development of methodologies, direct and indirect evidence approaches, in determining usage credit 

of rotorcraft dynamic components and/or mechanical systems. It will also evaluate advanced technologies and 

develop methods with the guidance of the Advisory Circular. The advanced control system is a new requirement and 

initial effort will focus on the development of a research plan with technology status, existing regulatory 

requirements, available standards, technical challenging areas, and proposed research initiatives. 

The SIM technical area consists of five requirements for both transport and small airplanes. Although the legacy 

requirements of MMPDS and damage tolerance are essential to support the airframe structural safety and continued 

airworthiness, research initiatives have been expanded into emerging technologies such as damage tolerance and 

durability issues of new aluminum-lithium alloys, new and emerging alloys to be studied for inclusion of MMPDS, and 

risk management methods to support the Aircraft Certification Services Monitor Safety/Analyze Data (MSAD) 

initiative, which is a data-driven, risk-based continued operational safety decision-making process. Research effort 

will also include studies of control surface freeplay limits and predictive analytical methods, and investigation of 

active flutter suppression systems using existing fly-by-wire technology to actively eliminate and suppress flutter. 

2. What Is This Program? 

FAA issues rules and advisory materials for regulating aircraft design, construction, operation, modification, 

inspection, maintenance, repair, and continued operational safety. Further understanding of the technologies, 

procedures, technical data, and analytical models produced by the Continued Airworthiness Program provide a major 

Research, Engineering and Development A-22 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

source of technical information used in developing these regulations and related information. Through this research, 

the FAA also works with industry and other government agencies to provide the aviation community with critical 

safety technologies and data. 

The Continued Airworthiness Program promotes the development of technologies, procedures, technical data, and 

performance models to prevent accidents and mitigate accident severity related to civil aircraft failures as a function 

of their continued operation and usage. The program is focused on long-term maintenance of the structural integrity 

of fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft; continued safety of aircraft engines; development of inspection technologies; 

and safety of electrical wiring interconnect systems (EWIS), flight control systems, and mechanical systems. 

The Continued Airworthiness Program coordinates with an extensive network of government and industry groups, 

including: 

	 Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committees – industry representatives propose cost-effective rulemaking and 

research to address aircraft safety issues. 

	 Aircraft manufacturers, operators, foreign airworthiness authorities, academia, and industry trade groups 

consult on a wide range of current and future aging aircraft and continued airworthiness issues. 

The Continued Airworthiness Program activities are closely coordinated with industry, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Defense (DoD). FAA maintains interagency agreements with 

NASA, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, the Department of Energy, and the Forest Service. DoD and NASA have 

co-sponsored 13 joint Aircraft Airworthiness and Sustainment Conferences (formerly known as Aging Aircraft 

Conference) with FAA. 

FAA collaborates closely with several private and public organizations, including: 

	 MMPDS - Government/Industry Steering Group – a joint government and industry working group that funds 

and develops the metallic materials properties handbook. 

	 Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with Boeing for joint research on structural integrity of 

bonded repairs and emerging structural technologies. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Risk Assessment and Risk Management Methods for Small and Transport Airplane COS 

	 Completed assessment on surveyed corrosion data for transport aircraft and on feasibility of using data from 

accelerated corrosion testing to determine applicability of the probabilistic risk analysis approach. 

MMPDS Support and Design Values for Emerging Materials 

	 Continued to lead the Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS) steering 

group in updating the metallic materials properties handbook. 

Damage Tolerance and Durability Issues for Emerging Technologies 

	 Continued damage tolerance and durability research for emerging structural technologies to ensure safety, 

support maintenance, and support future FAA policies and guidance. 

	 Enhanced FAA’s Full-scale Aircraft Structural Test and Evaluation facility capabilities and demonstrated 

residual strength of panels fabricated from advanced materials. 

Rotorcraft Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) 

	 Developed HUMS database for commercial rotorcraft operations in order to assess its application in usage 

credit determinations. 

NDE for Critical Engines Components 

	 Continued to develop data to support a specification for industrial ultrasonic forging inspection. 

	 Completed the evaluation of thermal acoustic technology as an inspection technique for engine disks 

Research, Engineering and Development A-23 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Advanced NDI Methods for Composite Structures 

	 Completed assessment of baseline POD curves for portable ultrasonic devices for detection of hidden flaws 

in complex, solid composite laminates. 

	 Assess performance of an advanced inspection system for identifying environmental damage of composite 

structures caused by heat, chemical, and ultraviolet sources. 

Advanced Control Systems 

 Define mechanical and electrical maintenance inspection criteria to maintain continued operational safety 

Health Monitoring of Structures and Complex Flight Critical Systems 

	 Continued research to assess the performance of prognostic and health monitoring systems that are in use 

or under development for transport airplanes. 

Stall Departure Identification, Recognition, and Recovery 

	 Continued research to develop enhanced models of full stall departure characteristics for transports. 

Flight Critical Systems Design Assurance 

	 Began addressing improvement of the design development processes for flight critical systems to assure 

that design errors in complex flight critical system designs are found before certification, rather than in 

service through incidents or accidents. 

GA Automation and Envelope Protection 

	 Completed research on basic envelope protection. Technical data will support development of FAA guidance 

and policies for general aviation autopilot systems. 

Envelope Awareness and Protection for Legacy Transport Airplanes 

	 Continued research to develop enhanced models of full stall departure characteristics for transports. 

	 Start to determine appropriate thresholds for low speed awareness, data available to trigger threshold 

indication, appropriate indications pilot impact of such information, and parameters available to determine 

threshold encroachment. 

The Continued Airworthiness Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing transportation related 

injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. The goal of the Continued Airworthiness 

Program is to understand and develop methods to counter the effects of age and usage on the airworthiness of an 

aircraft over its lifetime, including potential effects of modifications and repairs. The program conducts research in 

developing technologies and processes, and assesses current practices to eliminate or mitigate the potential failures 

related to aircraft aging, thereby reducing the number and severity of accidents. The research also supports 

development of methodologies for both inspection and maintenance protocols to assure the continued airworthiness 

of advanced composite aircraft. 

To satisfy these goals, the program conducts research to assess causes and consequences of airplane structural 

fatigue, corrosion, and other structural failures, and develop effective analytical tools to predict the behavior of these 

conditions. This includes research on NDI technologies being developed to detect these conditions. Similar research 

is conducted on aircraft engines and rotorcraft. Aircraft systems research to understand the causes and 

consequences of EWIS and mechanical systems failures, and the relationship of these failures to other aircraft 

systems and safety completes the program. The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By FY 2013, assess the feasibility and benefits of determining bond strength of repair as compared to 

original manufactured strength. 

	 By FY 2013, develop technical data on rotorcraft to establish more detailed guidance for certification of 

HUMS for usage credits. 

	 By FY 2013, develop a predictive methodology and tools for damage tolerance risk assessment and risk 

management for continued operational safety of small airplanes. 

	 By FY 2014, provide technical data to develop guidelines for implementing structural health monitoring in 

commercial transport category airplanes 

Research, Engineering and Development A-24 
 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 By FY 2014, develop technical data to assess the application of advanced aluminum-lithium alloys for 

aircraft primary structure 

	 By FY 2016, develop technical data to assess the fatigue and environmental durability of bonded repairs to 

metallic structure 

	 By FY 2016, develop technical data to assess methods to preclude and suppress flutter 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The Continued Airworthiness Research Program came into existence as a direct result of accident involving an Aloha 

Airlines Boeing 737 in 1988. The aircraft experienced an explosive decompression during flight that tore off a large 

section of the top of the fuselage. The research program that subsequently developed was called the Aging Aircraft 

Program because that structural failure was connected with the aircraft’s age and its large number of takeoff-landing 

cycles. The program’s research scope grew to address causes of subsequent accidents. For instance, aircraft 

engines were included as a result of a 1989 United Airlines DC-10 crash caused by an uncontained engine failure, 

and electrical systems were added as a result of a 1998 Swiss Air MD-11 crash most likely caused by wire arcing. 

Today, the breadth of the research has grown to include safety of transport and small airplanes as well as rotorcraft. 

The program title was changed to Continued Airworthiness to better match the FAA’s aircraft regulatory language 

regarding “Continuing Airworthiness.” The technical scope of the research includes inspection and maintenance of 

structures and engines, structural integrity of fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft, and flight controls and electrical 

systems. Although research results from this research program have been implemented to support the issuances of 

aging aircraft related rules, policies, and guidance materials, recent in-flight incidents, such as Southwest Airlines 

flights 2294 in 2009 and 812 in 2011, demonstrate the technical challenges of maintaining continued airworthiness, 

predicting potential failures, and determining inspection intervals. The program focus is on the continuing safety of 

all aircraft (new and in-service) throughout their lifetime. 

The current research program is based on requirements developed by the FAA Office of Aviation Safety. The 

requirements reflect the need of the regulatory office for technical data and information to support regulatory 

activities or for possible solutions to real world questions and problems. For example, the inspection of composite, 

metallic, and bonded structures in an accurate and reliable way is challenging. The program’s research looks at 

improved inspection technologies and procedures, as well as quantifiable measures to describe the accuracy. A 

research output might be a feasibility demonstration of an inspection technology, a characterization of new 

inspection methods and procedures, or a proposed inspection standard for the aviation industry. There is almost 

always cooperation and sometimes even partnerships with aircraft manufacturers, systems manufacturers, air 

carriers, and academic researchers. A similar description can be applied over the full range of research areas within 

the Continued Airworthiness program. In certain areas the partners include NASA and elements of the DoD. Finally, 

the research program provides a core technical competency as well as a unique test facility to serve the interests of 

FAA and the safety of flying public. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, REDAC reports to 

the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Requested funding levels are based on the research requirements prioritized by the end-user organization within the 

FAA Office of Aviation Safety. Reduction in funds to any of the technical areas listed in the Program Schedule within 

Research, Engineering and Development A-25 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

the Continued Airworthiness program will delay the completion of some or all of the anticipated accomplishments as 

outlined in Section 1. A reduction in funding would delay parts of the maintenance and inspection program by three 

months, particularly affecting the FY 2012 research goal to assess performance of an advanced inspection system for 

identifying environmental damage of composite structures, and would thereby raise a risk of missing the research 

goal milestone. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-26 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.f Aircraft Catastrophic 

Failure Prevention Research $1,147,000 $1,147,000 $1,691,000 +$544,000 

For FY 2013, $1,691,000 is requested for Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned include: 

Advanced Analysis and Risk Assessment Methods for Rotor Burst and Blade Release 

	 Develop and verify an update to a new material model for the LS-DYNA finite element model for aluminum 

(MAT224). 

	 Develop a new generalized damage and failure model with regularization for titanium materials impacted 

during engine failure events. 

	 Issue Aerospace Guidelines for LS-DYNA through the LS-DYNA Aerospace Users Group. 

	 Develop improvements to the existing Uncontained Engine Debris Damage Assessment Model (UEDDAM) to 

address industry feedback. 

FAA engineers and industry need publicly available tools to standardize the analysis of engine and aircraft for rotor 

burst and fan blade containment. All new commercial engines require a full scale destructive test for FAA 

certification to verify that an engine can survive a single blade failure at the most critical location. Besides being 

extremely expensive, this test offers limited capability for demonstrating margins of safety especially when 

subsequent design changes are incorporated into an existing engine. Finite element modeling offers much more 

insight but historically, an increasing number of engine and aircraft projects are relying on proprietary analysis tools 

to show compliance, complicating the FAA task of making compliance findings and allowing potential variation in the 

standard of safety. In addition, new companies with limited turbine engine experience are now entering the aircraft 

industry. These companies do not have the benefit of years of blade release testing and model simulations. A need 

exists for publicly available analysis methods and standardization for the FAA to be able to approach certification by 

analysis for engine containment. 

Many derivative engines based on already certified engines use analysis to show compliance to the fan blade 

containment regulations on a case by case basis. New concept fan containment configurations may only be tested 

once for the baseline engine. The goal is to have a public tool with standardized generic models, user guides, 

training, software quality control process, and validated public material models. This will allow engineers to validate 

the proprietary tools, streamline the certification process, and help mitigate fatalities and injuries when these events 

occur. 

Regarding research related to uncontained engine failure mitigation, this program has developed an uncontained 

engine Debris Damage Assessment Model (UEDDAM) to improve new aircraft designs in being able to mitigate 

damage from uncontained engine events. A large numbers of small jet powered aircraft in the process of being 

certified and proposed for certification, each with special challenges for engine rotor burst mitigation. These aircraft 

have composite fuselage sections with diameters on the same order as the engine diameters, limiting the traditional 

approach of using system separation to minimize the rotor burst effects. Research will develop improvements to the 

UEDDAM model to address these issues. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-27 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

2. What Is This Program? 

The Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing 

transportation related injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. To reduce the number of 

fatal accidents from uncontained engine failures, the program develops data and methods for evaluating aircraft 

vulnerability to uncontained engine failures and provides analytical tools for engine containment systems and for 

protecting identified critical systems that may need shielding from uncontained engine debris. Through the LS-DYNA 

Aerospace Users Group, FAA is working with industry to establish standards for finite element analysis and guidance 

for use in support of certification. With technical data from the Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program, FAA 

establishes certification criteria for aircraft and revises regulations to certify new technologies. The Agency also 

publishes Advisory Circulars to outline acceptable means for meeting these rules. The program’s objective is to 

ensure safe aircraft operation in the National Airspace System (NAS). 

The program also uses historical accident data and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations to 

examine and investigate: 

	 Turbine engine uncontainment events, including the mitigation and modeling of aircraft vulnerability to 

uncontainment parameters stated in AC 20-128, Phase II. 

	 Fan blade out analysis and other engine-related impact events like bird strike and ice ingestion. 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By FY 2013, develop and verify a generalized damage and failure model with regularization for aluminum 

(MAT 224) and titanium materials impacted during engine failure events. 

	 By FY 2013, issue Aerospace Guidelines for LS-DYNA through the LS-DYNA Aerospace Users Group. 

	 By FY 2015, refine the LS-DYNA Quality Control regiment for Aerospace Users based on improved Aerospace 

generic models based on new requirements and lessons from industry. 

	 By FY 2016, complete development of material models for planned metal materials. 

	 By FY 2017, develop plan for modeling of aerospace composite impact problems. 

For FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments include: 

Advanced Analysis and Risk Assessment Methods for Rotor Burst and Blade Release 

	 Completed all material testing to support a new material model for titanium in LS-DYNA. 

	 Issued improvements to the Uncontained Engine Debris Assessment Damage Model (UEDDAM) code in 

collaboration with the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) Weapons Division China Lake. 

	 Research continued on the FAA/NASA/industry-sponsored quality control program for modeling aircraft 

problems in manufacturers-supported finite-element code (referred to as LS-DYNA). 

	 Research continued on the NASA/FAA/industry program for modeling aircraft engine failures in LS-DYNA. 

The FAA, NASA, and academia continued to evaluate improved material models and incorporated them into 

LS-DYNA upon acceptance by the Aerospace Users Group. Users’ guidelines and training continued to be 

developed and made available through George Washington University. 

	 Additional research continued on developing a generalized damage and failure model with regularization for 

titanium materials impacted during engine failure events. Also, research continued on material 

characterization tests to support development of damage and failure models for aircraft materials. 

The program collaborates with a broad cross section of the aviation community, including: 

	 The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) – helps to ensure the effectiveness of the agency’s 

rulemaking. Members of the subcommittee and full committee identify research requirements, priorities, 

and provide guidance for the update of documents such as AC 20-128, and encourage industry’s full 

participation in implementing new rules. 

The Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program partners with industry and other government agencies, 

including: 

Research, Engineering and Development A-28 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 NASA and industry in support of the development and validation of explicit finite element analysis. The 

industry participates in the LS-DYNA Aerospace Users Quality Assurance 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 Quality Assurance Group efforts. The end goal is to develop guidance for the use of 

LS-DYNA in the certification process. 

The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) Transport Committee – with participation of FAA and industry, has 

examined propulsion system malfunctions, identified inappropriate crew response, and recommended development of 

specific regulations and advisory materials to correct safety hazards. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The threat of catastrophic failure in commercial aviation is always present and the potential consequences are great 

– the large loss of life in accidents and the destruction of the aircraft. It is an awesome challenge to prevent 

accidents caused by catastrophic failure. Over the years, this research program has supported the FAA to improve 

regulations and advisory material primarily related to uncontained engine failure. In addition, research has included: 

loss of flight controls, propulsion malfunction plus inappropriate crew response, and fuel tank explosion. 

The Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research Program is largely driven by accidents and incidents, but also 

by NTSB recommendations, new technology, and industry focus groups focused on accident reduction. This program 

was initiated after the 1989 DC-10 Crash landing at Sioux City, Iowa. The major thrust of the program started in 

engine containment and uncontained engine failures mitigation. The Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention 

Research Program has worked closely with the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, AIA focus groups, 

Department of Defense (DoD), NASA and academia to leverage existing work and develop data, analytical methods, 

and processes that make up the foundation for improved policy, regulation and advisory material. Some of the 

benefits to the FAA, other government agencies, and industry partners, and the public are as follows: 

	 Develop aircraft material models that improve the state of the art and better represent impacts from engine 

failures to allow for standardized certification by analysis and increased safety. 

- By 2014, it is planned to complete verification of new material model for aluminum and titanium and by 

2016, Inconel 718 material. 

	 Collaborate with NASA to establish an aircraft material database to be used by industry in aircraft modeling 

of engine contained and uncontained failures. 

- In 2011, aluminum material characterization testing was completed. In 2012 titanium material 

characterization testing was completed and by 2014, Inconel 718 testing is planned to be completed. 

	 FAA/NASA/Industry Quality Control Aerospace Working Group is developing aerospace guidelines for 

dynamic modeling used in engine containment design, bird strikes, uncontained engine debris, etc. which 

will benefit both industry and the FAA in evaluating new aircraft designs. 

	 Continue development of the UEDDAM model with inputs from industry and DoD. DoD is currently using 

the UEDDAM analysis for new aircraft designs to mitigate uncontained engine debris damage. 

	 Published over 50 technical reports documenting testing, data, and improved analytical methods. 

If this program was not funded, important working groups making tremendous progress to come together and 

standardize critical safety analysis procedures would cease. The research team has developed knowledge of the 

work and is a primary contributor to technology improvement. FAA must maintain an active presence in safety 

related development as it is often an area of little return on investment to the manufacturers, making it an area 

where our investment provides direct safety benefit to the public. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program has been in existence since 1990. During that time, the major 

thrust of the program has been research into preventing catastrophic aircraft failures associated with engine failures 

with primary emphasis on engine uncontained failures. The research has produced the UEDDAM tool kit which 

Research, Engineering and Development A-29 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

allows new aircraft designs to be analyzed for vulnerability to uncontained engine fragments. The UEDDAM code has 

been released to industry and is being used on a volunteer basis by industry for commercial designs. The military is 

also requiring UEDDAM be used in the design of aircraft. 

The joint FAA/NASA sponsored LS-DYNA Aerospace Users Quality Assurance Group has members from government, 

the aerospace industry, and academia all working together to address aerospace modeling problems associated with 

aircraft impact events, i.e., engine containment/uncontainment, bird strike, water landings, tire failure, ice impact, 

etc. The establishment of an LS-DYNA Aerospace Quality Control System has identified several problems and 

solutions in the LS-DYNA software and compatibility with different computer platforms and compilers that were 

causing errors in the results. In addition, an LS-DYNA aerospace user’s guideline manual is being developed by the 

group which will guide LS-DYNA aerospace users to use correct industry practices in the modeling. The draft 

guidelines are already being used by industry. 

The new material models being developed under this research program are extremely valuable to industry and the 

FAA in modeling impacts from engine uncontained failures. They surpass the research limitations identified in preresearch models that were limited in predicting failure modes. The new models will be able to establish benchmarks 

for FAA engineers and industry in evaluating and designing for engine containment and aircraft shielding. When 

used in conjunction with the UEDDAM model (or similar vulnerability model), the new material models can be used to 

better predict impact resistance in specific areas identified and needing protection. 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the NAS and works to ensure that FAA’s program goals and priorities properly 

link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development 

program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure 

a high quality RE&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, 

REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

The funding requested will fund multiple universities and subcontractors to develop the material models necessary to 

support FAA certification. All of the universities and subcontractors work as a team to deliver parts of the models 

and /or testing to support the models. A modest reduction will cause the program to reduce their staff and delay 

completion of the material models and validation by one to three months. A larger reduction will most likely cause 

the program to be unable to complete the material models and validation since there is a team depending on the 

results of other team members. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-30 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.g Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.g 

Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 

Integration Human Factors 

$7,083,000 $6,162,000 $5,416,000 -$746,000 

For FY 2013, $5,416,000 is requested for the Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program. 

Major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Flight Training Methods for Jet Upset Prevention, Detection and Recovery 

	 Develop and test new models to increase the flight envelope that can be simulated with today's 

technologies. 

ADS-B Human Factors – AIR & AFS Equipment Design, Evaluation, and Operational Approval Guidance 

	 Develop human factors regulatory and guidance material on issues associated with ADS-B integration with 

current generation TCAS (e.g., alert thresholds, symbology, display installation). 

A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Fatigue Risk Management in Maintenance 

	 Provide validation evidence and metrics necessary for interpreting calculated risk with a fatigue risk 

management assessment tool. 

UAS Control Station 

 Develop human factors regulatory and guidance material for FAA inspectors and engineers who must 

evaluate and approve UAS ground control station designs and “pilot”/operator training programs. 

Avionics: EFB, Moving Maps, and Multi-Function Display Issues 

	 Develop human factors regulatory and guidance material to support use and implementation of new 

evaluation checklist, developed in FY 2012, to identify human factors display issues for aircraft certification 

engineers, test pilots, and human factors specialists to ensure human factors display issues with multifunction displays are identified during the certification approval process. 

Flight Crew Error and Inadvertent Operation Means of Compliance 

	 Provide recommendations for issues and recommended practices for flightdeck systems complying with new 

flight crew error regulation 14 CFR 25.1302. 

Research continues to produce human factors input for Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification to develop design, 

evaluation and operational approval guidance for ADS-B enabled implementations; to assist Aircraft Certification in 

identifying, assessing, and remediating human performance issues involving electronic flight bags, moving map 

displays and multi-function displays; to support the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office by providing human factors 

recommendations for the design and operation of unmanned aircraft systems control stations; and to provide 

technical information for the certification of advanced auto pilots and related automation technologies in general 

aviation (GA) airplanes, which may include research on systems mode awareness, energy state management, and 

distraction. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-31 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

2. What Is This Program? 

The Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program supports the DOT STRATEGIC safety goal 

from the DRAFT FY 2010 – FY 2015 U.S. DOT STRATEGIC PLAN. It provides the research foundation for FAA 

guidelines, handbooks, orders, advisory circulars (ACs), Technical Standards Orders (TSOs), and regulations that help 

to ensure the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations. It also develops human performance information that the 

agency provides to the aviation industry for use in designing and operating aircraft, and training pilots and 

maintenance personnel. 

A major goal of the program is to improve pilot, inspector and maintenance technician task performance. Research 

results support enhanced methods for training and evaluating performance especially associated with new 

technologies and aircraft systems. Performance and evaluation capabilities are also enhanced through research that 

facilitates an improved understanding and application of risk and error management strategies in flight and 

maintenance operations. 

The Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program collaborates with industry and other 

government programs including: 

	 Department of Defense Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group – FAA participates in this 

group to promote a joint vision for automation and related technical areas. Information is shared regarding 

similar areas of concern, for example training for automation, synthetic and enhanced vision systems, and 

head up displays. 

	 Domestic and international aviation maintenance industry partners such as Boeing, Continental Airlines, 

British Airways, and the International Association of Machinists –the emphasis is on achieving research 

results that can be applied to real-world problems. 

	 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) G-10 subcommittees – FAA participates on all of the Society’s 

subcommittees involving human factors to adapt their findings to aviation standards, guidelines, etc. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Flight Training Methods for Jet Upset Prevention, Detection and Recovery 

	 Reported on literature review to assess the state of the art in scenario modeling and execution for jet upset 

prevention, detection and recovery. 

ADS-B Human Factors – AIR & AFS Equipment Design, Evaluation, and Operational Approval Guidance 

	 Analyzed the effects of imperfect Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) generated traffic 

information including the loss of traffic targets and the depictions of such information to the pilot and report 

out technical results. 

UAS Ground Control Station 

	 Provided analyses and human factors recommendations for unmanned aircraft system control stations to 

ensure safe and effective operator performance. 

Avionics: EFB, Moving Maps, and Multi-Function Display Issues 

	 Provided human factors evaluation checklist of human factors display issues for aircraft certification 

engineers, test pilots, and human factors specialists to ensure human factors display issues with multifunction displays are identified during the certification approval process supporting compliance to Technical 

Standard Order (TSO) C113 and Advisory Circular 25-11A. 

	 Completed analysis of Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) and NTSB accidents and incidents related to 

surface moving maps and Capstone 3 airline data highlighting human factors certification issues. 

Head-up and Head-Mounted Displays: Certification Requirements and Operational Approval Criteria 

	 Completed literature review and product review addressing human factors aspects of head-up and headmounted displays. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-32 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Flight Crew Error and Inadvertent Operation Means of Compliance 

 Provided analysis and recommendations for issues and recommended practices for flight deck systems 

complying with new flight crew error regulation 14 CFR 25.1302. 

Pilot System Interface and Human Factors Issues and Guidance for the Certification of Advanced Autopilots and 

Related Automation Technologies in General Aviation Airplanes 

 Completed literature review and product review addressing aspects of advanced autopilots and automation 

technologies in small airplanes. 

A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Fatigue Risk Management in Maintenance 

 Provided validation evidence necessary for interpreting calculated risk with a fatigue risk management 

assessment tool. 

The Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program supports the DOT Strategic Goal of Safety 

by reducing transportation related injuries and fatalities on commercial air carriers and in GA. 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By 2013, develop human factors guidance material to support certification of cross regulatory display work 

including alerting, multi-function displays, moving maps, and electronic flight bags (EFB) which can host a 

variety of applications. 

	 By 2013, develop human factors guidance material for the certification of UAS automation including 

guidance for control station design and pilot training. 

	 By 2013, develop pilot system interface and human factors guidance for current and proposed autopilot and 

flight management automation systems used in single pilot GA airplanes. 

	 By 2014, provide human factors guidance material for FAA Certification and Flight Standards personnel to 

evaluate traffic displays and traffic applications/operations that use ADS-B technology. 

	 By 2014, develop training guidelines for jet upset prevention, detection and recovery. 

	 By 2015, develop human factors criteria and guidelines for approving head-up displays and head-mounted 

displays. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Human error continues to be a major contributor to aircraft accidents and incidents both in commercial and general 

aviation. This research program has, over the years, identified human factors issues and developed training, 

mitigation, and guidance material used by government and industry to address problem areas. For example, Crew 

Resource Management (CRM) research supported the development of an FAA Advisory Circular as well as training for 

air carriers. The research program has provided substantial support for the FAA’s Voluntary Safety Programs. One 

of these programs, the Line Operations Safety Audit, is a direct result of our research and is now mandated by ICAO 

as a worldwide safety monitoring requirement for airlines. Additionally, the Human Factors Aircraft Certification Job 

Aid provided guidance to the Aircraft Certification Flight Test Pilots, Engineers, and Human Specialists who must 

evaluate new aircraft and old aircraft with new displays and/or controls. The Job Aid compiled over 100 human 

factors research and reference reports and tied them to the regulations. This database tool was instrumental in 

providing a structured way to evaluate systems submitted for FAA approval. Similarly, the electronic flight bag 

checklist provides a structured way to identify human factors issues with new EFBs submitted for approval. These 

tools have provided human factors and human performance data on which our FAA staff can make approval 

decisions. 

The human factors research program continues to focus on the needs of pilots, inspectors and aircraft maintainers. 

Flight deck design and operational practices are experiencing a revolution in digital avionics, enabling new head up 

displays, surface moving maps, electronic flight bags, advanced controls, communications, navigation, surveillance 

systems, and tools for aircraft system management. With these advances come important human performance and 

human factors implications which must be understood and the appropriate guidance material developed for policy, 

procedures, operations and training. Our research supports the development of these products. History has taught 

us that the introduction of new automation to the flightdeck has resolved some human error tendencies but also 

Research, Engineering and Development A-33 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

introduced new ones. One goal of current research is to try to be proactive in identifying error tendencies and 

thereby enhance the safe and effective introduction of new technologies and procedures into the NAS. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. The HF Subcommittee was briefed on the FY 

2013 Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program and found the research program was 

appropriate to FAA's mission and covered the area of need as understood by the subcommittee. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Any current or future reduction in funding to the Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors Program 

would result in a delay in the FY 2013 requirement entitled “A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Fatigue Risk 

Management in Maintenance” and the associated deliverables that support the development of regulatory and 

guidance material on fatigue risk management for aircraft maintenance personnel. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-34 
 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.h System Safety Management 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – System Safety Management 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.h System Safety 

Management $11,694,000 $10,027,000 $11,345,000 +$1,318,000 

For FY 2013, $11,345,000 is requested for System Safety Management. Major activities and accomplishments 

include: 

System Safety Management 

 Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) 

− Expand ASIAS to new aviation communities (e.g., general aviation, rotorcraft, corporate, and military). 

− Incorporate new digital sources, such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Air 

Traffic Control (ATC) voice data. 

−	 Initiate development of vulnerability detection capabilities that monitor each ASIAS database for 

potential safety issues, analyzing disparate data drawn from multiple sources, and enhancing discovery 

and identification of safety risks. 

− Develop a modeling capability that is able to assess potential vulnerability of anomalous behavior 

discovered from the databases using a knowledge-based approach. 

 Transport Airplane Risk Analysis Evaluative Metrics 

− Further development of a quantitative risk analysis methodology for transport airplane continued 

operational safety (COS) and the data necessary to perform such analyses. 

 Prognostic Air Traffic Analysis Capability for Operational Safety (referred to as Prognostic Safety Analysis of 

Air Traffic Control Operations with ASIAS in FY 2012) 

− Develop a capability that integrates air traffic databases and permits prognostic trend analysis of air 

traffic safety performance for operational oversight. 

− Complete the development of a user interface and trend analysis capability for equipment performance. 

− Test the equipment module for facility performance. 

 Operational Safety Measurement of Future Systems 

−	 Conduct safety impact analysis of the NAS due to the future improvements for each NAS operational 

domain, such as tower, TRACON, enroute, or for each phase of flight, such as taxi, departure, climb, 

cruise, approach, and landing. 

 Facility Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT) 

− Initiate development of a capability that can identify and prioritize risk areas of ATC facilities warranting 

further analysis and intervention strategies. 

Terminal Area Safety 

 Develop Models that Enhance the Ability to Use Advanced Flight Simulators for Advanced Maneuvers 

− Determine data requirements to improve the mathematical models of stalls, and conduct research on 

damping values and control effectiveness in the roll and yaw axis to match the in-flight values. 

 Determining Runway Friction from Airplane Data 

Research, Engineering and Development A-35 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

−	 Evaluate methods to determine the runway friction level or runway slipperiness condition by using data 

obtained from an airplane’s flight data or quick access recorder. 

	 Simulator Motion Cueing Criteria 

−	 Conduct research to investigate errors across simulators by replicating testing conditions with same 

sensors and their placement for developing criteria for achieving more uniform training across today's 

fleet of simulators. 

In summary, research projects in the System Safety Management Program are designed to increase system safety 

through the use of safety information. This will occur with the development of enhanced methods of data collection 

and analysis spanning a wide range of operational areas (e.g., Part 121, Part 135, Part 91), aircraft types (e.g., Part 

23, 25, 27, 29), as well as across the certification lifecycle from the development of initial regulations and guidance 

through actions associated with continued operational safety. Projects also include the development and 

enhancement of technologies aimed at increasing the level of safety specifically in the terminal area; current projects 

are focused on technologies that address events associated with the highest accident and fatality rates. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The System Safety Management Program will release in 2013 an infrastructure that enables the free sharing and 

analysis of de-identified safety information that is derived and protected from government and industry sources. This 

infrastructure will be enhanced with additional capabilities, i.e., vulnerability discovery, improved data fusion and 

expanded data sources and users. In addition, the program provides methodologies, research studies, and guidance 

material that provide the capabilities of systematically assessing potential safety risks and applying proactive 

solutions to reduce aviation accidents and incidents. The program also conducts operational research and analysis to 

maintain or improve safety and to improve terminal area efficiency. 

The program encourages broad industry and government participation across all projects, including: 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – 

representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review the program’s 

activities. 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support new rulemaking and the development of alternative means of 

compliance with existing rules. 

	 The Joint Planning and Development Office Safety Working Group – a national-level integrated safety 

management framework that addresses all facets of the air transportation system, building safety design 

assurance into operations and products. 

	 Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) – an FAA/industry collaborative effort to develop and implement 

data-driven safety initiatives. 

The Program partners with industry, academia, and other governmental agencies, including: 

	 The Civil Aviation Authority of the Netherlands to conduct joint research on aviation system safety initiatives 

via a Memorandum of Cooperation. 

	 Technical expertise from air carriers to provide industry reviews and recommendations regarding safety and 

efficiency of terminal area operations as well as air carriers’ cooperation with data sharing agreements and 

governance models that allow for the free sharing of aviation data in accordance with approved voluntary 

safety information sharing agreements. 

	 Center of Excellence for General Aviation Research, via grants, to increase data and tools available for 

cooperative general aviation safety analyses among industry stakeholders. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

System Safety Management 

	 Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) 

Research, Engineering and Development A-36 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

−	 Expanded the ASIAS prototype 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. 

−	 Initiated testing of an advanced infrastructure and laboratory for conducting and sharing analysis tools 

and aggregated safety information that allows industry stakeholders to perform standardized data 

analysis and limited vulnerability discovery on diverse sets of data. 

−	 Conducted safety analytical studies and safety assessments using ASIAS and other aviation safety data. 

	 Transport Airplane Risk Analysis Evaluative Metrics 

−	 Further developed a quantitative risk analysis methodology for transport airplane continued operational 

safety (COS) and the data necessary to perform such analyses. 

−	 Reviewed and analyzed existing historical and ongoing transport airplane operational and design data; 

research, identification, and collection of new transport airplane data; directed research to develop risk 

analysis supporting data; the statistical analysis of such data; and compilation of the data into the form 

and format best suited for efficient use in transport airplane risk analysis. 

	 Operational Oversight of NAS Facilities through ASIAS (referred to Integrating NAS Facility Services Data 

into ASIAS for Operational Safety Oversight in FY 2011) 

−	 Completed development of a facility/equipment operations module that includes a collection of 

information that provides a view of NAS equipment maintenance functions, combined with ASIAS/ATC 

baseline data, specific to NAS safety oversight. 

	 Prognostic Safety Analysis of Air Traffic Control Operations with ASIAS 

−	 Initiated development of a user interface and trend analysis capability that monitors NAS equipment 

operations with respect to failures, risk, and other off-nominal occurrences. 

−	 Conducted an analysis of the requirements resulting from the intended uses of data for safety 

oversight. 

Terminal Area Safety 

 Develop Models that Enhance the Ability to Use Advanced Flight Simulators for Advanced Maneuvers 

− Identified methods to model unusual attitude encounters outside the normal operating envelope. 

	 Performance Based Navigation 

−	 Completed initial evaluation regarding the connection of required navigation performance 

(RNP)/performance based navigation (PBN) paths for terminal area operations by using human-in-theloop simulations. 

	 Determining Runway Friction from Airplane Data 

−	 Completed preliminary analysis of 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. 

	 Cockpit Advanced Systems 

−	 Identified new cockpit-centric navigational technologies and data for the development of new 

procedures to enhance safety and capacity within the terminal area. 

The System Safety Management Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing transportation 

related injuries and fatalities for both commercial air carrier and general aviation operations. This will occur through 

development of 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. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-37 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

The goals of the focused research endeavors in the domain of aviation safety information are: 

	 By 2013, develop advanced infrastructure and laboratory for conducting and sharing analysis tools and 

aggregated safety information that allows industry stakeholders to perform standardized data analysis and 

limited vulnerability discovery on a wide variety of diverse sets of data. 

	 By 2014, develop a user interface and trend analysis capability that monitors NAS ATC operational safety 

with respect to risk and other off-nominal occurrences for use by FAA field and headquarters safety 

inspectors to more economically identify facilities with higher safety risks. 

	 By 2014, complete the compilation of risk analysis data and/or statistical data into a format best suited for 

efficient use in transport airplane risk analysis. 

	 By 2015, expand ASIAS system safety analysis to other domains (e.g., general aviation, rotorcraft, 

corporate, military). 

	 By 2016, develop a capability that can identify and prioritize risk areas of ATC facilities warranting further 

analysis and intervention strategies. 

	 By 2017, enhance vulnerability assessment capabilities of discovery, identification, and evaluation of safety 

risks not currently known to the aviation community. 

Goals specific to Terminal Area Safety research are: 

	 By 2014, identify initial credit granted for synthetic or enhanced vision system installation and the level of 

operations. 

	 By 2014, develop modeling techniques that result in changes to the math model structure to match flight 

data in aerodynamic stalls. 

	 By 2016, complete the evaluation of the reported runway friction level from all potential runway surface 

conditions and airplane configurations. 

	 By 2016, develop test criteria by varying motion characteristics to span the domain of the criteria and 

compare variations against subjective opinions of motion quality. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The System Safety Research Program has two primary goals. First, the program is designed to identify and analyze 

emerging threats in a cooperative nature with the aviation industry. Working cooperatively with aviation 

stakeholders provides the ability to analyze trends across the aviation community that is much more effective than 

monitoring individual airlines. Thus, the aviation community and FAA must have regular access to safety information 

to move toward a risk-based safety management approach. By creating a safety baseline and benchmarks, the 

program will produce products that regularly monitor safety enhancements to ensure the incorporation of new 

capabilities does not impact current levels of safety. Therefore, the program has direct impact in several areas that 

affect the incorporation of new technologies, NextGen capabilities, and evolution of the National Airspace System. 

Along these lines, the System Safety Research Program responds to several GAO studies that call for the FAA to 

collect better data and improve its effort to identify and address safety issues. For FY 2013, development will 

continue to enhance ASIAS capabilities through developing capabilities, tools and software that will improve safety 

oversight of the NAS, and through conducting analytical studies and safety assessments using ASIAS and other 

safety aviation data. Also, research will continue in the development of empirically derived transport airplane data to 

be used by the Transport Airplane Directorate in their development of safety metrics. 

The second major goal is to identify and mitigate the risks associated in the terminal area operations. This effort 

aims to provide solutions to the airport capacity problem so that maximum benefits for both safety and efficiency can 

be realized. It supports the FAA’s goal of Increased Safety as stated in objectives 1 and 2 to reduce fatal accidents, 

and the goal of Increased Capacity as stated in objective 1 to meet projected demand, which are identified by the 

Flight Plan 2009-13. Furthermore, the research efforts also respond to several NTSB safety recommendations: 

Research, Engineering and Development A-38 
 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 A-04-62: Evaluate issues concerning the level of automation appropriate to teaching upset training and 

develop and disseminate guidance that will promote standardization and minimize the danger of 

inappropriate simulator training. 

	 A-07-64: Demonstrate the technical and operational feasibility of outfitting transport-category airplanes with 

equipment and procedures required to routinely calculate, record and convey the airplane braking ability 

required and/or available to slow or stop the airplane during the landing roll. If feasible, require operators 

of transport-category airplanes to incorporate use of such equipment and related procedures into their 

operations. 

For FY 2013, research will include the collection and analysis of motion data on existing platforms and the 

development of more accurate simulator models to enhance simulator training, as well as the development of 

technologies to enhance the accuracy of runway friction data. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

Through ASIAS, the agency has been able to promote system-wide access and sharing of aviation safety data and 

analysis tools within the aviation community, providing safety resources that are integrated with operations of 

aviation industry stakeholders. Directed studies commissioned by the Commercial Aviation Safety Team, e.g., Terrain 

Awareness and Warning System and Traffic Alert/Collision Avoidance System have led to the development of 

intervention strategies that have been implemented and are currently being monitored for effectiveness. 

Within the Risk Management Decision Support project, recent research output has been used in the development of 

the Transport Airplane Directorate Risk Assessment Methodology (TAD RAM) provides Aviation Safety Engineers 

(ASEs) with guidance for estimating the risk associated with airworthiness concerns. TAD RAM also provides 

guidance on how ASEs can use estimated risk as a consideration in making unsafe condition determinations and in 

evaluating corrective actions. 

Prior year research outputs have been used in the development of an Advisory Circular on aircraft maintenance tool 

calibration program; the preparation of recommended best practices for inspection and maintenance of GA aircraft 

exhaust system to prevent carbon monoxide leakage; and the preparation of FAA Order 8300.14 “Repair 

Specification Approval Procedures.” 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R, E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R, E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Funding at the requested level is necessary to enable FAA to fully address safety issues. Were funding not possible 

at the requested level, the following initiatives may be compromised: 

The Operational Safety Oversight of the NAS through ASIAS research: The FAA is to conduct research to develop an 

automated tool, i.e., FRAT that collects stores and analyzes both operational resources and event data. The tool will 

evaluate controllers deployed, procedures used, complexity, traffic counts, and multiple human factors issues. In 

addition, tool will analyze incidents, pilot deviations, near mid-air collisions, operational error/deviation, and runway 

incursions. The purpose of FRAT is to identify and prioritize risk areas of NAS facilities warranting further analysis 

and intervention strategies. A reduction in the System Safety Management budget will delay delivery of an 

automated capability that would Optimize FAA resources in support of safety in the NAS. This would force the FAA 

Office of Aviation Safety to continue a manual process of analyzing both operational and safety data with respect to 

NAS facilities. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-39 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

The Terminal Area Safety research, particularly the simulator motion cueing research task: The FAA is to conduct 

research to determine the appropriate objective criteria for flight simulator platform motion. Having validated motion 

criteria will help standardize motion platform responses and allow users to decide whether or not motion cues are 

sufficient for safety performing given tasks. Should a drastic reduction in funding occur, the FAA will postpone this 

research in reducing the motion deficiencies which were identified as a contributor to fatal accidents such as USAir 

427 and American Airlines 587. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-40 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.i Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.i Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations 

Human Factors 

$10,364,000 $10,364,000 $10,014,000 -$350,000 

For FY 2013, $10,014,000 is requested for Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors. Major activities 

and accomplishments planned include: 

Advanced Air Traffic Systems 

	 Develop human factors color guidance for air traffic control displays that can be used in the acquisition of 

future ATC systems. 

	 Revise five chapters of the Human Factors Design Standard. 

	 Generate human factors design guidance for Air Traffic Control Tower Alerts. 

	 Demonstrate a prototype of a Design Process Guide that will provide human factors design requirements for 

the ergonomic aspects of workstation and workplace design. 

Individual and Team Performance 

	 Conduct an experiment to measure the effects of time on task, workload intensity, break duration, and 

break activities on the recovery from mental fatigue and associated decrements in air traffic control taskrelated performance. 

	 Develop an evaluation methodology for the fatigue mitigation strategies that educate air traffic controllers 

and managers about the factors that affect fatigue. 

	 Develop a plan for a field study leading to better management of fatigue risk from air traffic controller job 

tasks that may increase susceptibility to fatigue. 

Personnel Selection and Training 

	 Implement Air Traffic Color Vision (ATCOV) test revision at Regional Flight Surgeon offices that incorporates 

ERAM requirements. 

Advanced Technical Operations Systems 

	 Develop technical operations Graphical User Interface guidelines. 

	 Generate a draft standard that will be used to guide the development of acronyms/abbreviations for future 

Technical Operations systems. 

The program will continue to make progress on sponsor requirements in the areas of Advanced Air Traffic Systems, 

Advanced Technical Operations Systems, Individual and Team Performance, as well as Personnel Selection and 

Training. As the National Airspace System moves toward modernization under the NextGen plan, this program will 

emphasize the development of human factors design standards for ATC systems and determine the feasibility of 

applying a design process guide for these systems. In the domain of technical operations, the program will continue 

the development of standards for multi-media maintenance publications and documentation to enhance maintenance 

procedures and reduce the probability of human error. The program will also continue research examining various 

strategies to minimize fatigue-related degradations in controllers’ ability to monitor and control traffic. Finally, the 

program will continue to validate and improve selection tests to help reduce the costs to the agency of hiring Air 

Traffic Control Specialists (ATCS) by refining selection. Better selection will reduce the number trainees who are 

Research, Engineering and Development A-41 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

unable complete training and increase the number of applicants who would make good ATCSs, but are not currently 

being selected. 

The effort to develop a Human System Integration road map for the technical operations domain will continue 

through FY 2013. This new working environment will drive a need for alterations in personnel selection, training, and 

management of human error as the consequences of errors become more far-reaching in terms of National Airspace 

System (NAS) availability. Related to this effort is a project to revise the maintainer job task analysis to determine if 

there is a need and valid basis to add medical screening (e.g.: color vision) and basic skill requirements (keyboard 

and computer use) to the selection process. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations (ATC/TO) Human Factors Program provides leadership and products to 

motivate NAS evolution to ensure the system’s human component will safely and reliably perform to meet the flying 

public’s needs. Outputs include: 

	 Air traffic workstations and concepts that increase workforce productivity by identifying key workload factors 

and mitigation principles that must be mitigated to enable the humans in the system to manage the future 

NAS traffic flow 

	 Assessments of the effectiveness of fatigue-risk-management strategies. 

	 Future controller and maintainer personnel selection criteria to enhance screening process efficiency and 

effectiveness. 

	 Guidelines and standards for design of computer-human interfaces used in TO. 

The ATC/TO Human Factors Program supports the Department of Transportation’s safety and economic 

competitiveness goals by developing research products and promoting the use of those products to meet the future 

demands of the aviation system. The human factors research program for FY 2013 will emphasize the concept of 

human-system integration (HSI) and safety aspects of the functions performed by air traffic controllers and technical 

operations (maintainer) personnel. The HSI concept will address the interactions between workstation design, 

personnel selection, training, and human error/safety. The ATC/TO Human Factors Program generates requirements 

for human interface characteristics of future air traffic and technical operations workstations and enhances our 

understanding of the role that system design plays in mitigating human error, which is a major contributor to 

operational errors, runway incursions, and errors that result in NAS equipment outages. Additionally, researchers are 

developing methods to select new air traffic controllers and maintainers so that the applicant screening process is 

valid, reliable, and fair, and also to improve HSI in the maintenance arena to increase reliability and availability of the 

NAS. 

The research program works to improve safety by: 

	 Improving: 

−	 Effectiveness of safety analyses that concentrate on detecting the potential for human error during the 

concept and research phases of system development. 

−	 Methods to select and train new controllers and maintainers. 

The program works to improve the ATC and TO contributions to economic competitiveness: 

	 Developing: 

−	 Integrated workstations that allow TO specialists to meet increased availability and service demand. 

−	 Methods to assess the value of proposed changes to workstations to determine if human-in-the-loop 

performance is enhanced. 

−	 Advanced concepts for maintenance workstations that use automation and advanced technology to 

increase availability of the NAS, and decrease the probability of system outages. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-42 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Improving: 

−	 HSI in a manner that allows controllers and pilots to cooperatively manage traffic loads as cockpit 

technology and air traffic workstations are more closely connected to efficiently move air traffic in the 

NAS. 

−	 Allocation and sharing of roles and responsibilities between controllers and pilots as technology evolves 

to meet future demands. 

The ATC/TO Human Factors Program receives requirements from its internal FAA sponsoring organizations (primarily 

the following FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) ATC/TO research groups) and collaborates with national and 

international research organizations: 

	 Advanced Air Traffic Systems Requirements Group – En Route and Terminal Service units as well as System 

Engineering in Operations Planning, operational personnel, and systems developers articulate human factors 

research requirements for developing human factors standards to be applied in system 

	 Individual and Team Performance Requirements Group – ATO Safety, En Route, Terminal, Technical 

Operations and System Engineering service units participate to identify human performance research needs 

involving fatigue, safety culture, human error hazard identification, age, operational errors, runway incursion 

prevention, and supervisor practices 

	 Advanced Technical Operations Systems Requirements Group – The Technical Operations, En Route, and 

Terminal service units recommend NAS infrastructure operational and maintenance research, including ATC 

systems maintenance displays, controls, and maintainability features specifications 

	 Personnel Selection and Training Requirements Group – ATO Technical Training and Development, Human 

Resources, FAA Academy, Workforce Services, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Administration and Talent 

Management groups recommend research to evaluate and improve personnel selection and training 

	 Collaborative research with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that includes human factors 

areas such as the measurement of fatigue risk management effectiveness 

	 Collaboration with EUROCONTROL, including joint development of a Human Reliability Assessment Tool, 

participation in semi-annual Air Traffic Management (ATM) seminars, and leadership of an Action Plan 15 

Safety workgroup to identify ATM human factors issues 

	 Cooperative research agreements are in place with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, St. Louis 

University, Ohio State University, and The American Institutes for Research 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Advanced Air Traffic Systems 

	 Continued development of a human factors color standard for Air Traffic Control (ATC) displays that is 

harmonized with the color vision testing used during controller selection. 

	 Continued development of an ATC symbology and style guide to aid the efficient development of ATC 

display details. 

	 Continued work on a revised Human Factors Design Standard that can be cited as a design requirement 

during ATC system procurements. 

Individual and Team Performance 

	 Reported on the effectiveness of the ATC Quick Reference Guide for supervisor best practices. 

	 Continued the Preventive Maintenance Tasks Vulnerable to Human Error study that seeks to identify and 

prevent human errors resulting in ATC system outages. 

	 Performed fatigue research measuring the effectiveness of fatigue risk management interventions that are 

scheduled for implementation. 

Advanced Technical Operations Systems 

	 Continued a project to evaluate multi-media documentation in the technical operations domain to enhance 

efficiency in field maintenance. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-43 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Personnel Selection and Training 

 Continued longitudinal validation of ATC selection instruments. 

 Documented the effectiveness of a selection battery to place controllers by option (i.e., tower versus radar 

positions) and match skills to optimal placement. 

 Continued a study of controller entry and retirement age. 

 Concluded a grant regarding potential approaches to increase the efficiency of air traffic controller training 

and staffing. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The safety and performance of the National Airspace System (NAS) is directly linked to the performance of human 

operators. Among the most complex problems facing aviation today are those involving human error. To achieve 

quantifiable improvements in aviation safety and economic competitiveness, increasing emphasis is being placed on 

the human operator and those involved with the safe and efficient conduct of flight (e.g., supervisors, air traffic 

controllers, maintenance technicians). 

Enhancing safety will require a reduction in human error and increasing economic competitiveness will involve the 

development of techniques and tools that increase controller efficiency. Some of these tools and techniques involve 

augmenting the human decision maker with a recommendation generated by automation. This program addresses 

the required balance between reliance on the automation and assuring that the human, who has a much better 

ability to make decisions in the presence of incomplete information or multiple simultaneous competing priorities, can 

and will take the correct action when necessary. The human issue will be made even more complex as a large 

percentage of the agency’s controllers become eligible to retire within ten years. With total losses expected to 

exceed 10,000, FAA must develop effective recruitment, selection, and training procedures to ensure those who are 

hired have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to be successful. 

FAA Human Factors R&D for ATC/TO is motivated by a need to reduce the potential for human error and increase the 

efficiency of ATC operations. To meet these challenges, the FAA is focused on integrating the human into the 

development cycle. The major areas of human system integration are in effective workstation design, human error 

reduction, effective and fair personnel selection, and efficient training. The requirement to include the human 

component in the development of the NAS is being addressed by this research program. 

The Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors Program provides a unique service for the Air Traffic 

Organization and other FAA organizations. The program gathers the various organizations’ research requirements 

and develops integrated research products. If this program was not funded, the organizations named in Area 2 

above would not be able to address the important human factors issues cited above. The personnel and laboratories 

funded by this program are unique national assets and not available elsewhere. There is ample historical evidence in 

the agency that prior to the availability of these research products, the consequences of a lack of application of 

human factors research resulted in cost and schedule overruns on acquisition programs such as STARS. The 

application of our personnel selection and training products has resulted in a more efficient screening process that 

reduces the time and cost of controller selection and training. The AT-SAT screening test for controllers is a product 

of this research program, as is the ATCOV test to assure that candidates with job-related color vision deficiencies do 

not enter the workforce. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

This program is reviewed by two Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

Subcommittees: Human Factors and NAS Operations. The REDAC reviews and evaluates all programs in the FAA 

R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports to 

the FAA Administrator on RE&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure that FAA’s program goals 

and priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the 

Research and Development Program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to 

Research, Engineering and Development A-44 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

After the REDAC Human Factors (HF) Subcommittee was briefed on the Air Traffic Control Human Factors programs, 

the subcommittee found that the FY 2013 research portfolios and their underlying structure were appropriate to 

FAA's mission and covered the area of need as understood by the subcommittee. In particular, the HF Subcommittee 

was impressed that other entities within the FAA are actively coordinating with, or seeking human factors input from, 

specialists in human factors including the FAA Human Factors Research and Engineering Group (HFREG, AJP-61), 

especially related to NextGen activities. The subcommittee recommended that the HF community within FAA 

continue their work in the areas presented, and that the funding continue at (at least) current levels. 

There is ample evidence that the program works as illustrated in the following examples. Every candidate for a 

controller position entering the workforce from the general public is now taking the Air Traffic Selection and Training 

screening test to enhance the probability of success during training and on the job. The ATCOV test is now in use 

during the medical screening process to assure that new controllers with job-related color vision deficiencies are 

selected out of the workforce. The Front Line Manager Quick Reference Guide that is a recent output of this 

program has been strongly endorsed by the ATO service units and has been distributed by the ATO Safety 

organization to every front line manager in the ATO. It is also being used as course material in the FAA academy 

and other FAA management courses. The Human Factors Design Standard is a robust document containing human 

factors design criteria that is cited in every FAA acquisition contract that has a human interface. 

Satisfaction surveys are one of several methods utilized to ensure that project sponsors are satisfied with the 

program. The survey attempts to determine the effectiveness of the project team during the acquisition process and 

receives a critique of the program manager’s performance. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

The human component of the NAS (i.e., the people in the ATO) is arguably the most important, most complex, and 

most expensive element and the most critical portion of the NAS to accomplish the mission. Without our controllers, 

maintainers, traffic flow coordinators and other people in the NAS it would be impossible to deliver services to users 

of the airspace. This program is dedicated to enhancing human performance in the conduct of our mission. A 

reduction in the requested level of funding will cancel or delay major elements of the program. For example, 

important research on controller fatigue would be delayed at least one year, and fatigue research data collection for 

the Technical Operations maintainer community delayed at least two years. The area of controller fatigue is a high 

visibility topic and our sponsors in ATO Safety have recently generated a large number of research requirements to 

respond to recent initiatives for fatigue countermeasures. This research program recently invested substantial 

resources into a survey of the state of fatigue of the controller work force (which was initiated prior to the recent 

controller fatigue-related events) to support the ATO Fatigue Risk Management System. The Air Traffic 

Control/Airway Facilities Human Factors program would continue to make investments in fatigue research, but at a 

slower pace and spaced further apart under a reduced funding level. The Human Factors Design Standard used 

during acquisition programs to reduce human factors risk would be updated at a later date. A further reduction will 

require cancellation of the Human Factors Design Standard for Display Symbology and reduce the funding available 

for the completion of a study regarding Preventive Maintenance Tasks Vulnerable to Human Error. 

One of the critical elements of this program relates to the human performance aspects of safety in the NAS. Our 

efforts to assure that the human component to safety risk management is reflected in system and airspace 

development have not kept pace with the changes in the NAS. We are attempting to mitigate this shortcoming, but 

will be unable to do so at a more austere funding level. Important agency metrics such as loss of separation events 

and runway incursions are usually the outcome of human error. Decisions on the acquisition of new systems to 

enhance safety and the application of new or modified procedures to reduce the likelihood of human error should be 

based on human performance research that is the output of this program. A reduction of funding to this program 

will have a negative impact on our ability to support these decisions and respond to the safety and human factors 

engineering needs of our sponsors in the ATO. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-45 
 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.j Aeromedical Research 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Aeromedical Research 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.j Aeromedical Research $11,098,000 $11,000,000 $9,895,000 -$1,105,000 

For FY 2013, $9,895,000 is requested for Aeromedical Research. Major activities and accomplishments planned 

include: 

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) Aeromedical Research Program 

 Aeromedical Systems Analysis 

− Assess accident investigation cases involving atrial fibrillation relative to aeromedical decision making 

processes. 

− Evaluate aeromedical hazard trends in fatal accidents based on the integrated aeromedical review of 

individual cases assessing forensic toxicology, autopsy, and medical records information. 

− Determine the prevalence of vision deficits and eye pathologies in accident pilots. 

 Accident Prevention and Investigation 

− Evaluate frequency of the presence of tricyclics (used to treat mood disorders) in pilots involved in fatal 

aviation accidents to determining whether their use was a contributing factor to the accident. 

− Investigate the feasibility of hypoxia biomarkers in rapid decompression studies to elucidate the effects 

of this stressor on gene expression and further develop mitigation strategies. 

 Crash Survival 

− Develop anthropometric test dummy (ATD) calibration methods and dummy modifications that will 

ensure consistent lumbar load measurements during seat certification tests. 

 Aviation Physiology 

− Investigate the feasibility of hypoxia biomarkers in rapid decompression studies to elucidate the effects 

of this stressor on gene expression and further develop mitigation strategies. 

− Develop educational materials for suborbital flight crew concerned with the radiation environment 

during suborbital space travel. 

 Prevention of Injuries that Impede Egress 

− Determine human impact tolerance levels and methods for predicting occupant unconsciousness and 

leg injuries that can occur during a survivable crash. 

− Investigate enhanced means of mitigating injury causing mechanisms for the brain and leg. 

 Evacuation Analytical Tools 

−	 Develop and maintain analytical tools, empirical data and scientific expertise to support regulatory 

actions, standards development, accident investigations, and enhanced safety of airplane interior 

arrangements and emergency equipment/operations. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

 Airliner Cabin Environment: Purification of Environmental Control System Air Supplies; Bleed Air 

Contamination 

Research, Engineering and Development A-46 
 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

−	 Develop and test systems and techniques that reliably provide in-flight detection of lubricating oil and 

hydraulic fluid bleed air contamination air quality incidents. 

CAMI will conduct aeromedical research pertaining to the human aspects of protection and survival from exposure to 

hazardous conditions relative to civil aerospace operations. Research activities will develop new and innovative ways 

to support FAA regulatory and advisory missions to improve the safety, security, health, and survivability of aviators, 

cabin crew, and the flying public. There are four research requirement areas: (1) Aeromedical Systems Analysis, (2) 

Accident Prevention and Investigation, (3) Crash Survival, and (4) Aviation Physiology. The research requirements 

“Prevention of Injuries that Impede Egress” and “Evacuation Analytical Tools” are Fire and Cabin Safety requirements 

performed under Crash Survival. 

The goals of the Aeromedical Systems Analysis research requirement are to: a) Analyze medical certification, 

accident, and other biological data to derive methods, recommendations, and/or tools to enhance aircrew health, 

medical certification decision-making processes, and AME education programs, b) Evaluate trends in physiological, 

human factors, and clinical findings from civil aviation aircraft accidents and incidents to support accident 

investigation processes and develop strategies to mitigate aeromedical risks, c) Develop and maintain comprehensive 

aeromedical research databases towards an Aeromedical Safety Management System and the development of 

Probabilistic Risk Analysis Methodologies. Support the development of safety policy by providing evidence-based 

aeromedical recommendations and manage safety risk by reporting emerging health problems that would impact 

medical certification processes or technology Safety Risk Management, Safety Assurance, and Safety Promotion, an 

d) Investigate current and anticipated aeromedical issues and technology that may impact human performance in 

aviation activities. 

The goals of the Accident Prevention and Investigation research requirement are a) Develop advanced toxicological 

and biochemistry methodologies to analyze human biological samples for emerging drugs, toxins, and other 

substances that may impact pilot performance or assist in determining accident causality. As a result of this effort, 

provide technical reports, procedures, recommendations, criteria, and associated products that would assist the 

aeromedical scientific, drug abatement, and certification communities; accident investigation personnel (AAI, NTSB, 

DOT); and FAA legal counsel (AGC) in realizing their goals and b) Develop gene expression (biomarker) 

methodologies to quantify the effects of alcohol, drugs, fatigue, hypoxia, and other environmental or aeromedical 

stressors relating to pilot performance and accident investigation. Determine collection methods, develop and assess 

analytical procedures and technologies, and ultimately provide an approach to identify or predict these effects, 

towards a “genomics black box.” 

The goals of the Crash Survival research requirement are a) Develop design and certification test methods and 

criteria to ensure occupant survival at maximum airframe impact tolerance. Address seats, seat cushions, seat 

restraints, air bags, and related devices, b) Develop and validate mathematical models to simulate, facilitate, and 

improve (A); validate these models in conjunction with biodynamic testing, provide recommendations for the 

development of industry-wide standards; and coordinate/participate in these standardization efforts through 

professional associations and workshops to ensure industry understanding, c) Develop safety and emergency 

equipment standards, procedures, and criteria to ensure evacuation capability for all aircraft occupants from all 

aircraft incidents and survivable aircraft accidents, and d) Provide recommendations for the development of industrywide standards and coordinate/participate in these standardization efforts through professional associations and 

workshops. 

The goals of the Aviation Physiology research requirement are to a) Investigate the effects of ionizing and nonionizing radiation on living systems; identify radiation hazards in the aviation environment; and develop methods of 

protection from such hazards and b) Investigate environmental factors that influence human physiology and 

performance in aerospace environments. 

2. What Is This Program? 

Agency outputs proceed from the FAA Office of Aviation Medicine, specifically 1) CAMI and 2) the National Air 

Transportation Center of Excellence for Research in the Intermodal Transportation Environment (RITE). 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

CAMI’s Aeromedical Research Program provides research data to assess new technology and evaluate existing 

bioaeronautical guidelines, standards, and models for aerospace craft cabin equipment, procedures, and 

environments. Aeromedical research serves as the basis for new regulatory action and evaluation of existing 

regulations to continuously optimize human performance and safety at a minimum cost to the aviation industry. This 

Research, Engineering and Development A-47 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

research program analyzes pilot medical and flight data, information from accidents and incidents, and advanced 

biomedical research results to propose standards and assess certification procedures that optimize performance 

capability. This research program is conducted by in-house resources, specifically the CAMI Aerospace Medical 

Research Division, and supports Airliner Cabin Environment Research efforts. 

The Aeromedical Research Program supports FAA’s regulatory and medical certification processes that develop safety 

and health regulations covering all aerospace craft occupants and their flight environments; Recommending and 

developing equipment, technology, and procedures for optimal (a) Evacuation and egress of humans from aerospace 

craft, (b) Dynamic protection and safety of humans on aerospace craft, and (c) Safety, security, and health of 

humans on aerospace craft. 

Research program outcomes include: 

	 Improved safety, security, protection, survivability, and health of aerospace craft passengers and aircrews 

	 Exploiting new and evaluating existing bioaeronautical guidelines, standards, and models for aerospace craft 

cabin equipment, procedures, and environments 

	 Providing research data to serve as the basis for new regulatory action in evaluation of existing regulations 

to continuously optimize human performance, health, and safety at a minimum cost to the aviation industry 

	 Analyzing pilot medical and flight data, information from accidents and incidents, and advanced biomedical 

research results to propose standards and assess certification procedures that optimize performance 

capability 

	 Evaluating the complex mix of pilot, flight attendant, and passenger activities in a wide range of 

environmental, behavioral, and physiological situations to propose standards and guidelines that will 

enhance the health, safety, and security of all aerospace travelers 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program was formulated in response to issues raised in a 2002 National 

Research Council Report regarding the airliner cabin environment and the health of passengers and crew during 

normal and events outside the normal operational envelope and continued public and congressional concern. The 

airliner cabin environment research addresses public, aircrew, and congressional concerns regarding these issues, 

including, contaminant transport, ozone (including chemical reactivity of aircraft cabin interiors), pesticides (residual 

and sprayed), contaminants that may be carcinogenic, additives in hydraulic and lubricating fluids in aircraft engines 

and auxiliary power units and identified as possible neurological toxins in crew members. The Airliner Cabin 

Environment Research program also conducts R&D on cabin air quality sensors; advanced environmental control 

systems; and on chemical and biological agents, and disinfection techniques and processes. The research is primarily 

conducted by the RITE. 

The Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program supports FAA’s Flight Plan goal for Increased Safety by: 

Developing and testing adaptive environmental control techniques to enable a safe and healthy cabin air environment 

including during in-flight incidents; Validating software tools and methods to mitigate possible air contamination 

incidents during flight and ground operations; Developing advanced scientific models and experimental data of 

airborne and surface transmission of existing and emerging infectious diseases within aircraft; Evidence-based 

development of appropriate hazard identification and risk management criteria guidelines to maximize safety and 

health in the air transportation system in response to infectious disease; Recommending and developing equipment, 

technology, and procedures for optimal (a) evidence-based development of appropriate policy, regulations, and 

guidelines to maximize safety and health from the cabin air quality environment and (b) identifying hazards and 

characterizing risks of the major infectious diseases likely to be carried on-board aircraft; Providing air quality 

incident identification to alert crew to potential problems and provide signals to the environmental control system for 

appropriate response; and providing for safety, security, and health of passengers and crewmembers on commercial 

aircraft. 

Both the CAMI Aeromedical Research and ACER Programs support numerous DOT and FAA organizations, public 

laws, customers, and stakeholders including: the Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology 

Council, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science & Technology Policy, European Aviation Safety 

Authority, Transport Canada, World Health Organization, and the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-48 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

CAMI has established a professional relationship with over 90 organizations and 55 committees, including holding 

fellowships and other leadership positions. These scientific, medical, academic, and bioengineering relationships 

include working in partnership on a multitude of efforts with these organizations, including Cooperative Research and 

Development Agreements and advisory groups. RITE has over 30 industry partners participating in the research and 

development effort. RITE researchers and Office of Aerospace Medicine staff members collaborate with leading 

organizations associated with aerospace medicine, aviation health, airliner cabin environment, and safety. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

	 Aeromedical Systems Analysis 

−	 Examined and modeled aviation accidents in Alaska over time. The model will provide a way of 

assessing risk within the Alaskan aviation community. 

−	 Reported on the review of all fatal and high profile accidents to determine reporting accuracy of medical 

certification applications and provide insight on possible corrective measures. 

−	 Assessed the vision performance effects of pilots exposed to non-ionizing radiation (ultraviolet, visible, 

near/mid-infrared) from natural and artificial sources and develop guidance material. 

	 Accident Prevention and Investigation 

−	 Analyzed and distributed zolpidem, a prescription medication used for the short-term treatment of 

insomnia, in postmortem specimens from aviation accident fatalities. 

−	 Reported on the effects of exposure to combustion gases (CO and hydrogen cyanide) in support of 

investigation of aviation accidents involving fire/smoke. 

−	 Developed procedure to validate potential biomarkers by special biochemical methods. These 

biomarkers will assist in identifying fatigue and other aviation stressors. 

	 Crash Survival 

−	 Developed anthropometric test dummy (ATD) calibration methods and dummy modifications that will 

ensure consistent lumbar load measurements during seat certification tests. 

−	 Determined human impact tolerance levels and methods for predicting occupant unconsciousness and 

leg injuries that can occur during a survivable crash. Investigate enhanced means of mitigating injury 

causing mechanisms for the brain and leg. 

−	 Continued development of evacuation analytical tools. 

	 Aviation Physiology 

−	 Provided guidance for measuring and estimating radiation exposure during commercial aerospace 

activities and developed instructional materials on radiation exposure to humans during commercial 

aerospace travel. 

−	 Evaluated the performance of current aircrew oxygen regulators installed on commercial aircraft. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

	 Airliner Cabin Environment: Purification of Environmental Control System Air Supplies; Bleed Air 

Contamination 

−	 Assessed bleed air quality on commercial aircraft and to identify oil-based contaminants, air 

contaminants from cabin materials, hydraulic fluid, and other toxins in the aircraft cabin that affect the 

safety and health of airline crewmembers and the flying public. 

−	 Quantified the relative importance for disease transmission on aircraft due to: (i) airborne transmission, 

(ii) indirect contact through surfaces. 

−	 Compared the risk of infection in different stage of air operations such as boarding, taxiing, flying, and 

de-boarding. 

−	 Developed techniques to model chemical reaction kinetics of high temperature degradation of aircraft 

engine oil and hydraulic fluids. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-49 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

− Selected specific commercial sensing technologies for application to aircraft. 

− Developed a conceptual framework for intelligent integration of the sensors with software controls. 

	 Evaluation of Aircraft Air Contaminants from Cabin Materials 

− Evaluated the extent of biological contamination of surfaces in the aircraft cabin. 

− Studied controlled exposures to evaluate emissions of hazardous air contaminants as well as uptake 

and release of compounds from aircraft materials. 

− Conducted a preliminary assessment of PBDEs in typical aircraft cabins. 

The Aeromedical Research Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing transportation related 

injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

CAMI Aeromedical Research Program 

	 By 2014, establish design criteria for restraint systems that protect occupants at the highest impact levels 

the aircraft structure can sustain. 

	 By 2015, establish validation parameters for mathematical models that can evaluate whether aircraft type 

designs meet requirements for evacuation and emergency response capability, in lieu of actual tests. 

	 By 2015, incorporate aerospace medical issues in safety strategies concerning pilot impairment, 

incapacitation, spatial disorientation, and other aeromedical-related factors that contribute to loss of aircraft 

control. 

	 By 2015, develop advanced methods to extract aeromedical information for prognostic identification of 

human safety risks. 

	 By 2015, develop a methodology to compile, classify, and assess aviation-related injuries, the mechanisms 

that resulted in these injuries, and their relationship to autopsy findings, medical certification data, aircraft 

cabin configurations, and biodynamic testing: AAIADS. 

	 By 2016, apply and develop advances in gene expression, toxicology, and bioinformatics technology and 

methods to define human response to aerospace stressors. 

Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program 

	 By 2013, develop advanced data and mathematical models for cabin-air-purification systems. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The human components of aviation systems are simultaneously the strongest and the weakest links in aerospace 

safety. Thus, the Aeromedical Research Program conducts research to maximize the strengths of the human link and 

minimize inherent human weakness to prevent accidents and improve safety and health in both commercial and 

general aviation aircraft. The Aeromedical Research Program combines two major efforts: Aerospace Medical 

Research that is focused on the medical aspects of aircraft accident investigation and pilot medical certification, Crash 

Survival and Cabin Evacuation Research to ensure post-crash survival. 

The Aerospace Medical Research Program investigates and analyzes injury and death patterns in civilian flight 

accidents and incidents to determine their cause and develop preventive strategies. This research supports FAA 

regulatory and medical certification processes that develop safety and health regulations covering all aerospace craft 

occupants and their flight environments. A new aspect of the Aerospace Medical Research program combines 

toxicological and medical aspects of all fatal and high priority aircraft accidents to provide accident investigators, 

medical certification managers and researchers with near real time data to rapidly identify issues and support for 

safety information systems. 

The Crash Survival and Cabin Evacuation Research Program recommends and develops equipment, technology, and 

procedures for optimal (a) evacuation and egress of humans from aerospace craft and (b) the crash protection and 

safety. National Transportation Safety Board reports show the survivability of commercial aircraft accidents including 

Research, Engineering and Development A-50 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

serious accidents is quite high – greater than 94 percent; thus, research to ensure occupants can survive crash 

impact and safely evacuate the aircraft is essential. The implementation of this research was evidenced by the 

successful water evacuation of all occupants in U.S. Airways Flight 1549. 

The Airliner Cabin Environment Research Program supports FAA’s Flight Plan goal and Congressional requests for 

research to ensure airliner occupant safety and security by developing and testing adaptive environmental control 

techniques to enable a safe and healthy cabin air environment including during in-flight incidents. This research 

develops advanced scientific models and experimental data on airborne and surface transmission of existing and 

emerging infectious diseases within aircraft and develops evidence-based hazard identification and risk management 

criteria guidelines to maximize safety and health in the air transportation system in response to infectious disease. 

This program will provide data and systems for air quality incident identification to alert crew to potential problems 

and provide signals to the environmental control system for appropriate response. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

The Aeromedical Research program is principally an in-house effort and the Cabin Environment Research program is 

principally outsourced. A reduction in funding will extend research time to assess critical aeromedical issues and 

cabin environment issues such as bleed air quality on commercial aircraft and to identify oil-based contaminants, air 

contaminants from cabin materials, hydraulic fluid, and other toxins in the aircraft cabin that affect the safety and 

health of airline crewmembers and the flying public. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-51 
 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.k Weather Program 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Weather Program 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.k Weather Program $16,143,000 $16,043,000 $15,539,000 -$504,000 

For FY 2013, $15,539,000 is requested for the Weather Program. Major activities and accomplishments planned 

include: 

Aviation Weather Forecasting 

 Perform preliminary analysis to utilize in-flight icing forecasts to enhance or replace AIRMETs. 

 Update high ice water content (HIWC) algorithm to support FY 2013 full flight campaign. 

 Commence development and test of probability-based model forecasts utilizing the time-lagged high 

resolution rapid refresh. 

 Commence development of probabilistic turbulence forecasts. 

 Document convective storm forecast uncertainty needs of NextGen. 

 Develop integration plan and techniques for inclusion of national ceiling and visibility forecasts as valueadded to National Weather Service (NWS) terminal area forecasts. 

 Develop initial set of performance requirements for volcanic ash. 

 Verify and assess weather forecast capabilities utilizing the verification requirements and monitoring 

capability. 

 Use the enhanced aviation weather simulation and demonstration environment at the William J. Hughes 

Technical Center (WJHTC) to evaluate various aviation weather forecast products. 

 Develop capability to measure the quality of information on aviation constraints which have been translated 

from weather information. 

Safety-Driven Weather Requirements for Wake Mitigation 

	 Select and incorporate real-time wake models into Monte Carlo simulation to determine results sensitivity of 

wake encounters to weather accuracy. 

Terminal Area Icing Weather Information System 

	 Develop final Terminal Area Icing Weather Information System (TAIWIS) operational definition and 

identification of key technologies. 

Mitigating the Ice Crystal Weather Threat to Aircraft Turbine Engines 

	 Conduct full flight campaign out of Darwin, Australia using HIWC and particle size measurement 

instrumentation. 

Lower Visibility for CAT 1 Approaches and RVR Conversion 

 Evaluate runway visual range (RVR) to ASOS/AWOS and determine new RVR to visibility equivalents. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-52 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

The Weather Program will continue to develop and enhance forecast and nowcast capabilities to support the DOT 

safety strategic goal, FAA Flight Plans goals of greater capacity and increased safety, and meet NextGen 

requirements. This will include applied research in naturally occurring atmospheric hazards including turbulence, 

severe convective activity, icing, and restricted visibility. Additional turbulence forecast capabilities will be developed 

to enhance en route safety and capacity. An advanced probabilistic storm prediction capability will be developed to 

enhance terminal and en route capacity. 

Additionally, the Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) weather tool will be enhanced to provide additional 

altitude and location specific data to increase safety. The FAA will continue to partner with NASA, Transport Canada, 

Environment Canada, and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to address mitigation of ice crystal weather threats 

to aircraft turbine engines. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The Weather Program provides new and improved weather products that support legacy National Airspace System 

(NAS) systems, NOAA/NWS, and near-term NextGen capabilities as well as enablers necessary for mid-term and farterm benefits. Weather products are enhanced by upgrading algorithms for existing NAS platforms such as the 

Weather and Radar Processor, and the Integrated Terminal Weather System. NWS platforms also use the algorithms 

developed. Research is an integral element in providing the advanced forecast and nowcast information that can be 

integrated into aviation decision-support tools. This information will be transitioned by the FAA’s Reduce Weather 

Impact (RWI) portfolio to accomplish this. The information will be developed in accordance with the NextGen 

Network Enabled Weather dissemination standards. This will allow universal access to weather information through 

net-centric capabilities. 

The Weather Program will develop advanced forecast capabilities consistent with the NextGen Weather 4D functional 

and performance requirements document. To support transition of these advanced capabilities to operations, the 

Weather Program will utilize evaluations of these scientific advancements to verify their performance. These 

advanced capability requirements for NextGen include the following: 

	 Advanced convective weather forecast - high-resolution, deterministic and probabilistic 0 to 12+ hour 

forecasts of convection for air traffic management (ATM) to enhance capacity 

	 Hourly (nowcasts) and 0- to 18-hour probabilistic forecasts of turbulence for use by ATM, Aviation 

Operations Centers (AOC), and the pilot in the cockpit to enhance safety and capacity 

	 Hourly (nowcasts) and 0- to 12-hour probabilistic forecasts for in-flight icing, including its severity for use by 

ATM, AOC, and the pilot in the cockpit for preflight planning to enhance safety and capacity 

	 Analysis and 0- to 12-hour probabilistic forecasts of ceiling, visibility, and flight category for use by ATM, 

AOC, and the pilot in the cockpit, and to support estimation of capacity resources at airports as well as 

increased general aviation safety 

The weather capabilities developed by the FAA provide the following benefits: 

	 Depiction of current and forecasted in-flight icing areas – enhances safety and regulatory adherence 

	 Interactive data assimilation, editing, forecast, and dissemination tools – improves aviation advisories and 

forecasts issued by the NWS as well as accessibility to users of aviation weather information 

	 Depiction of current and forecast precipitation type and rate – enhances safety in the terminal area 

	 Depiction of current and forecast terminal and en route convective weather – enhances terminal and en 

route capacity 

	 Short-term prediction and forecast of ceiling and visibility in the national area – enhances en route safety 

	 In-situ, remote detection, and forecast of en route turbulence, including clear-air turbulence – enhances en 

route safety 

The Weather Program supports NextGen goals via applied research and development of the advanced forecast 

capabilities in support of the NextGen Weather operational improvements. Efforts undertaken in collaboration with 

the NOAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) increase FAA’s ability to provide the 

operational improvements required for NextGen. These improvements include short-term and mid-term forecasts of 

Research, Engineering and Development A-53 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

naturally occurring atmospheric hazards, such as turbulence, severe convective activity, icing, and restricted visibility. 

Improved forecasts enhance flight safety, reduce air traffic controller and pilot workload, enable better flight 

planning, increase productivity, and enhance common situational awareness. 

The Weather Program works within FAA, industry, and government groups to ensure its priorities and plans are 

consistent with user needs. This is accomplished through: 

	 Guidance from the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) NextGen initiative and the NextGen 

Integration and Implementation Office within FAA 

	 Guidance from the FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

	 Inputs from the National Aviation Weather Initiatives, which are strongly influenced by other NAS drivers 

including “Safer Skies” and Flight Plan Safety Objectives 

	 Inputs from the aviation community, such as the annual National Business Aircraft Association 

/Friends/Partners in Aviation Weather Forum; JPDO; RTCA; and scheduled public user-group meetings 

	 Close collaboration with FAA organizations internal to the Agency such as the Air Traffic Organization 

Oceanic and Off-Shore Programs Office and various FAA Aviation Safety Offices 

The Weather Program collaborates with the Department of Commerce (DOC) in promoting and developing 

meteorological science, and in fostering support of research projects through the use of private and governmental 

research facilities. The program also leverages research activities with members of industry, academia, and other 

government agencies through interagency agreements, university grants, and Memorandums of Agreement. 

Partnerships include: 

 National Center for Atmospheric Research (in-flight icing, convective weather, turbulence, ceiling and 

visibility, ground de-icing, modeling, weather radar techniques) 

 NOAA laboratories (convective weather, turbulence, volcanic ash, modeling, weather radar techniques, 

quality assessment/verification) 

 Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory (convective weather) 

 NOAA’s NCEP Aviation Weather Center (in-flight icing, convective weather, turbulence, ceiling and visibility) 

and Environmental Modeling Center (modeling) 

 NASA Research Centers (in-flight icing, turbulence, satellite data) 

 Universities (modeling) 

 Airlines, port authorities, cities (user assessments) 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Aviation Weather Forecasting 

	 Commenced development of in-flight icing forecast for Alaska. 

	 Updated HIWC algorithm to support FY 2012 trial field program. 

	 Evaluated rapid refresh ensemble with 3 km Continental United States (CONUS) and Alaskan nests at 

National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). 

 Transitioned turbulence forecast capability including mountain-waves for implementation. 

 Enhanced the baseline configuration against which convective weather forecast improvements can be 

measured. 

 Developed prototype national ceiling and visibility forecast to improve gridded forecast products in 

collaboration with the NWS. 

 Developed volcanic ash concept of operations and initial set of functional requirements. 

 Developed verification techniques and approaches that assess research capabilities in support of the 

research transition process. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-54 
 

	 

	 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Enhanced the aviation weather simulation and demonstration environment at the WJHTC. 

Terminal Area Icing Weather Information System 

	 Developed Terminal Area Icing Weather Information System concept design documents including 

description of operational use. 

Mitigating the Ice Crystal Weather Threat to Aircraft Turbine Engines 

	 Conducted research trial field program using high ice water content and particle size measurement 

instrumentation. 

Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) Weather Tool Improvement 

 Tested and implemented observation trending and locale specific data capability to HEMS weather tool. 

The Weather Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing transportation related injuries and 

fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation as well as the FAA Flight Plan Goals of greater capacity and 

increased safety. Research is on-going to provide weather observations, warnings, and forecasts that are more 

accurate, accessible, and efficient, and to meet current and planned regulatory requirements. The goals of the 

focused research endeavors in support of the NextGen weather operational improvements are: 

	 By FY 2015, in support of segment-one: develop timely and accurate deterministic and an initial set of 

probabilistic aviation weather forecasts for operational use by ATM, dispatchers, and pilots. 

	 By FY 2018, in support of NextGen mid-term requirements: increase maturity of probabilistic forecasting; 

using integrated ground, airborne, and satellite weather observation information in real-time for operational 

use by ATM, dispatchers, and pilots. 

	 By FY 2025, in support of NextGen far-term requirements: enhance accuracy of net-enabled deterministic 

and advanced probabilistic weather forecast information for integration into NAS decision support tools and 

dissemination in real-time from a single authoritative source for operational use by ATM, dispatchers, and 

pilots. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Weather has been identified as a causal factor for 70 percent of delays and 20 percent of accidents as cited in “The 

Mission Need Statement for Aviation Weather (#339)”. The identified shortfalls are in the areas of weather detection 

and forecasting as well as product creation and dissemination. These shortfalls are also in line with the NextGen 

Integrated Work Plan (IWP) requirements and Weather Functional Requirements documents. The National Airspace 

System (NAS) is a complex system whose safe and efficient operation is dependent on the accurate nowcast and 

forecast of aviation weather conditions. The FAA’s Flight Plan for 2009-2013 cites objectives for greater capacity by 

reducing the impacts of adverse weather on the operational capacity of the NAS and increasing aviation safety by 

reducing the number of accidents associated with hazardous weather conditions. Since demand is anticipated to rise 

sharply during this timeframe, weather impact mitigation is critical to meet that demand. 

The Weather Program R&D, while driven by the FAA Flight Plan as well as the NextGen Weather Operational 

Improvements, is also influenced by NTSB and Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee 

recommendations. Accidents have also driven the weather program; as an example the Roselawn Halloween 

accident (American Eagle, 68 fatalities, 1994) led to the capability to forecast the location, severity, and probability of 

in-flight icing conditions with sufficient accuracy to allow proactive planning of previously denied airspace to 

uncertified aircraft. Improvements to forecast and nowcast capabilities as a result of the development of in-flight 

icing, turbulence, ceiling and visibility, and convective weather algorithms have been transitioned into operational or 

experimental use and have led to improved short-term and mid-term forecasts of these naturally occurring 

atmospheric hazards. There have been an average of 400 weather-related accidents (general aviation, air taxi, and 

air carrier) per year, over the 10-year period ending in 2006, resulting in $1.46B (fatalities, injuries, aircraft damage) 

as well as 42,000 air carrier delay hours in 2008, resulting in $200M in delay costs. Continued evolution of improved 

now-casting and forecasting algorithms with applicability to achieving higher aviation safety and capacity during 

hazardous weather is needed. The key is to be able to provide high quality weather nowcasts and forecasts uniquely 

designed to allow for rapid and effective decision making by traffic managers, air traffic control, and air crews to 

proactively select safe and optimal reroutes. In the view of the Joint Planning and Development Office, and as 

Research, Engineering and Development A-55 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

espoused in the NextGen Concept of Operations, weather is an essential element to be integrated into TFM safety 

and capacity tools. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

Forecast and nowcast capabilities as a result of the development of in-flight icing, turbulence, ceiling and visibility, 

and convective weather algorithms have been transitioned into operational or experimental use and have led to 

improved short-term and mid-term forecasts of these naturally occurring atmospheric hazards. Specifically the 

Graphical Turbulence Guidance 2 (GTG2), which was operationally implemented at the NOAA Aviation Weather 

Center in FY 2010, is providing 0-12 hour forecasts of turbulence above 10,000 feet enhancing NAS safety and 

capacity. GTG2 also uses as an input, in-situ eddy dissipation rate (EDR) data downlinked from aircraft which 

provides enhanced forecast accuracy. The EDR metric as a result of AWRP funded efforts was approved as an 

International Civil Aviation Organization standard. Additionally the Forecast Icing Product with severity, which was 

operationally implemented at the AWC in FY 2011, provides 0-12 hour forecasts of atmospheric conditions conducive 

to inflight icing including severity and the probability of supercooled large drops, enhancing NAS safety and capacity. 

The Weather Program has developed an advanced storm forecast algorithm known as CoSPA. It was demonstrated 

at the Air Traffic Control System Command Center and for other air traffic users during the summer of FY 2010. 

CoSPA forecasts were found to be equal or better than current operational forecast capabilities and provided 

information critical for air traffic management. A critical data input for CoSPA is the High Resolution Rapid Refresh 

(HRRR) model, also developed under the auspices of the Weather Program. The HRRR provides the high resolution 

granularity for thunderstorm structure depiction needed by air traffic management decision-makers. Additional 

model efforts of the Weather Program have focused on the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model which 

was developed to promote closer ties between research and operations while providing improved forecasts of 

aviation weather hazards. Enhancements to this model have resulted in the WRF Rapid Refresh which will be 

replacing the Rapid Update Cycle model when it is implemented into operations at the NWS, 4th quarter FY 2011. 

The Weather Program also sponsored development of a Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) weather tool 

which provides critical low-level ceiling and visibility information to HEMS operators. 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in the Weather Program budget would impact the program’s ability to move forward effectively and 

provide capabilities needed to meet safety and capacity requirements. 

Specific impacts are as follows: 

Funding for Turbulence research would be reduced. There were more than 5,000 encounters of severe turbulence in 

2009. Implementation of a probabilistic turbulence forecasting algorithm for all flight levels has been estimated to 

provide annual safety benefits in excess of $35M. Elimination of turbulence funding will delay completion of a 

turbulence probabilistic forecast for all flight levels. 

Funding for Ceiling and Visibility research would be reduced. There are more than 60 fatalities per year due to 

adverse ceiling and visibility conditions within the general aviation and Air Taxi communities resulting in more than 

$400M per year in fatalities, injuries, and aircraft damage. A national ceiling and visibility probabilistic forecast 

capability is currently under development in collaboration with the National Weather Service. This funding 

elimination will delay completion of a ceiling and visibility probabilistic forecast. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-56 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Funding for In-flight Icing research would be reduced. The in-flight icing accident rate for GA and Air Taxi operations 

in Alaska is four times higher than in the CONUS (based on the accident rate/million hours of operations) and results 

in more than $1M per year in fatalities, injuries and aircraft damage. Forecast and diagnosis capabilities for Alaska 

are currently under development. This funding reduction will delay completion of an Alaskan in-flight icing capability. 

Funding for Convective Weather research would be reduced. Convective weather is the leading cause of weather 

delays in the NAS (75%). Avoidable delays due to thunderstorms provide a $16 billion (FY 2009 dollars) benefits 

pool for a 20-year life cycle. The reduced funding in FY 2013 would delay the development of a probabilistic 

forecasting capability that is critical to enhanced ATM decision making. 

Funding for the Volcanic Ash research effort would be reduced. Development of an initial set of performance 

requirements in coordination with NOAA and ICAO, critical to the development of improved warning and forecast 

tools for enhanced safety and capacity, would be delayed. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-57 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.l Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.l Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Research $3,635,000 $3,504,000 $5,901,000 +$2,397,000 

For FY 2013, $5,901,000 is requested for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned include: 

Sense and Avoid (SAA) System Certification Obstacles 

	 Identify the major SAA system certification obstacles, including systems and equipment requirements for an 

alternate means of compliance to 14 CFR Part 91 to replace pilot see and avoid operational requirements 

certificated through knowledge testing, practical test standards and flight evaluations of pilot performance. 

	 Develop technical requirement statements that can be used to derive specific concepts for development of 

systems and equipment for alternate means of compliance to 14 CFR 91 see and avoid operational 

requirements. 

	 Continue to provide FAA flight test support for airborne SAA systems, as needed, to facilitate and learn from 

their development. 

UAS Control and Communication (C2) – Time Critical Low Latency Control Response for UAS with Low Levels of 

Autonomy 

	 Model and simulate UAS C2 architectures to assess ability to safely manage trajectory of aircraft during 

critical phases of flight despite potential delays between control station control inputs and aircraft 

responses. 

	 Model and simulate various UAS operational scenarios to validate TT95 for non-critical pilot control actions. 

	 Perform operational safety, hazard and performance analyses along with interoperability assessments to 

determine the impact on safety and efficiency of UAS in the NAS with the TT95 validated through other 

modeling and simulation analyses as noted above. 

Sense and Avoid (SAA) System – Certification Considerations for Requirements Based Testing and Validation of Nondeterministic Data Processing 

	 Determine certification considerations for SAA requirements-based testing and validation of nondeterministic surveillance data processing, tracking, threat declaration and maneuvering logic. 

UAS Acceptable Communication Delay Values Associated with Step-ons 

	 Evaluate impact of C2 technologies on UAS communication and delay values associated with “step-ons” for 

both line of sight and beyond line of sight communication architectures. 

FY 2013 funding will support the UAS program to conduct research on UAS technologies which directly impact the 

safety of the NAS. The program is focused on sense and avoid and command and control requirements that will 

enable operation of UAS in the NAS within the 14 CFR regulatory framework. 

2. What Is This Program? 

Researchers are developing methodologies and tools to establish regulatory standards on UAS design and 

performance characteristics while operating in the NAS. They are evaluating technologies, conducting laboratory and 

Research, Engineering and Development A-58 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

field tests, performing analyses and simulations, and generating data to support standardization of UAS civil 

operations. New standards are being implemented to establish UAS certification procedures, airworthiness 

standards, operational requirements, inspection and maintenance processes, and safety oversight responsibilities. 

Policies and guidance materials are also being published to provide FAA certification engineers and safety inspectors 

with the knowledge and tools they need to ensure the safe integration of UAS into the NAS. 

The UAS Research Program supports FAA efforts in Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) 

implementation by studying safety implications of new aircraft operational concepts and technology to the NAS and 

supporting the development of new and modified regulatory standards to support these new technologies. The 

program’s research activities focus on new technology assessments, methodology development, data collection and 

generation, laboratory and field validation, and technology transfer. 

Full and safe integration of UAS into civil aviation requires FAA to work closely with other government and private 

agencies that have experience in developing and operating UAS: 

	 Department of Defense (DoD) – the DoD is the largest UAS user requesting expanded access to the NAS. 

The FAA collaborates with DoD through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) and Interagency Agreements 

to leverage resources and implement new technologies for civil applications. 

	 Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOC, NASA, state government agencies, and independent 

organizations that use UAS for national security, earth science and oceanic studies, and commercial 

applications. 

	 The Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) – the JPDO has identified UAS integration to NAS and 

new aircraft technology as one of the emerging challenges to the nation’s air transportation system. In 

particular, the NextGen-related research will be coordinated with the JPDO Aircraft Working Group activities 

in support of aircraft equipage requirements and necessary enablers to fully utilize NextGen capabilities. 

	 RTCA Special Committee 203 (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) – members of this special committee will help to 

ensure the effectiveness of the agency’s rulemaking by recommending Minimum Aviation System 

Performance Standards (MASPS) for UAS, C2 Systems, and SAA Systems. 

	 FAA Air Transportation Centers of Excellence – various consortiums of university and industry partners who 

conduct R&D for FAA on a cost-matching basis, which currently consists of seven centers in different 

technical disciplines. 

	 The Civil Aviation Authority of the Netherlands – conduct joint research on UAS initiatives via a 

Memorandum of Cooperation. 

	 Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) with industry to jointly study UAS regulatory 

compliance issues, e.g., type design, airworthiness, operation, maintenance, and repairs. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Minimum Necessary Sense and Avoid (SAA) Information Required for an Unmanned Aircraft (UA) Pilot to Execute a 

Collision Avoidance Maneuver 

	 Determined performance characteristics and operational requirements for SAA technologies. 

	 Initiated study of minimum necessary SAA information required for a UAS pilot to execute a collision 

avoidance maneuver, including specific flight path guidance and traffic information, if necessary. 

	 Continued flight test support of SAA systems to facilitate and learn from developments of airborne SAA 

systems. 

UAS Command, Control and Communication - Time Critical Low Latency Control Response For UAS With Low Levels 

of Autonomy 

	 Modeled UAS C2 architectures to assess ability to safely manage trajectory of aircraft during critical phases 

of flight despite potential delays between control station control inputs and aircraft responses. 

The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing 

transportation related injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. To safely integrate UAS 

into the NAS, FAA needs to conduct research to develop airworthiness standards, devise operational requirements, 

Research, Engineering and Development A-59 
 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

establish maintenance procedures, and conduct safety oversight activities. The goals of the focused research 

endeavors are: 

	 By FY 2013, analyze data and identify potential system safety implications related to communications 

latency, which will be used to determine the stability and safety of flight trajectory management transaction 

time requirements and reduce incidents and accidents. 

	 By FY 2016, conduct field evaluations of UAS technologies in an operational environment, including SAA, C2, 

and contingency management. The documented results will be used to develop various certification 

standards. 

	 By FY 2017, define SAA systems and equipment certification obstacles to a level of detail sufficient to 

develop specific concepts for development of SAA systems and equipment. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Safe integration of UAS into the NAS poses substantial technical challenges not only to the FAA, but also to the 

aviation industry as a whole. UAS uses the most advanced technologies to achieve certain operational capabilities far 

exceeding the expectations of current NAS users. These unique capabilities have demonstrated its potentials of 

commercial applications as well as scientific research needs. Data from the recently completed UAS technology 

survey initiated within the UAS Research Program shows that integrating UAS in the NAS will potentially affect the 

entire NAS due to the various sizes of UAS (less than a foot up to the size of a commercial jet), wide ranges of 

maximum take-off weight (less than a pound to the weight of a large jet), large performance disparities in reference 

to the existing certificated aircraft, and capabilities of operating in all classes of airspace (even the ones weighing less 

than 100 pounds are capable of operating in Class A airspace), which could potentially disrupt normal aircraft traffic 

flow and induce unknown safety hazards while interacting with other NAS users. 

Research activities within the UAS Research Program will generate technical information to support development of 

policies, guidance materials, and advisory circulars on utilizing advanced technologies to demonstrate regulatory 

compliances while operating UAS in the NAS. UAS-specific technical issues, such as “sense and avoid”, control and 

communications with air traffic controls, and emergency response requirements, will also be studied in reference to 

certifications and operational requirements. It will also be an integral part of the NextGen development. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the NAS and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link 

to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development 

program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure 

a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, 

REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Delays in FAA UAS safety research will impede the timely and safe integration of UAS into the NAS. Demand for NAS 

access is growing from multiple operators including DoD, public use agencies, and the private sector. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-60 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A11.m NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A11.m NextGen – Alternative 

Fuels for General Aviation $998,000 $2,071,000 $1,995,000 -$76,000 

For FY 2013, $1,995,000 is requested for NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned include: 

	 Complete initial study regarding the use of high aromatic additives for octane enhancement 

	 Complete initial study determining the assessment criteria for use of bio-mass derived fuels. 

	 Establish capability to measure lead emissions from piston aircraft engines operating on ultra-low lead and 

low-lead fuels. 

	 Complete testing to characterize the impact of fuel-system and combustion chamber lead deposits on 

unleaded fuel detonation performance. 

	 Complete durability study and lubricating oil analyses test on proposed high-aromatic component in a highcompression engine. 

Research will support the R&D roadmap and framework being developed by the newly formed Unleaded Aviation 

Gasoline Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee (UAT-ARC). The post-ARC R&D framework will involve 

government and industry cooperative guidance and/or research to safely transition the fleet to an unleaded aviation 

gasoline. Research will focus on the safety impact from deviation from the current leaded aviation fuel specification 

properties from use of a new unleaded fuel. Supporting research to address feasibility or impact of reducing highoctane lead additives in aviation gasoline and how that will impact fleet performance and certification. Test data and 

laboratory analyses of high aromatic fuels will be used to determine the certification and safety impact of reducing 

lead in aviation fuel as a temporary measure to reduce ambient lead emissions. This research will include the 

investigation of fit-for-purpose safety critical performance metrics from increased aromatic limits in the low-lead fuel 

for octane enhancement 

The assessment of the impact on safety and operating performance from the use of the traditional 100Low Lead 

(100LL) avgas without lead will continue. Research will also continue on evaluating high-octane, quasi-drop-in fuels. 

Research will continue to support the development of test methods needed to evaluate the performance, safety, 

durability, and operability of unleaded avgas containing high aromatic or biomass derived compounds. This work will 

supplement the unleaded fuel and additives specification development protocol task force at ASTM international. 

This task force was set up to develop guidance to a potential fuel or additive sponsor for performing the necessary 

specification property and fit-for-purpose properties research to obtain an ASTM fuel or additive approval 

specification. 

Research will also address performance and safety from use of high aromatic fuels throughout the full operating 

envelope for a high-output turbocharged fleet representative engine. Development of new engine, rig, and 

laboratory test methods necessary to evaluate fuels which differ from traditional hydrocarbon, refinery based fuels. 

The data from that testing will be used to support the update of FAA guidance materials for detonation testing and 

fuel and lubricants approval. 

Testing to address the capability to measure lead emissions and bulk gas exhaust emissions from general aviation 

(GA) engines will be performed. Additionally, research will also examine the impact to safety and operational 

Research, Engineering and Development A-61 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

changes from technologies that could be used to modify the GA legacy piston engines to run on significantly reduced 

octane unleaded fuels. 

2. What Is This Program? 

This program will provide data and support to update or create new certification standards and Advisory Circulars 

(ACs) that promote continued airworthiness of aircraft engines, fuels, and airframe fuel management systems. The 

Agency also publishes information and sponsors technology workshops, demonstrations, and other means of training 

and technology transfer related to alternative fuels for GA aircraft, and reviews the specifications and practices 

recommended by recognized technical societies like ASTM International and SAE International. 

The intended outcome is to provide data and research to support the safe transition of the fleet to an unleaded 

aviation gasoline and lessen aviation environmental impacts to air and water from operation of GA aircraft by 

enabling the industry to provide safe, secure, and renewable fuels. 

The NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation Program works with the following industry and government 

groups: 

	 Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee and the follow-on post-ARC 

government and industry framework. 

	 Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

– representatives from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review the program’s 

activities. 

	 Technical Community Representative Groups – FAA representatives apply formal guidelines to ensure the 

program’s research projects support new rulemaking and development of alternate means of compliance 

with existing rules. 

	 The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development Group – representatives 

from ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft, Teledyne Continental Motors, 

and Lycoming Engines facilitate two-way transfer of technology between government and industry to 

benefit all participants. 

	 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

	 Aerospace manufacturers. 

	 Aerospace repair stations and maintenance organizations. 

	 Aerospace industry associations, such as the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and the 

National Business Aviation Association. 

	 Aircraft user groups, such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the Experimental Aircraft 

Association. 

	 Private, commercial, government, and military operators. 

	 International airworthiness authorities. 

	 Standards development groups, such as ASTM International and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 

	 Academia and national laboratories. 

Partnerships include: 

	 Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee and the follow-on post-ARC 

government and industry framework. 

	 CRC Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development Group – includes ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, 

Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft, Teledyne Continental Motors, and Lycoming Engines; this group facilitates twoway transfer of technology between government and industry to benefit all participants. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-62 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 ASTM International Standard Practice for Evaluating the Compatibility of Proposed Fuel or Additives with 

Aviation Otto Cycle Fuels and ASTM TF –the group is developing the alternative aviation piston fuel 

guidance protocol for unleaded fuel and additive (ASTM) specification approval. 

	 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with engine, airframe, and fuel OEMs and enabling 

technology developers. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

	 Evaluated the performance of a fleet representative, naturally aspirated engine on ultra-low lead fuels. 

	 Evaluated the impact based on approved fuels on the GA fleet from the reduction and eventual removal of 

lead from aviation gasolines. 

	 Evaluated the safety and performance of high compression engines on unleaded, mid-octane aviation 

alkylate fuel. 

	 Completed a flight-test plan for in-flight detonation and performance safety evaluation of turbocharged fleet 

representative engine using unleaded, high-octane fuel. 

The NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety by reducing 

transportation related injuries and fatalities on commercial air carrier and general aviation. The FAA will work with 

the GA community and the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the safety, environmental impact, and 

performance of alternatives to conventional GA fuel. Near-term research will evaluate the safety and performance of 

reduced lead and drop-in unleaded fuels and provide data and research to support the development of qualification 

and certification methodologies for those fuels. 

Longer term research will evaluate the safety and performance of quasi-drop-in and biomass derived alternative fuels 

and provide data and research to support the development of qualification and certification methodologies for those 

fuels. Longer term research includes full-operating envelope and emissions investigation of biomass derived and 

high aromatic based fuels. Longer term research will also focus on providing data and a knowledge base to industry 

stakeholders and certification officials on the effects to the safety of the legacy fleet from deviation of the current 

specification and fit-for-purpose fuel properties. This research will also evaluate new technologies to ensure safe 

operation on significantly reduced octane fuels by the legacy fleet. The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By FY 2014, complete feasibility assessment criteria for the use of high aromatic additives for octane 

enhancement and assessment of the use of biomass derived fuels regarding the impact on GA aircraft and 

engine safety, performance, certification methodologies. 

	 By FY 2014, establish capability to measure lead emissions from piston engines operating on ultra-low lead 

and low lead fuels. 

	 By FY 2015, complete analyses to extrapolate lead emissions over GA fleet. 

	 By FY 2015, develop methodology and acquire tools for full-operating envelope capability to enhance 

existing capabilities to evaluate high-output, turbocharged engine performance across the entire operating 

envelope, including high altitude, high and low temperature, and high and low humidity conditions. 

	 By FY 2016, complete testing to be used to update FAA guidance and regulatory materials regarding 

detonation testing and fuel and lubricant approval. 

	 By FY 2017, develop engine and fuel test methods to evaluate the performance, safety, durability, and 

operability of unleaded avgas. 

	 By FY 2018, complete test engine emission evaluation of existing biomass derived and high-aromatic, highoctane fuels. 

	 By FY 2018, determine feasibility of engine technologies to enable high-compression engines in legacy fleet 

to safely operate on significantly reduced octane fuels. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

While energy efficiency and local environmental issues have traditionally been primary drivers of aeronautics 

innovation, the current and projected effects of aviation emissions on our global climate is a serious long-term 

Research, Engineering and Development A-63 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

environmental issue facing the aviation industry. Aside from their associated health and welfare impacts, aviation 

emissions are a considerable challenge in terms of community acceptance of aviation activities and this challenge is 

anticipated to grow. 

In the GA piston engine arena, there is a growing need to find a replacement for current leaded avgas (100LL). 

Recently, there have been significant actions by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce ambient air lead 

emissions. General Aviation now accounts for 45% of all ambient air lead emissions. 

The replacement fuel should perform as well as 100LL in GA piston engines. This unleaded high octane replacement 

fuel must not cause any accidents and should be a seamless, transparent change to the GA community. Unleaded 

fuel suggestions for replacing the current leaded aviation gasoline have focused on removing the lead and using 

alkylate, to adding specialty chemicals to as much as half the fuel volume. Both of these proposed solutions will 

have significant safety impact to the existing fleet. Simply removing lead additives from aviation gasoline would 

leave a fuel with substantially reduced octane resulting in significant safety impact to the current fleet, with a large 

percentage of the fleet being unable to be utilized. Attempts to replace the octane that the current lead additive 

provides have resulted in the need to use very high percentages of specialty chemicals. Use of these specialty 

chemicals, often as much as 50% of the blend, has resulted in the new fuel being unable to meet the many other 

safety critical specification and fit-for-purpose properties for which the fleet was designed. 

Research will evaluate and characterize new alternative fuel formulations that will have maintained the current level 

of safety and protected the environment while sustaining growth in air transportation. Research will also evaluate 

the safety of potential technological additions to aircraft to allow safe operation on fuel with significantly reduced 

octane. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

Recent FAA engine and fuel test data have been used to pass the inclusion of a very-low-lead aviation gasoline 

specification at ASTM to help states comply with the recent EPA reduction in lead NAAQS. FAA data has been used 

extensively by the Coordinating Research Council to develop unleaded fuel octane model response matrices to predict 

full-scale engine behavior of a sub-class of unleaded fuels to its octane value. 

Almost all of the work is planned and directed toward the development and improvement of current FAA regulations 

and guidance for approval of unleaded fuels. Further, the NextGen – Alternative Fuels for GA program will publish 

reports and present findings at peer reviewed councils and standards bodies. 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in funding for the NextGen - Alternative Fuels for General Aviation Program could delay the empirical 

testing and assessments needed to produce data to determine the certification impact and safety assessment of 

whether the near term reduction in lead content of aviation gasoline could meet the estimated EPA target. More 

specifically, the EPA’s October 2008 90% reduction in National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for allowable 

ambient air lead inventory included specific regulatory requirements for lead monitoring at and around airports. By 

Jan 2017 all states have to be in compliance with the new NAAQS regulations. Very recently a major environmental 

group in California announced their intent to sue every distributor and retailer of leaded aviation gasoline in 

California, including major oil producers and small airports. Sited for the suit was a 2008 EPA report on the negative 

health and welfare effects from leaded avgas. Slight reductions in funding will delay the completion of significant 

testing that is foundational for follow-on research. As an example, lack of funding to complete the lead memory 

Research, Engineering and Development A-64 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

testing to address the real impact of combustion lead deposits on unleaded fuels will result in significant increases to 

certification, cost, schedule, and testing burden to the aviation community. 

Moderate to severe budget cuts will result in a significant impact to the industry as the safety research will not be 

completed to support the necessary development and modification of existing regulatory guidelines for recertification 

of the entire fleet on a new unleaded aviation gasoline. This would likely push the completion of this necessary 

research past the Jan 2017 lead NAAQS deadline and result in significant curtailing of aviation operations. Due to the 

economic benefit of general aviation to our country this could have measureable employment and economic impact. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-65 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A12.a Joint Planning and Development Office 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A12.a Joint Planning and 

Development Office $13,792,000 $5,000,000 $12,000,000 +$7,000,000 

For FY 2013, $12,000,000 of funding is requested for the JPDO to provide the following activities: 

National Goals for UAS Integration 

 Formulate the strategic National program plan for UAS integration 

 Refine NextGen partner agencies’ requirements for UAS operation 

 Conduct cost, benefit and risk assessments using modeling and simulations of relevant scenarios to 

establish possible transition steps and milestones 

 Analyze policy options and implications for UAS integration 

Interagency Data Exchange Definition and Policies 

	 Continue to identify information data sharing requirements, processes, and applications that can be applied 

within specific functional areas (such as surveillance) which can then be shared for use by all NextGen 

partner agencies. 

	 Utilize the virtual interagency test environment to address the UAS information sharing and infrastructure 

requirements, policies, and standards of all agencies (Federal, Local, and State) without impacting the 

operational environment upfront. 

NextGen Research Priorities 

	 Continually identify, define and coordinate research gaps related to UAS and Trajectory Based Operations 

(TBO) 

	 Review technology developments and innovation to recommend opportunities for technology transfer 

among Federal entities and/or industry 

	 Apply program management and integration to ensure research content (needs and priorities) is updated 

within the Joint Planning Environment, a database framework that supports interagency decision-making 

and plans 

Public/Private Partnerships 

 Engage industry stakeholders via the NextGen Institute 

 With the Institute, continue to develop, test, review and document stakeholder perspectives on NextGen 

concepts and analyses including the Trajectory Based Operations (TBO) safety case, weather and 

harmonization of global implementation of air transportation 

 Define and conduct a series of stakeholder engagement forums to formulate the UAS program plan across 

Federal entities 

 Convene the Senior Policy Committee (SPC) for the Secretary of Transportation 

Research, Engineering and Development A-66 
 

 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Federal Requirements for Surveillance Data and Sensors (Integrated Surveillance) 

 Define and conduct a series of forums to identify independent activities of the surveillance mission partners 

that should be synchronized. 

 Conduct technical and policy analyses to support governance of joint surveillance capabilities 

 All of the above activities will ultimately result in Federal surveillance systems that communicate with each 

other thereby ensuring common situational awareness that avoids conflicting efforts and costs 

2. What Is This Program? 

The JPDO executes collaborative processes to ensure efficient coordination between all Federal partners whose 

decisions impact NextGen, namely the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), NASA, and the Departments of 

Defense, Homeland Security and Commerce. The JPDO provides a National “big-picture” perspective that 

encompasses a broad Federal view of NextGen. The Office is developing a framework for NextGen planning and 

development, identifying and prioritizing key multi-agency concerns, and driving consensus in the development of 

investment choices and decisions thereby improving efficiencies, ensuring cross-Federal compatibility, and reducing 

costs. 

In the completion of its work, the JPDO conducts and disseminates a wide variety of studies including cost, benefit 

and risk assessments; policy analysis; modeling and simulation; and program management and integration. The 

JPDO was established in 2003, when Congress enacted NextGen under Vision 100 – Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176). Maintaining the NextGen vision and facilitating a public/private partnership to 

manage critical collaborations needed to make NextGen a reality are among the JPDO’s responsibilities. 

The JPDO convenes the SPC to provide strategic policy guidance for NextGen. For example in FY 2011, SPC direction 

enabled the JPDO to engage more than 60 experts from five agencies to initially describe the current, Governmentwide research plan for UAS. The SPC is chaired by the Secretary of Transportation and its members include the 

heads of the participating departments and agencies, as well as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ex officio). In support of the SPC, the JPDO governance 

structure has a Board, chaired by the JPDO Director, whose members are executives from each department/agency 

who meet quarterly and work continuously to resolve issues directed by the SPC. 

The JPDO is comprised of employees from FAA and the other Federal partners. This ensures that all the partners 

may benefit from a multi-departmental perspective when developing future plans, contract requirements, technical 

specifications, etc. The JPDO workforce actively facilitates and engages researchers, program managers and 

executives from among the partner agencies to formulate the interagency view. 

The private sector is also an integral part of JPDO’s work. In 2006, the NextGen Institute was established as an 

alliance of major aviation stakeholder communities to ensure industry engagement. The Institute, together with nine 

government/industry Working Groups, helped formulate the vision for NextGen. Today, the Institute continues to 

host public/private forums and to bring the right experience and range of viewpoints to inform NextGen analyses. 

With the Institute, the JPDO has taken steps to ensure NextGen will work seamlessly with other global aviation 

systems focusing on stakeholder priorities. 

The JPDO work directly links to the DOT Strategic Goal of Economic Competitiveness and the FAA’s “Destination 

2025” goals. 

Activities and planned accomplishments for FY 2012, representing a significantly de-scoped research plan for the 

JPDO compared to prior years, include: 

	 Formulate the national program planning approach for UAS integration into NextGen emphasizing 

interagency requirements and gap assessment. 

	 Leverage NASA resources to conduct cost, benefit and risk assessments directed toward UAS, weather and 

information data sharing. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-67 
 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Refine interagency concepts for surveillance sensors and data (called Integrated Surveillance) that will 

ultimately lead to cost-effective acquisitions addressing civil aviation, defense and homeland security 

missions. 

	 Archive all net-centric testbed prototypes that demonstrate how aviation data can be securely accessed by 

all agencies in the conduct of their missions and promote best practices across Government. Some mature 

activities will be transitioned for single-agency leadership. 

	 Streamline stakeholder engagement under the NextGen Institute by replacing standing working groups with 

an efficient “study team” model. Complete and document existing working group activities in areas such as 

security, net-centric operations, environment, aircraft certification and operations while continuing TBO 

safety case planning and weather customer forums under the new structure of study teams and workshops. 

Our study team model ensures that all points of view are considered and stakeholder priorities are known at 

the inception of strategic concept definition. 

For FY 2013, activities will build on the FY 2012 transition. 

National Goals for UAS Integration 

UAS play an increasing role in both federal and civil missions including homeland security, national defense, law 

enforcement, weather monitoring and surveying. To date, analysis has focused on identifying and defining research 

programs to address the technical barriers to their interoperation with manned vehicles in the NAS. In FY 2011, the 

JPDO partner agencies collaborated on the development of a UAS Research and Development Roadmap. With all 

partner agencies contributing expertise, the JPDO produced and delivered to OMB a comprehensive roadmap which 

identified the research gaps and opportunities for UAS integration in the NAS. 

In FY 2013 with $3,149 thousand, the JPDO will undertake a new effort and lead the NextGen partner agencies in 

the formulation, development and tracking of a program plan that identifies National goals for UAS integration into 

the NAS. This program plan will include agency requirements, transition steps, coordinated activities and milestones 

in order to accelerate strategic decision making on UAS implementation issues. 

Interagency Data Exchange Definition and Policies 

Information data sharing among federal networks and systems is critical for the transition to NextGen. Full NextGen 

capabilities cannot be realized without ensuring that the right parties have the right information at the right time. 

The JPDO has facilitated the development of an information sharing approach that focused on shared understanding, 

incorporating technical components and leveraging existing interagency infrastructures. The JPDO has developed the 

NextGen Information Sharing Environment (NISE) which is a holistic and cyclical framework to identify the common 

set of requirements the community will use to facilitate information sharing across the enterprise. 

In FY 2013, with $1,687 thousand, the JPDO will use its interagency collaboration best practices to maintain the 

management role and governance of the NISE. This role will facilitate the continued development of communities of 

interest, define enterprise information sharing support agreements, direct configuration control of the environment 

and sustain shared understanding development. This effort will result in cost savings to the Nation by reducing 

duplicative efforts in information sharing activities. 

NextGen Research Priorities 

Trajectory based operations (TBO) is a king pin to achieving the ultimate NextGen vision. TBO will provide additional 

capacity and increase flexibility through precision performance against agreed to and predictable flight paths that are 

managed by automation to ensure safety. Automation will monitor aircraft performance against a known flight path 

and detect and resolve potential conflicts, freeing the human from detecting and correcting these situations as they 

arise. The automated nature of this approach will enable more predictable flights thereby increasing capacity. 

The JPDO and its partner agencies recognize the potential benefits of TBO and are simultaneously executing various 

efforts. In FY 2012, the JPDO deferred refinement of long-term research priorities for trajectory based operations, 

including human systems integration, air/ground automation, software verification and validation and cyber-security 

unless they are directly related to UAS integration in the NAS. 

In FY 2013 with $1,316 thousand, the JPDO will lead the effort with the partner agencies to identify the necessary 

research priorities needed to recognize a full TBO environment. The JPDO will provide an overall map with 

associated interagency budget requirements identifying where activities are required and develop an interagency 

TBO program plan for execution. This interagency TBO program plan will indicate required research items, policy 

issues, requirements for implementation and cross organizational agreements. By documenting this interagency TBO 

Research, Engineering and Development A-68 
 

 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

program plan, the partner agencies can address issues before they become impediments to progress. The 

interagency TBO program plan will be incorporated into the Joint Planning Environment. 

Public/Private Partnership 

In FY 2013 with $1,592 thousand, will continue to forge private/public partnerships, most notably, convening the 

Senior Policy Committee (SPC) for the Secretary of Transportation. JPDO staff will organize the Committee’s agenda, 

apply technical knowledge to prepare briefings for Committee Members, document actions and carry out those 

actions that are fully interagency in nature. 

Also notable, the NextGen Institute will continue to provide a mechanism for private sector engagement in the 

definition of NextGen though study teams, workshops, information sharing forums and potentially, funded tasks. To 

support the JPDO’s FY 2013 activities, the private sector will likely be asked to participate in UAS workshops on 

refining capability maturity, TBO Safety study teams or workshops to define gaps in TBO safety related issues, a TBO 

Concept of Operations definition effort, and forums related to weather and harmonization of global implementation of 

air transportation. Other activities may be added as they are determined. 

Federal Requirements for Surveillance Data and Sensors (Integrated Surveillance) 

Individual departments and agencies need data and sensors to see all aircraft (cooperative and threats) to meet its 

own mission. The JPDO led the development of the Integrated Surveillance Support Office (ISSO) at the direction of 

the SPC. The ISSO acts as the dedicated technical support capability for the governance of national air surveillance. 

The intent behind the ISSO is to provide independent technical analysis to support collaborative efforts of the partner 

agencies. 

In FY 2013, with $1,817 thousand, the JPDO will continue its efforts to coordinate partner agency activities in the 

development of technical planning documents which will lead to a formal interagency coordination process for 

research and development, requirements development and validation, and acquisition of IS capabilities. Specifically, 

in 2013, the JPDO/ISSO will perform analysis leading to two joint DOT/DHS/DOD/DOC decisions: (1) national 

surveillance sensor capabilities for non-cooperative aircraft and (2) software that will enable all mission partners to 

share a common operating picture. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The JPDO provides the multi-agency governance that guides the development of the Nation’s air transportation 

system. The JPDO convenes the Senior Policy Committee, comprised of Cabinet-level Secretaries, to develop goals, 

align resources, and ensure that stakeholders are involved in decision-making. This dialogue will help prevent 

duplication and will ensure NextGen systems will work with those of the other Federal partners. The JPDO ensures 

research coordination with the international community so that NextGen will work seamlessly with other global 

aviation systems. 

The FAA’s main focus needs to be NextGen implementation and its normal operational issues. The JPDO is “future” 

focused and provides coordination among all the Federal partners affected by NextGen decisions. In the future, use 

of airspace will be more integrated, considering civil aviation, defense and homeland security. This need for 

integration will make airspace more complex while all missions must operate together. Further, the pace of 

technology is unfolding rapidly requiring all departments to have full situational awareness of new developments. 

The JPDO provides the common view. 

The JPDO is comprised of employees from both FAA and the other Federal partners (FAA employees represent about 

50 percent of the JPDO Federal workforce). This ensures all the partners have the benefit from a multi-Departmental 

perspective when developing plans. It is more difficult for the FAA to properly consider the implications of its 

decisions on other Federal systems. The JPDO provides a broader perspective and insights that help Departmental 

decision-makers in reviewing FAA’s NextGen related resource requests and in considering the impact of NextGen 

decisions on other Administration entities. 

The JPDO, working together with partner agencies and industry, defines the capabilities and mechanisms that enable 

the national air transportation system to accommodate a wide range of customers. The JPDO has a strategic view, 

assessing needs for research, technologies and policies in a dynamically changing global environment. Because the 

JPDO is not a research performer, implementer or operator, its role is well-suited to analyze a range of possible 

solutions and guide the Federal partners to one successful solution that best meets the needs of all the partners. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-69 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

In recent studies, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have 

reported the need for technology transfer, research into human factors and weather, development of integrated 

surveillance capabilities and integration of UAS. The JPDO’s work plan is actively emphasizing these key areas with 

government and industry partners. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The following items are recent examples to illustrate how JPDO efforts translate into technology transfer and agency 

action: 

	 The SPC, a cabinet-level decision-making body chaired by DOT, relies on JPDO support. In 2010, the SPC 

endorsed the JPDO’s Integrated US Air Surveillance Governance Report and called for its expedited 

implementation as part of the Air Domain Awareness initiative led by DHS. During 2011, the JPDO 

demonstrated efficient surveillance information exchanges among agencies utilizing a combination of 

operational and prototype net-centric implementations that forged new partnerships between agencies and 

industry. Importantly, areas were identified where agencies can now realize potential cost-savings through 

consolidation of systems and capabilities. 

	 The SPC charged the JPDO with leading interagency coordination of research toward integration of UAS into 

the airspace. In 2011, every NextGen partner participated in the initial development of a UAS R&D 

Roadmap. As stated in the report, FAA’s progress to define a clearer path toward certification and routine 

UAS operations can be accelerated by leveraging research at NASA and DOD while these partners also 

benefit from stronger FAA involvement in their research programs. 

	 Prior JPDO analyses identified human factors research, including the balance of human and automation 

roles for NextGen, as a gap. This gap, if not addressed, would constrain the roles of human operators to 

current tasks and prevent efficiency gains that automation can provide. During 2010, the JPDO worked with 

NASA and the FAA to produce a Human Factors Research Coordination Plan. The agencies are executing 

according to that plan during the current budget formulation cycle. 

	 In 2008, the JPDO, FAA and NASA established Research Transition Teams to facilitate transfer of research in 

four areas. In 2011, one of those teams, Flow Based Trajectory Management, successfully completed their 

effort. The team had defined a common outcome, agreed on roles, and developed means to evaluate, 

monitor, and report results. Specifically, proven NASA prototype capabilities were mapped to the particular 

automation systems on which FAA will evaluate implementation strategies. 

	 The JPDO works with DOC, FAA and DOD on developing a vision for aviation weather management that is 

focused on the aviation user. The JPDO regularly facilitates a senior executive panel, known as the NextGen 

Executive Weather Panel, who oversaw the development of a joint program plan. Aligned with the joint 

plan and its weather information governance structure, during FY 2011 the FAA and the National Weather 

Service demonstrated the ability to share and discover many types of weather data within an interagency, 

net-centric environment. 

	 In 2010, the JPDO conducted a study on flight prioritization and outlined a framework for best equipped 

best served options, a concept of critical importance to airline operations that was not well-defined in the 

early NextGen vision. The JPDO’s policy analysis and strategic framework provided the basis for discussion 

by the FAA’s NextGen Advisory Committee to identify the single preferred option for the airlines. 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) endorsed this level of funding for the 

JPDO. The REDAC reviews and evaluates all programs in the FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an 

annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-70 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Without the requested funding, the JPDO may cease to exist. In FY 2012, the JPDO managed a severe budget 

reduction through re-prioritization, reduction and/or elimination of every task, activity and job position for ongoing or 

planned FY 2012 research. Every existing JPDO contract task order was modified in scope or performance period 

during FY 2012, and backfill of vacant FAA positions was deferred several months to save costs. The JPDO continued 

a few high priority activities in FY 2012 through judicious management of prior year funds and unexpired contracts. 

Partner agency contributions (personnel or funding) for the JPDO, which depend on matching FAA resources, were 

also reduced in FY 2012. These one-time strategies will enable the JPDO to produce a few quality products during 

FY 2012; however, the FAA cannot repeat this strategy. Plans call for no unexpended funds for the JPDO beyond 

October 2012. 

The JPDO ensures efficient coordination and collaboration among NextGen partner agencies. It addresses key 

interagency priorities identified by the SPC for NextGen. Without the benefit of a dedicated, co-located interagency 

entity, the Nation can expect increased costs due to both the duplication of systems and the development of systems 

that will not work together for all missions (civil, defense and homeland security). The JPDO maintains a future focus 

and is able to provide the broader perspectives and insights that are necessary for Department decision-makers to 

review and assess NextGen investment and policy decisions. For example: 

 Demand for UAS access to the National Airspace System (NAS) is increasing rapidly with the US Government 

expected to invest more than $19B for UAS during the next three years. JPDO will lead efforts with the 

NextGen partners to develop a program plan that identifies the National goals for UAS integration into the 

NAS including agency requirements, transition steps, coordinated activities and milestones. 

 Every agency needs data and sensors to see all aircraft (cooperative and threats) to meet its own mission. 

JPDO will ensure there is an understanding of individual agency mission needs, capabilities, and 

requirements, resulting in coordinated solution decisions. Without cross-agency requirements and 

implementation plans, duplication, inefficiency and gaps will exist resulting in individual and uncoordinated 

solutions. Consequently, there is an increased risk to national security. 

 Information is the backbone of NextGen. The capabilities detailed in the NextGen Concept of Operations 

will not be successful without ensuring that the right parties have the right information at the right time. 

The JPDO will coordinate with partner agencies to identify information exchange requirements which will 

reduce the cost of having multiple stove-piped systems that cannot quickly communicate. 

 National aviation-related policy issues that the partner agencies have identified as important in NextGen 

implementation will not be addressed without this program, leading to uncoordinated FAA NextGen 

decisions which will have a negative impact on other Federal systems. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-71 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A12.b NextGen – Wake Turbulence 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – NextGen - Wake Turbulence 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A12.b NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence $10,664,000 $10,674,000 $10,350,000 -$324,000 

For FY 2013, $10,350,000 is requested for NextGen - Wake Turbulence research. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned include: 

	 Develop high level concept for practical application of dynamic wake separations in air traffic control. 

	 Provide analysis support to airports with closely spaced parallel runways (parallel runways with less than 

2500 feet between their center lines) to identify needed changes to enable better arrival capacity when 

weather causes them to shift to instrument flight rules operation. 

	 Collaborate with the European participants of the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) program in 

developing wake turbulence mitigation solutions for the NextGen/SESAR era operations. 

	 Conduct experiments, develop analysis tools and host aviation community forums to define, in terms of a 

wake turbulence hazard, unacceptable level of wake turbulence for an encountering aircraft. 

	 Conduct data collection and analysis to determine the characteristics of wake vortices generated by aircraft 

– statistical foundation for wake separation standards and wake modeling enhancements. 

 Incorporate wake turbulence data analysis results into wake transport-and-decay models and utilize models 

to review proposed air route and terminal airspace change proposals. 

 Develop modeling and other analysis tools required for evaluation of wake encounter risks of TrajectoryBased and other NextGen era operational concepts. 

 Continue development of crosswind based concept feasibility prototype for use in determining reduced air 

traffic control wake mitigation separations to be applied between aircraft arriving to a single runway. 

 Provide wake turbulence evaluation support in determining wake separation standards to be for new aircraft 

being introduced into the NAS. 

The program provides the research to achieve near-term objectives of increasing airport runway capacity by reducing 

aircraft wake separation minima under certain conditions. The program also provides the research and analysis to 

answer the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)-era questions of: 

 What wake turbulence mitigations will be required in implementing Trajectory-Based Operations? 

 How can more aircraft be accommodated in high-demand airspace (terminal and en-route) and still be safe 

in terms of wake turbulence? 

In FY 2013, NextGen - Wake Turbulence Program will continue its NextGen near- and mid-term research agenda, 

addressing wake turbulence restrictions in today’s terminal and en route airspace and in the future NextGen airspace 

designs. Program outcomes include: 

 Increasing runway capacity at airports and capacity for more flights in high-usage airspace 

 Providing more capacity-efficient wake separations to aircraft with the same or reduced safety risk 

Research, Engineering and Development A-72 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

2. What Is This Program? 

The NextGen - Wake Turbulence Program conducts applied research to improve, in terms of flight efficiency and 

safety, aircraft-separation processes associated with today’s generalized and static air navigation service provider 

(ANSP) wake-turbulence-mitigation-based separation standards. As an example, during periods of less than ideal 

weather and visibility conditions, implementation of an air navigation service provider (ANSP) decision support tool 

that adjusts required wake separations based on wind conditions would allow ANSP to operate at arrival rates closer 

to their visual flight rule arrival capacity. Additionally, the research program is developing wake-mitigation 

application solutions that safely enable reduced aircraft separations in congested air corridors and during arrival and 

departure operations at our nation’s busiest airports. 

This program supports the DOT Strategic Plan 2010-2015 Goal “Economic Competitiveness” in the following areas: 

	 Maximum Economic Returns on Transportation Polices and Investments in Aviation – NextGen-Wake 

Turbulence research will provide the information and develop the technology for safe, capacity efficient 

wake separation standards as a component of DOT’s commitment to “Implement procedures with 

supporting infrastructure to increase the efficiency of individual flights, deliver capacity for high density 

operations, and maintain capacity in low-visibility conditions. (see page 37 of DOT’s Plan) 

	 Advance U.S. Transportation-Related Economic Interests in Targeted Markets Around the World – NextGen 

– Wake Turbulence research accomplishes by its work in obtaining globally accepted air traffic control wake 

separation standards and procedures a component of DOT’s commitment to: “...advocate worldwide 

adoption of harmonized standards and global technical regulations (GTR) through participation in bilateral 

and regional forums or international organizations at the ministerial and working levels.” (see page 41 of 

DOT’s Plan) 

Specific goals set for the NextGen – Wake Turbulence research in support of the strategic DOT/FAA goals are: 

	 By FY 2013, develop as requested, airport specific instrument flight rules (IFR) closely spaced parallel 

runways (CSPR) approach procedures that would insure wake safety and increase IFR capacity of the 

airport’s CSPR. 

	 By 2016, develop the algorithms that would be used in the ANSP and flight deck automation systems (if 

required) for setting and monitoring dynamic wake separation minimum between aircraft and surrounding 

aircraft. 

This research addresses the needs of the FAA Air Traffic Organization and works with the agency’s Aviation Safety 

Organization to ensure new capacity-efficient procedures and technology solutions are safe and that the airports and 

air routes targeted for their implementation are those with critical needs to reduce airport capacity constraints and air 

route congestion. The research program works with controllers, airlines, pilots, and aircraft manufacturers to include 

their recommendations and ensure training and implementation issues are addressed in the program’s research from 

the start. Customers include pilots, air traffic control personnel, air carrier operations, and airport operations. 

Stakeholders include the Joint Planning and Development Office, commercial pilot unions, FAA ANSP unions, other 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) air navigation service providers, and aircraft manufacturers. 

In addition to maintaining its partnership with the agency’s Aviation Safety organization, this research program 

accomplishes its work via working relationships with industry, academia, and other government agencies. The 

coordination and tasking are accomplished through joint planning/reviews, contracts, and interagency agreements 

with the program’s contributors: 

	 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

	 The Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 

	 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (NASA-sponsored 

research) 

	 The European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) and associated research 

organizations (coordination and shared research) 

	 Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory 

	 National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research 

Research, Engineering and Development A-73 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 National Institute of Aerospace 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

	 Maintained and added to the world’s most extensive aircraft wake transport data and analysis database – 

statistical foundation for wake separation standards and wake modeling enhancements. 

	 Obtained RTCA agreement on weather observation parameters to be transmitted from aircraft – vital to the 

development of dynamic wake separation processes. 

	 Incorporated wake transport and decay as well as aircraft navigation performance analysis results into FAA 

wake-encounter risk models. 

	 Initiated development of wake turbulence mitigation processes/procedures to support the NextGen era 

operational environment. 

	 Continued development of crosswind based concept feasibility prototype for use in determining reduced air 

traffic control wake mitigation separations to be applied aircraft arriving to the same runway. 

	 Collaborated with European participants of the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) program in 

developing wake turbulence solutions for the NextGen/SESAR. 

	 Evaluated reports of wake turbulence encounters as part of the FAA Safety Management System assurance 

process for changes to Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures. 

	 Continued to conduct experiments, develop analysis tools, and host aviation community forums to define, in 

terms of a wake turbulence hazard, what is an unacceptable level of wake turbulence for an encountering 

aircraft. 

	 Provided analysis support to airports with closely spaced parallel runways to identify needed changes to 

enable better arrival capacity when weather causes them to shift to instrument flight rules operation. 

	 Continued development of wake turbulence transport and decay modeling tools for use in evaluating 

proposed Trajectory-Based and other NextGen era operational concepts. 

	 Provided wake turbulence evaluation support in determining wake separation standards for new aircraft 

being introduced into the NAS. 

In FY 2012, the FAA continued its development of the capabilities needed to enable aircraft separation processes 

supportive of NextGen shared separation and dynamic spacing in super density operations. These capabilities are 

highly dependent on technologies that accurately predict aircraft tracks, the track/decay of their generated wake 

vortices and the provision of this information to pilots and controllers. Some aspects of the NextGen Concept of 

Operations are dependent upon the aircraft being a participant in efficient, safe air traffic control processes that 

would minimize the effects of required wake turbulence mitigation on the flow of air traffic in all weather and visibility 

conditions. The NextGen - Wake Turbulence research will result in enhanced technology assisted processes for 

safely mitigating aircraft wake encounter risks while optimizing capacity, for all flight regimes, including the effects of 

weather. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Wake turbulence research has provided and will continue to provide the data, analysis, models and aircraft wake 

turbulence information collection systems that are needed to “bring to market” wake mitigation standards, 

procedures, and processes that allow safe but more capacity efficient aircraft-to-aircraft wake separations. The 

research has produced airport specific procedures and safety analyses to bring a new air traffic control wake 

mitigation capacity enabling procedure into everyday operation at airports with closely spaced parallel runways 

(CSPR). More airports are requesting similar analysis support to allow their use of the dependent 1.5 nm diagonal 

approach procedure on their CSPR when instrument approach procedures are required. The requested FY 2013 

funding will support this activity. 

The NextGen – Wake Turbulence Program has produced validated concepts for applying aircraft performance 

characteristics and runway crosswind information to reduce the required wake mitigation separations applied to 

aircraft arriving to and departing from an airport’s runways. These research products have been transitioned into the 

FAA F&E projects: Wake Re-Categorization, Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures, and Wake Turbulence 

Research, Engineering and Development A-74 
 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Mitigation for Arrivals. These F&E projects, when implemented, will provide air traffic control with decision support 

tools that will allow them to safely reduce the wake separations between aircraft when crosswinds blow the wakes 

out of the way of trailing aircraft. The reduced wake separations equate to more airport operations per hour when 

the airport is busiest. Aircraft manufacturers, airports and air carriers agree that squeezing in more operations onto 

an airport’s existing runway structures results in major savings in flight delays during bad weather and time period 

directly following a major weather event. 

The requested FY 2013 NextGen - Wake Turbulence research funding will further explore using predicted and 

monitored approach corridor crosswinds to allow reduced wake separations between aircraft landing behind each 

other onto a single runway. This is the next development step after the research’s prior work on capacity enabling 

wake separation solutions for airport CSPR. A wake solution for safely reducing wake separation during instrument 

flight rule operations to a single runway will allow more operations at an even greater number of the nation’s busiest 

airports. 

In 2013, research will continue on wake mitigation solutions that will be needed to effectively achieve the operational 

benefit of NextGen Trajectory Based and Flexible Terminal Operations. NextGen – Wake Turbulence research will 

provide safe capacity efficient wake mitigation procedures and processes that must be integrated into the design of 

future air traffic control tools that implement these concepts. Without NextGen era wake mitigation procedures and 

processes, the NextGen objective of putting more aircraft through a given airspace or onto a runway will not be fully 

realized. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The FAA NextGen – Wake Turbulence research applies wake vortex scientific knowledge, technology and modeling to 

developing feasible safe capacity efficient improvements to the current air traffic control procedures and processes 

used to mitigate the risk that an aircraft will encounter a hazardous wake generated by another aircraft. 

Recent evidence that the research is working is the publishing of FAA Order 7110.308, “1.5-Nautical Mile Dependent 

Approaches to parallel Runways Spaced Less than 2,500 Feet Apart” in CY2008 with subsequent changes (change 2, 

September 2010) that have added more airport runway pairs that are allowed use of this airport capacity enhancing 

wake separation procedure. The order is based on this program’s wake data collection and analysis work at Lambert 

– St. Louis International Airport and other airports in the US and Europe. 

Another evidence of the research’s effectiveness is the expected operational use in FY11 of an air traffic decision 

support tool that will advise controllers at George Bush Houston intercontinental Airport when to safely reduce the 

wake mitigation delay time between departures on the airport’s CSPR. NextGen – Wake Turbulence research 

constructed the operational concept for the decision support tool plus generated the crosswind prediction and 

monitoring logic for the decision support tool. 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. This research is reviewed annually by the 

REDAC’s NAS Operations Subcommittee, with its most recent review occurring March 1, 2011. Results of the 

Subcommittee’s review were that the research was vital to the FAA and the aviation community and the NextGen – 

Wake Turbulence research planned for FY 2013 was appropriate for delivering the research products needed by FAA 

and other stakeholders (airports, air carriers, aircraft manufacturers, controller, and pilot unions). 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

The NextGen – Wake Turbulence research addresses both the FAA’s near term needs (capacity enhancing wake 

mitigation procedures/processes) for current operations and developing wake mitigation solutions that will be needed 

Research, Engineering and Development A-75 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

as FAA transitions to Trajectory Based and Flexible Terminal Operations. The FY 2013 requested funding will provide 

the needed wake solution concepts and underlying technology, collected data and analyzes in a feasible time frame. 

Increasing the research funding will not result in the getting the solutions sooner, since there are limited number of 

researchers that are qualified to work in this problem area and many of them are working the solutions because of 

this research program. Priority for the research is developing wake separation capacity enhancing changes for 

today’s air traffic control operational environment. A significant reduction in funding would impact the FAA’s progress 

in developing NextGen era wake mitigation procedures/processes and supporting technology/models – specifically 

delaying the development of the concepts and supporting technology for potential reduction of wake separations 

during instrument flight rule operations to a single runway. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-76 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A12.c NextGen – Air Ground Integration Human Factors 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – NextGen – Air Ground Integration Human Factors 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A12.c NextGen – Air Ground 

Integration Human Factors $5,603,000 $7,000,000 $10,172,000 +$3,172,000 

For FY 2013, $10,172,000 is requested for NextGen – Air Ground Integration Human Factors. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned include: 

Data Communications - Guidance for certification and flight standards personnel 

	 Displays and User Interface: Recommend minimum requirements for alternative and supplemental data 

communication displays and controls in the flight crew forward field of view to reduce head-down time. 

	 Automation: Recommend minimum FMS integration requirements for NextGen 4D trajectory clearances. 

	 Procedures and Operations: Evaluate and recommend pilot-ATC procedures for negotiations and shared 

decision making NextGen activities. 

	 Shared Situation Awareness: Recommend procedures to mitigate loss of available party line information in 

air/ground radio communications as data communications increase. 

	 Message Set: Provide recommended human factors improvements to the RTCA SC-214 message set and 

recommended ICAO training requirements for non-native English speaker proficiency in reading and writing 

to ensure comprehension and compliance with ATC clearances and instructions transmitted via data 

communications. 

Error Detection and Correction - Guidance for certification and flight standards personnel 

	 Provide assessment of current design and training methods to support human error detection and correction 

in NextGen operations. 

	 Recommend minimum flight deck design requirements and training methods to mitigate mode errors and 

unintended uses of flight deck equipment in NextGen operations. 

Information Requirements - Guidance for certification and flight standards personnel 

	 Provide inventory of cognitive tasks, associated information needs and recommended display methods for 

flight deck tasks that require shared flight deck-ATC information. 

	 Identify human factors issues and mitigation strategies for the use of legacy avionics in NextGen 

procedures. 

	 Provide guidelines to address human-automation integration issues regarding the certification of pilots, 

procedures, training and equipment necessary to achieve NextGen capabilities. 

The program continues to assess human system integration issues in use of airborne NextGen concepts, capabilities, 

and procedures, and Air Traffic Management (ATM) leading to a full mission demonstration by 2017. Each of these 

research areas, although general in nature, continued to be conducted in the context of specific near-to mid-term 

NextGen applications such as closely spaced parallel operations, oceanic in-trail procedures, etc. Research continued 

to enable safe and effective changes to pilot and ATC roles and responsibilities for NextGen procedures and also 

continued on human systems integration issues related to information needs, interface design and system integration 

required to support effective guidance for NextGen equipment design, procedure development and personnel 

training. Research continued to identify and manage the risks posed by new and altered human error modes in the 

Research, Engineering and Development A-77 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

use of NextGen procedures and equipment. Research priorities address the implementation of RTCA NextGen Task 

Force recommendations as described in the NextGen Implementation Plan. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors Program supports the DOT Safety Strategic Goal and 

addresses flight deck and air traffic service provider integration for each operational improvement or NextGen 

application considered, with a focus on those issues that primarily affect the pilot side of the air-ground integration 

challenge. Through use of modeling, simulation, and demonstration, the program assesses interoperability of tools, 

develops design guidance, determines training requirements, and verifies procedures to support certification and 

flight standards and ATO service units for ensuring safe, efficient and effective human system integration in 

transitions of NextGen capabilities. 

Research goals include: 

	 Defining, understanding, and developing guidance to successfully implement the changes in roles and 

responsibilities between pilots and controllers, and between humans and automation required for NextGen 

capabilities and applications 

	 Defining human and system performance requirements and guidance for the design and operation of 

aircraft and ATM systems to include examination of information needs, human capabilities, interface design 

and systems integration issues 

	 Developing and applying risk and error management strategies, mitigating risk factors, and reducing human 

errors 

The program provides integration of air and ground capabilities that address challenges for pilots and air traffic 

service providers. A core human factors issue is ensuring the right information is provided to the right human 

operators at the right time to make the right decisions. Transitions of increasingly sophisticated automation and 

procedures must be accompanied by supporting interoperability with baseline systems and refinement of procedures 

to ensure efficient operations and to mitigate potential automation surprises. Program benefits accrue to pilots and 

air traffic service providers, and those who perform certification and regulatory oversight of these NAS operators. 

The program addresses 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 program focus includes changes in the NextGen environment such as increased reliance on collaborative and 

distributed decision making. Information must be provided to participants, e.g., pilots, air traffic service providers 

and airline operation centers in a fashion that facilitates a shared understanding of phenomena, such as weather, 

wake, etc. The format, content, timeliness and presentation of that information must be well integrated with other 

information provided to decision makers and their decision support tools. 

Program partnerships include researchers who work directly with colleagues in FAA, other government agencies, 

academia, and industry to support the following R&D programs and initiatives: 

	 NASA’s Aviation Safety and Airspace Programs 

	 Close collaboration with FAA organizations, notably Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification in the Aviation 

Safety (AVS) line of business 

	 FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – representatives from industry, 

academia, and other government agencies annually review the activities of the program and provide advice 

on priorities and budget 

The NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors Program collaborates with industry and other government 

programs through: 

	 Collaborative research with NASA on its safety, airspace and air portal projects including the identification of 

human factors research issues in the NextGen as technology brings changes to aircraft capabilities 

Research, Engineering and Development A-78 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Cooperative research agreements used with universities to address NextGen human factors issues 

	 Coordination on research issues and plans with aircraft and avionics manufacturers and operators as well as 

international civil aeronautics authorities 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Roles and Responsibilities 

	 Completed definition of a standard taxonomy for describing the relationship between flight deck and Air 

Traffic Control (ATC) automated systems and human operators in the context of NextGen equipment and 

applications. 

	 Developed recommendations for function allocation strategies and policy between pilots(s), controller(s), 

Airline Operations Centers and automated systems to communicate, execute, monitor and resolve conflicts 

during delegated separation operations. 

Human System Integration – Information Needs 

	 Determined which pilot flight procedures are associated with NextGen applications, using task and 

information needs analysis techniques, and develop guidelines for each type of procedure in NextGen. 

	 Completed initial guidance for the design of NextGen flight deck displays and alerts that are compatible with 

those in ATC, including those required for oceanic in trail procedures. 

	 Completed initial research to identify human factors issues associated with instrument procedure design and 

to develop human factors guidelines for instrument procedures. 

Human System Integration – Human Capabilities and Limitations 

	 Completed development of a methodology to address the human capabilities and limitations of pilots 

(including single-pilot aircraft) to conduct a range of NextGen airspace procedures in normal and nonnormal situations. 

	 Based on pilot performance capabilities and limitations, developed recommendations for system 

performance requirements and operating limitations that should be applied when using data 

communications with integrated and non-integrated flight management systems (FMS). 

Human System Integration – System Integration 

	 Completed research to develop flight crew training recommendations for flight deck automation supporting 

NextGen operations for single pilot and two pilot crews. 

	 Conducted research to support guidance for data communications procedures, training, displays and alerts. 

Risk and Error Management 

	 Developed 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. 

	 Assessed human error impact and mitigation in Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) 

applications including oceanic in-trail procedures, flight deck interval management, and closely spaced 

parallel operations. 

Research will support development of policy, standards and guidance required to design, certify and operate NextGen 

equipment and procedures from the perspective of Air-Ground Integration. Additionally, this research will include 

integrated demonstrations of NextGen procedures and equipment in the context of ongoing Air-Ground Integration 

human factors research. The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By 2016 complete research to enable safe and effective changes to pilot and ATC roles and responsibilities 

for NextGen procedures. 

- By 2013 complete initial research to evaluate and recommend pilot-ATC procedures for negotiations 

and shared decision making NextGen activities. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-79 
 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

- By 2015 complete research to identify and recommend mitigation strategies to address potential 

coordination issues between humans and automated systems. 

- By 2016 complete research to identify methods for effectively allocating functions between pilots/ATC 

and automated systems as well as mitigating any losses of skill associated with these new roles and 

responsibilities. 

	 By 2016 complete research to identify and manage the risks posed by new and altered human error modes 

in the use of NextGen procedures and equipment. 

- By 2013 complete development of guidance to support certification and flight standards personnel in 

assessing suitability of design and training methods to support human error detection and correction. 

- By 2013 complete initial research investigating methods to mitigate mode errors and unintended uses 

of NextGen equipment. 

- By 2014 develop initial guidance on training methods to support detection and correction of human 

errors in near to mid-term NextGen procedures. 

- By 2016 complete research and modeling activities to identify, quantify and mitigate potential human 

errors in the use of NextGen equipment and procedures. 

	 By 2016 complete research on human systems integration issues related to information needs, human 

capabilities and limitations, interface design and system integration required to support effective guidance 

for NextGen equipment design, procedure development and personnel training. 

- By 2013 complete initial research to identify cognitive tasks, associated information needs and 

recommended display methods for tasks that require shared flight deck-ATC information. 

- By 2013 complete research to identify human factors issues and potential mitigation strategies for the 

use of legacy avionics in NextGen procedures. 

- By 2013 complete initial research to address human-automation integration issues regarding the 

certification of pilots, procedures, training and equipment necessary to achieve NextGen capabilities. 

- By 2014 complete initial research to provide recommendations for displays, alerts, procedures and 

training associated with data communications. 

- By 2014 complete research to provide initial recommendations for equipment design, procedures and 

training to support use of 2 1⁄2 to 4 D trajectories. 

- By 2016 complete research to assess procedures, training, display and alerting requirements to support 

development and evaluation of planned and unplanned transitions between NextGen and legacy 

airspace procedures. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

NextGen involves implementation of new complex systems and flight crew procedures. The NextGen Air Ground 

Integration Human Factors R&D program supports the FAA Aviation Safety (AVS) team’s certification and operational 

approval processes and also provides tools to address flight crew procedures, maintenance procedures, training 

development, and continuous safety monitoring. Specific human factors research activities in this R&D program 

address advanced NextGen procedures such as trajectory operations, and the associated flight deck automation and 

air ground digital data communications technologies. 

The NextGen vision includes a shift to management of traffic by trajectories (Trajectory-Based Operations). Every 

Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) aircraft that is operating in and managed by the system is represented by a four 

dimensional trajectory (4DT) either provided by the user or derived from a flight plan by the ground system. The 

4DT includes a series of points from departure to arrival representing the aircraft’s path in four dimensions: latitude, 

longitude, altitude, and at least one required time of arrival (RTA). The 4DT gets refined over time as it is used for 

flight planning through separation management. To be effective, the trajectory must be maintained and exchanged 

with ground automation at sufficient intervals to reflect the latest detailed data, including intent information. Both 

controller and pilot must monitor aircraft conformance with the negotiated 4DT, supported by their respective ground 

and flight deck automated systems. Human factors efforts ensure conformance alerts and recommended recovery 

maneuvers are consistent and effective. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-80 
 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Data communications permit exchanges concerning complex 4DT clearances. Data communications also reduces 

errors that can occur when flight crews transcribe and read back voice communications. Planned human factors R&D 

efforts are addressing flight deck displays, message content, and procedures for disseminating data communications 

to support transfer of routine ATC clearances, exchange of four dimensional flight plan trajectory information (to 

support trajectory operations), reroute requests, transfer of voice frequency channels, exchange of near term 

hazardous weather information, and allow flight crew reports for appropriately equipped aircraft. Current human 

factors research efforts are addressing data communication message set design factors to prevent recurrence of 

incidents involving human factors issues such as flight crew misunderstanding of clearances containing terms BY, AT, 

and EXPECT, and concatenated (compound) clearances with multiple elements. 

The NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors R&D program includes critical work to ensure flight deck 

controls, displays, alerts, and procedures that are implemented to achieve the NextGen capabilities related to 

trajectory operations and associated flight deck automation and air ground digital data communications technologies 

are compatible with flight crew capabilities and limitations. Specific research plans are developed in coordination 

with FAA stakeholders including those in the Aviation Safety (AVS) line of business including Aircraft Certification 

Service and Flight Standards Service, and ATO program offices such as Data Communications, Surveillance and 

Broadcast Services, and other offices within the NextGen and Operations Planning (AJP) organization. This research 

provides the foundation for guidelines, handbooks, advisory circulars, rules, and regulations that help ensure the 

safety and efficiency of NextGen aircraft operations. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

Products from the NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors R&D program inform and support critical 

NextGen technologies and applications. For example, a human factors analysis of the RTCA SC-214 message set 

produced recommendations that were incorporated at ICAO. The program is reviewed and evaluated by the 

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), and in particular the Human Factors 

subcommittee. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and 

appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in funding to the NextGen - Air Ground Integration Human Factors program would defer until FY 2014 

the planned FY 2013 completion of development of guidance to support certification personnel in evaluating risks and 

mitigation of human error and potential unintended uses of new technology in NextGen systems and procedures. 

This work provides human factors recommendations using scientific and technical information to assist Aircraft 

Certification Service personnel in their evaluation of new technology supporting NextGen applications. The result is a 

delay in research products by one year. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-81 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A12.d NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A12.d NextGen – SelfSeparation Human Factors $5,260,000 $3,500,000 $7,796,000 +$4,296,000 

For FY 2013, $7,796,000 is requested for NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned include: 

ADS-B Applications 

	 Recommend air traffic and flight deck procedures and operating limitations based on human factors 

research to address cockpit display of traffic information (CDTI) applications such as Closely Spaced Parallel 

Operations, In Trail Procedures, Enhanced Visual Approach, Interval Management, and Surface Alerting. 

Advanced Vision Technologies for Low Visibility Operations 

	 Conduct human factors simulation and flight trials to evaluate and recommend safe decision height and 

flight crew qualification and training requirements to allow operations beyond current 14 CFR 91.175 use of 

Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) for approach below minimums to 100 ft., such as operational credit 

for EFVS for approach to touchdown and operational credit for use of Synthetic Vision Systems (SVS) to 100 

ft. in low visibility conditions. 

	 Apply human factors techniques to determine minimum characteristics for aircraft equipage and operational 

procedures for approval to use EFVS and SVS technologies for additional operations, including surface 

movement, rollout and takeoff, merging and spacing, or in lieu of certain infrastructure requirements. 

Instrument Procedure Design and Use 

	 Through human factors analysis, identify and evaluate instrument procedure design factors leading to flight 

crew error in RNAV departures and arrivals. 

	 Conduct human factors analytical techniques to recommend instrument procedure design guidance, and 

flight crew procedural and training approaches to mitigate flight crew errors related to characteristics of 

instrument procedures. 

	 Develop human factors guidance for procedure designers, including general human factors considerations, 

procedure naming conventions, and linkage of RNAV/RNP procedures to conventional procedures such as 

SIDs and STARs. 

	 Provide human factors recommendations for improved charting to enable complex NextGen operations using 

paper and electronic depictions of instrument procedures and related NAS navigation infrastructure, such as 

NRS waypoints, Q routes, T routes, and Taxi routes. 

The program continued to assess human system integration issues in use of airborne NextGen concepts, capabilities, 

and procedures, and Air Traffic Management (ATM) leading to a full mission simulation in 2019. Research priorities 

address the implementation of RTCA NextGen Task Force recommendations as described in the NextGen 

Implementation Plan. Research continued to enable enhanced aircraft spacing for surface movements in low visibility 

conditions guided by enhanced and synthetic vision systems, as well as cockpit displays of aircraft and ground 

vehicles and associated procedures. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-82 
 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

2. What Is This Program? 

The NextGen – Self-Separation Human Factors Program supports the DOT Safety Strategic Goal and 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. 

Research goals include: 

	 Evaluating and developing recommendations for operational credit for advanced vision technologies. 

Because today's scheduling is based on VFR conditions, capacity is significantly reduced with IFR conditions. 

EFVS and SVS can reduce the impact of weather on the national air transportation system by providing 

additional information to the pilot despite deteriorated weather/visibility conditions. Human factors research 

will enable recommendations for policy and rulemaking leading to greater operational credit with low 

minimums, in direct alignment with the goal of increasing capacity within the national air transportation 

system. 

	 Recommending air traffic and flight deck procedures which apply ADS-B technology with CDTI displays to 

increase safety and efficient operations in high density airspace. ADS-B is a new technology on which the 

FAA has had very little human factors guidance in the Advisory Circulars and Technical Standard Orders. 

Although a rule has been issued for ADS-B out, very large gaps exist in regulations, guidance, and standards 

regarding how ADS-B will be used. CDTI-based applications continue to be developed at a rapid pace, yet 

these applications have very little or no human factors research behind them. By addressing human factors 

issues, this research will generate guidance that will help prevent unsafe displays of traffic information and 

help prevent unsafe operational use of these displays, so that the intended safety benefits of ADS-B can be 

realized. 

	 Developing requirements for better depiction of instrument procedures. Research is needed to produce a 

set of human factors guidelines for design of instrument procedures and associated charts that are usable 

and flyable by appropriately qualified pilots without being susceptible to making errors. The guidelines 

should address known difficulties with use of instrument procedures, and also address future instrument 

procedure requirements. Research results inform regulatory guidance and orders such as FAA Order 8260.3 

(TERPS) and associated guidance material for flight checking and operational approval documents (AC 90­

100 and AC 90-101), and charting guidelines. 

Program partnerships include researchers who work directly with colleagues in FAA, other government agencies, 

academia, and industry to support the following R&D programs and initiatives: 

	 NASA’s Aviation Safety and Airspace Programs 

	 Close collaboration with FAA organizations, notably Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification in the Aviation 

Safety (AVS) line of business 

	 FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – representatives from industry, 

academia, and other government agencies annually review the activities of the program and provide advice 

on priorities and budget 

The NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors Program collaborates with industry and other government programs 

through: 

	 Collaborative research with NASA on its aviation safety and airspace projects including the identification of 

human factors research issues in the NextGen as technology brings changes to aircraft capabilities 

	 Coordination on research issues and plans with aircraft and avionics manufacturers and operators. 

	 Coordination with appropriate RTCA Committees, e.g., Airborne Separation Assurance System 

Research, Engineering and Development A-83 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Surface/Runway Operations Awareness 

	 Conducted research to evaluate the effects of Enhanced Flight Visibility System (EFVS) Head-Up Display 

(HUD) clutter and masking on detection of potential ground conflicts during taxi operations across a range 

of visibility and lighting conditions and develop recommended mitigations. 

	 Initiated research to evaluate and recommend display methods to ensure pilot awareness of selected 

operating modes of Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI), including research to assess manual and 

automatic methods of transitioning between CDTI display of ground and air traffic for both takeoff and 

landing operations. 

	 Conducted research to provide and evaluate alternatives and recommend minimum acceptable cockpit 

display method(s), alerts, and operational procedures to mitigate the effects of position uncertainty when 

degraded positioning information or other system failures introduce position uncertainty in closely-coupled 

all-weather ground operations. 

Reduced Separation 

	 Conducted initial research to evaluate the impact and potential risks associated with use of Traffic Alert and 

Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) in NextGen procedures. 

	 For near to mid-term NextGen reduced separation operations, initiated research to develop and evaluate 

recommendations for pilot/controller phraseology for clearances, instructions and effective communication 

of degraded systems and residual capabilities as well as transitions to and from NextGen unique airspace 

and procedures. For closely spaced parallel approach operations, this included abandoning a closely-spaced 

parallel approach when a blunder or Mode C intruder is detected or in the event of abnormal situations 

(system malfunction, weather, etc.). 

Delegated Separation 

	 Initiated research to evaluate Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)/CDTI displays and 

procedures in a robust evaluation of merging and spacing operations for a range of controller-specified 

spacing and a variety of aircraft (not all same carrier or aircraft type). 

	 Continued research to evaluate and recommend procedures, equipage and training to safely conduct 

oceanic and en route pair-wise delegated separation. 

Cross-cutting 

	 For proposed delegated separation procedures and equipment, continued research to support development 

of training guidance for NextGen applications and technologies. 

	 Continued research to develop risk and error management strategies to identify and mitigate human-system 

errors. 

	 Initiated research to develop recommendations for location and grouping of NextGen related displays 

relative to the primary field of view. 

Research will support the development of standards, procedures, training, policy, and other guidance material 

required to implement the NextGen operational improvements leading to enhanced aircraft spacing and separation 

including improved awareness of surface/runway operations, reduced separation, and delegated separation. The 

goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 By 2016, complete research to enable enhanced aircraft spacing for surface movements in low visibility 

conditions guided by enhanced and synthetic vision systems, as well as cockpit displays of aircraft and 

ground vehicles and associated procedures. 

- By 2013, evaluate approach decision heights and recommend certification and regulatory changes to 

allow EFVS and SVS operational credit consistent with human performance factors. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-84 
 

 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

- By 2015, 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 and provide human factors guidance to reduce arrival and departure spacing 

including variable separation in a mixed equipage environment. 

- By 2014, complete initial research to provide recommended guidance for design of cockpit displays and 

alerts to support delegated separation. 

- By 2015, complete research to identify likely human error modes and recommend mitigation strategies 

in closely spaced arrival/departure routings, including closely spaced parallel operations. 

- By 2016, enable reduced and delegated separation in oceanic airspace and en route corridors. 

	 By 2015, develop a repository of NextGen human factors data containing research roadmaps, results, and 

data from relevant ongoing and historical research, demonstrations and operational experience to provide a 

foundation for flight deck human factors research to support policy decisions, standards development, 

certification and approval to enable NextGen operational improvements, and to ensure the future system 

adequately considers human systems integration issues. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

NextGen involves implementation of new complex systems and flight crew procedures. FAA’s Aviation Safety mission 

dictates that we ensure those systems are reliable and safe, even when they fail, and that we address the 

operational aspects of these systems. The NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors Program supports the FAA 

Aviation Safety Team’s certification and operational approval processes and also provides tools to address flight crew 

procedures, maintenance procedures, training development, and continuous safety monitoring. Specific human 

factors research activities in this R&D program address NextGen procedures such as area navigation (RNAV) and 

required navigation performance (RNP), and NextGen capabilities such as those derived from the use of Automatic 

Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) as a surveillance source and to broadcast aeronautical information. 

RNAV/RNP procedures provide new arrival and departure routes, and become more effective with performance-based 

Air Traffic Management capabilities such as time-based metering and the adoption of ATC digital communication that 

can dynamically define those procedures. With new ADS-B technologies, users will be provided cockpit-based 

surveillance and near real-time access to aeronautical flight information. In the near term, user situational 

awareness in both visual meteorological conditions and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) will be enhanced. 

Flight crews on the airport surface and aloft will have the capability to detect conflicts or hazards created by aircraft, 

obstacles, weather areas, airspace restrictions, and airport surface vehicles. In the long-term end-state environment, 

select spacing, sequencing, and separation tasks may be performed by qualified and certified aircrews/aircraft within 

defined criteria and/or in designated situations or areas. An example of a key ADS-B initiative is the development of 

standards supporting Closely Spaced Parallel Operations (CSPO). The NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors 

Program supports studies on simultaneous independent approaches to parallel runways to investigate potential 

reductions of runway separation standards. By completing the standards and obtaining agreement with the 

operators on a timeframe for their equipage, airports will likely be able to increase capacity and have greater design 

flexibility as they plan for new runways. 

The NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors Program includes critical work to ensure flight deck controls, displays, 

alerts, and procedures that are implemented to achieve the NextGen capabilities related to RNAV/RNP procedures 

and ADS-B technologies are compatible with flight crew capabilities and limitations. Specific research plans are 

developed in coordination with FAA stakeholders including those in the Aviation Safety (AVS) line of business (Aircraft 

Certification Service and Flight Standards Service), and ATO program offices such as Data Communications, 

Surveillance and Broadcast Services, and other offices within the NextGen and Operations Planning (AJP) 

organization. This research provides the foundation for guidelines, handbooks, advisory circulars, rules, and 

regulations that help ensure the safety and efficiency of NextGen aircraft operations. Initiatives span assessments of 

new information requirements to allow pilots to safely maintain aircraft separation, especially during low visibility 

ground operations, and transition of integrated air and ground capabilities to ensure interoperability with baseline 

systems and refinement of procedures to ensure efficient separation and mitigate potential automation surprises. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-85 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The NextGen - Self-Separation Human Factors products inform and support critical NextGen technologies and 

applications. For example, NASA completed a human factors analysis of the Navigation Reference System (NRS) 

waypoint nomenclature identified a number of critical human factors issues that are being addressed to minimize 

error potential in NextGen 4D trajectory operations. The program is reviewed and evaluated by the Research, 

Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), and in particular the Human Factors subcommittee. 

The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the 

program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to 

national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development 

program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure 

a high quality R,E&D program. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

This work allows crews of ADS-B-In – equipped aircraft to efficiently use the ADS-B-In data in flight operations 

involving multiple applications and modes of CDTI, and enhanced vision operations in lower visibility conditions than 

were previously possible. Reduction in funding would defer until FY 2014 the planned FY 2013 completion of 

development of guidance to support Aircraft Certification Service personnel to develop minimum requirements for 

new and modified flight deck designs to incorporate NextGen displays such as ADS-B/CDTI, Data Communications, 

and Synthetic and Enhanced Vision Systems. Reduction in funding would also defer achievement of operational 

capabilities to apply these technologies in high density and low visibility environments by one year. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-86 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A12.e NextGen – Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A12.e NextGen - Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit $2,507,000 $8,000,000 $4,826,000 -$3,174,000 

For FY 2013, $4,826,000 is requested for NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC). Major activities and 

accomplishments planned include: 

 Development of Functional Requirements for integrating meteorological (MET) information into the cockpit 

based on the WTIC ConOps and User Needs studies. 

 Perform feasibility study and initial benefits identification of exchanging weather radar between aircraft. 

 Methodology for translating meteorological (MET) information into Weather Avoidance Fields and the 

integration of the translated information into the cockpit. 

 Develop user needs and functional requirements for integrating and presenting observation data. 

 Perform initial flight demonstrations with real time uplinked presentations of cloud tops and turbulence. 

 Perform Human in the loop (HITL) verification of MET symbology set developed by SAE G-10. 

 Support RTCA Special Committee 206 development of a MASPS. 

 Complete research on Wind Diagnosis and Forecasting requirements to support TBO in the terminal area 

and FMS optimized profiles. 

2. What Is This Program? 

Weather-related goals of NextGen include reducing weather delays via increasing capacity and efficiency under 

adverse weather conditions, enhancing Air Traffic Management (ATM) and aircraft re-routing flexibility to avoid 

adverse weather, reducing the number of weather-related accidents and incidents, and reduction of emissions 

through lower fuel consumption resulting from optimized routing and rerouting during adverse weather. To support 

NextGen in realizing these goals, the overall objective of the NextGen - WTIC Program is to enable availability and 

enhance the quality and quantity of MET information available to the aircraft to enhance safety and efficiency in 

commercial, business, and general aviation operations. 

The specific goals of the WTIC Program are: 

	 Reduce Pilot/Flight Crew/ATM workloads to support efforts to increase NAS capacity. 

	 Support NextGen and other near/mid/far term programs needs for the availability of enhanced MET 

information. 

	 Eliminate MET information gaps and meet user needs. 

	 Make more efficient use of existing data link bandwidth. 

	 Reduce ambiguity in transmitted MET information. 

	 Support increased efficiency via timelier decisions in adverse weather, and more optimum routes from 

enhanced wind and temperature information. 

	 Reduce the likelihood of recurrence of specific weather-related incidents including those reported in the 

Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) as well as other safety reporting systems. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-87 
 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

WTIC addresses the need to enable better weather decision making and use of MET information in the transformed 

NAS. This includes integrating MET information tailored for decision support tools and systems into NextGen 

operations. The project will research the best weather technology to bring MET information into the cockpit and MET 

information from the cockpit to the ground and cross linked to local aircraft. The project will define the necessary 

MET information and its presentation to safely and efficiently incorporate it into collaborative decision making relative 

to adverse weather decisions. It also establishes standards for a “common weather picture” to establish common 

situational awareness between pilots, controllers, air traffic managers, local aircraft, etc. The project will define 

Human Factors guidance for effective rendering of MET information to pilots, define required pilot training, and it will 

use RTCA SC206, SC214, SC223 and SAE G10 to further the project objectives. WTIC will also enhance the global 

harmonization of MET and Aeronautical Information (AIM) data links and provide recommended guidance for more 

efficient use of existing data link bandwidth. Through the efficient use of data links, the project will provide a 

reply/request and contract capability. These data link capabilities enable benefits of increased NAS efficiency and 

capacity via fewer flight diversions by reducing dependency on voice and paper MET information, timelier decisions in 

adverse weather, and more optimum routes from enhanced MET information in the cockpit. 

Initial WTIC research evaluated the overarching NextGen ConOps and requirements for NextGen MET integration on 

the flight deck and it identified the current capabilities to meet NextGen requirements. WTIC is currently evaluating 

planned and funded development of new weather support capabilities and the gaps between NextGen requirements 

and these developing capabilities. Since WTIC requires data links to support the dissemination of MET information to 

users in various coverage environments, the program is researching required data link capability for bandwidth, 

security, quality of service, and reliability. Based on the results of WTIC research, the program will develop 

functional and performance requirements for cockpit integration of MET information, guidance on the rendering of 

MET information in the cockpit, and recommended data link architectures for uplinking, downlinking, and cross 

linking MET information. 

In addition, the WTIC human factors (HF) research will enable the development of the human performance, 

technology design, and human-computer interaction requirements and standards to enable safe, efficient, and costeffective operations and training. The HF research will attempt to identify shortcomings in current capabilities in 

order to focus weather technology advancements to optimize the safety and efficiency for Parts 91, 135, and 121 

operators. 

The information management and the HF research deliverables will enable the development of Air Circulars and 

Orders for NextGen training, symbology, and information standards; support the development of aircraft certification 

standards for Minimum Aviation Safety Performance Standards (MASPS), Minimum Operations Standards (MOPS), 

and Technical Standard Orders (TSO) to support development, operations, and procedures for weather technologies 

in the cockpit. In addition, the WTIC program research will support the development of the communications 

information management to include storage and retrieval requirements and standards to acquire MET information 

from commercial and government provided graphical and textual databases. 

By 2015, WTIC will demonstrate that technology and automation, combined with policy, procedures, and regulatory 

oversight, enables NextGen to meet the weather-related goals listed at the beginning of this section. Demonstrations 

will show the technology and automation used in the cockpit provides pilots and aircrews with safe and efficient 

routes and re-routes for aircraft traversing areas impacted by adverse weather conditions. 

The germane characteristics of the technology defined in the NextGen Concept of Operations (ConOps) are that it 

assists collaborative decision-making (pilot, controller, ATM, etc.), leverages both human and automation capabilities, 

and integrates weather data and information with other necessary operational information to provide decision 

support and increase situational awareness. In the near term, this technology will be implemented as machine-tohuman interface requiring human analysis and processing of visual presentations. In the far term, it will migrate to 

automated processing via machine-to-machine interfaces between ground-based and aircraft systems. As a result, 

the NextGen ConOps differs dramatically from current operations regarding weather procedures. 

The NextGen - WTIC Program works with FAA organizations, other government agencies, and industry groups to 

ensure its priorities and plans are consistent with user needs. This is accomplished through: 

	 Guidance from the Joint Planning and Development Office NextGen initiative through involvement in the 

Aircraft, Weather, and Integration Working Groups 

Research, Engineering and Development A-88 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

 

 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Inputs from the aviation community, including weather information providers, technology providers (e.g., 

avionics manufacturers, etc.), and simulator training centers (e.g., Flight Safety, etc.) 

	 The annual National Business Aviation Association conference, the Friends/Partners in Aviation Weather 

Forum, scheduled public user group meetings, and domestic and international aviation industry partners 

	 Subcommittees of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee – representatives 

from industry, academia, and other government agencies annually review program activity, progress, and 

plans 

	 Various RTCA Special Committees, including SC-206, and SAE G-10 subcommittees 

The WTIC program leverages research activities with members of other government agencies, academia, and the 

private sector through interagency agreements, university grants, and Memoranda of Agreement. Partnerships 

include: 

 National Center for Atmospheric Research 

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley and Glenn Research Centers 

 Public and private universities 

 Center for General Aviation Research 

 Initiatives with airlines, pilots, and manufacturers 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

 Developed WTIC ConOps for Part 121 and 135, and GA aircraft. 

 Developed capability to efficiently disseminate turbulence products to the flight deck. 

 Evaluated the usefulness of an in-flight display of uplinked satellite-based product that outlines the 30kft 

and 40kft convective cloud top heights in a two-hour look-ahead display focused on the aircraft position and 

flight direction for Pacific Ocean transoceanic flights between California and Australia. 

 Demonstrated and assessed the usefulness of the uplinking turbulence eddy dissipation rates (EDR) to the 

flight deck. 

 Benefits analyses of in situ turbulence observations, downlinking turbulence data to enhance ground based 

models, and uplinking turbulence data to enhance cockpit situational awareness. 

 Research and analysis of needs and use of portable devices and observation data. 

 Assessed improvements in situational awareness of Multiple Radar Multiple Sensor (MRMS) application in 

cockpits and aircraft inputs to MRMS. 

 Researched pilot decision making in the cockpit using probabilistic weather forecasts and demonstrations 

with convective weather products integrated into the laboratory simulator. 

 Completed initial report of Part 121 User Needs Study to identify use of MET information in the cockpit 

today and planned use in the future. 

 Supported RTCA SC206 to develop architecture and minimal aviation system performance standards for 

datalink weather products. 

 Researched impact of weather on wake turbulence and wake dissipation. 

 Simulated and validated data-linked bandwidth, quality of service, security, and latency standards 

requirements for disseminating graphical turbulence and icing products to the cockpit. 

The NextGen - WTIC Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Economic Competitiveness by creating a 

competitive air transportation system which is responsive to customer needs through NAS on-time arrivals. 

Research will enable the development of policy, standards, and guidance needed to safely implement weather 

technologies in the cockpit to provide shared situational awareness and shared responsibilities. The research goals 

are: 

Research, Engineering and Development A-89 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 By FY 2013, develop MET symbology set (SAE G-10). 

	 By FY 2013, identify human factors interfaces and automated prototype weather information integration 

modules for flight deck technologies (e.g., FMS, EFB, etc.). 

	 By FY2013, complete CALLBACKS and analysis of 100 weather-related incident reports in the Aviation Safety 

Reporting System (ASRS). 

	 By FY 2014, simulate and verify cockpit use of data-linked weather decision support tools, including 

probabilistic forecasts. 

	 By FY 2014, develop guidance standards for airmen training and evaluation criteria for the use of 

probabilistic forecast products and pilot decision making support tools. 

	 By FY 2014, demonstrate the ability to uplink wind information to the FMS. 

	 By FY 2015, developed recommended datalink architecture to support uplink, downlink, and cross link of 

MET information to provide common situational awareness and to support the MET information needs of 

related systems and NextGen activities. 

	 By FY 2015, flight demonstration to evaluate the integration of four dimension flight path information 

including data-linked meteorological information into cockpit decision-making and shared situational 

awareness among pilots and dispatchers supported by NextGen air and ground capabilities. 

	 By FY 2016, demonstrate capability to disseminate winds and other MET information from the 4D Weather 

Cube to the cockpit. 

	 BY FY 2017, identify guidelines, technology, and procedures for secure on-demand interactive NAS demand 

weather information services. 

	 By FY 2018, demonstrate dissemination of weather radar data over aircraft MET-network. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Weather has been identified as a causal factor for 70 percent of delays and 20 percent of accidents as cited in “The 

Mission Need Statement for Aviation Weather (#339)”. Having access to more MET information in the cockpit does 

not necessarily translate into better pilot decision-making and performance. Although technologically advanced 

graphical weather information products have entered the GA market in the recent decade, the percentage of 

accidents that have an attributed cause due to weather or weather-related pilot error have remained fairly stable 

(NTSB, 2006, 2008, 2009). The WTIC program plans to research why the introduction of state-of-the-art weather 

information products has not dramatically improved the safety of GA operations concerning weather. 

The WTIC Program research will enable the adoption of cockpit, ground, and communication technologies, practices, 

and procedures that will enhance situational awareness. WTIC is necessary to address the lack of MET information 

standardization since it results in potential safety concerns and a lack of common situational awareness. The lack of 

standardized MET information and standardized presentation of MET data results in susceptibility to misinterpretation 

of information and ambiguities. 

WTIC is also necessary to research improvements to address a NTSB safety alert related to thunderstorm 

encounters. In this alert, the NTSB stated that investigations of recent GA aircraft weather-related accidents 

revealed that aircraft were in contact with ATM, pilots were either not advised or were misinformed about adverse 

weather conditions, and that the pilots had alternatives available that would have likely averted the accidents. The 

implication of this alert is that verbalizing a ground MET display to a pilot is difficult. A goal of WTIC is resolve this 

performance gap. 

WTIC is necessary to reduce the use of paper by Part 121 aircraft since it printed text is not conducive to decision 

making in the cockpit. In addition, the printed text typically contains extraneous MET information and latencies that 

can make it difficult to interpret. 

Other sources of MET information, such as FIS-B, are not suited for inflight pilot decision making due to latencies, a 

lack of resolution, and susceptibility to misinterpretation since the data presented is not temporally or spatially 

Research, Engineering and Development A-90 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

tailored to specific aircraft. In addition, FIS-B does not replace printed text or voice since it is not intended for 

primary use. 

Finally, WTIC is necessary for global harmonization of AIS/MET datalinks. WTIC will perform research to resolve 

datalink limitations outside the NAS and incorporating the aircraft was a node in the MET network. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in the WTIC FY 2013 total funding will impact at least 14 NextGen Enterprise Architecture (EA) 

Operational Improvements (OIs) that are linked to four different NextGen Solution Sets. WTIC research is a key 

element to successfully implementing these 14 OIs, and potentially other OIs. If WTIC is not funded to the 

requested level, the program will have to reduce the scope of its goals and objectives resulting in incomplete or 

insufficient research inputs to the OIs supported by the program. 

In addition, a reduction in WTIC FY 2013 funding will put at risk the benefits of already completed research to 

support the dissemination of safety critical inflight icing and graphical turbulence products since the required followon evaluations to develop the standards is substantial and would not be effective if partially funded. 

One of the main goals of the WTIC program is to provide for a common MET situational awareness between the air 

and ground. A reduction in funding and the resulting reduction in program scope and goals could result in a 

divergence of MET situational awareness that may prove to be more costly in the future. 

In many cases, WTIC research cannot adequately provide required research on schedule to supported Solution Sets 

if the research is delayed or not fully funded. Many of the WTIC efforts include flight and laboratory demonstrations 

and proof of concepts that are not conducive to incremental or partial funding. Since WTIC is a centralized program 

that researches capabilities to provide MET information to the cockpit, the inability of WTIC to successfully complete 

efforts on time could result in decentralized projects. A decentralization of the research could result in duplicative 

research efforts being conducted by the various supported Solution Sets to meet their schedule needs thus resulting 

in higher total costs to NextGen. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-91 
 

 

 

 

 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A13.a Environment and Energy 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Environment and Energy 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A13.a Environment and Energy $15,074,000 $15,074,000 $14,776,000 -$298,000 

For FY 2013, $14,776,000 is requested for Environment and Energy. Major activities and accomplishments planned 

include: 

Noise and Emissions Analyses and Interrelationships 

 Evaluate and expand model architecture for noise, emissions and fuel burn modules interfaces. 

 Evaluate and validate methodologies used in environmental analysis tools for noise exposure, and aviation 

emissions and their impact on air quality. 

 Forecast future global aircraft emissions and noise. 

 Expand environmental analysis capability of AEDT, APMT and EDS. 

 Harmonize AEDT, APMT and EDS databases and integrate cost and socioeconomic data. 

 Evaluate AEDT for its public release in 2014. 

 Perform integrated noise and emissions impacts analysis. 

Aircraft Noise 

 Assess technological and scientific basis to support future ICAO aircraft stringent noise standards. 

 Develop alternative, simplified aircraft noise certification test procedures and related implementation 

guidance materials. 

 Assess land use practices and investigate mitigation strategies beyond 65 dB DNL. 

 Develop noise modeling capability for all phases of aircraft operations. 

 Develop protocols to acquire noise exposure data for noise effects field studies. 

 Conduct pilot studies to develop relationships between noise exposure and health and welfare impacts. 

 Investigate metrics for noise exposure from non-conventional open rotor and supersonic aircraft. 

 Update noise research roadmap. 

Aircraft Emissions 

 Assess technological and scientific basis to support future ICAO aircraft and engine emissions standards. 

 Develop alternative, simplified engine exhaust emissions certification test procedures and related 

implementation guidance materials. 

 Develop measurement/sampling protocol and expand database for aircraft engine emissions. 

 Validate modeling capability for dispersion of chemically reactive aircraft plume. 

 Develop methodologies to quantify and assess the impact of aircraft emissions on climate. 

 Assess air quality and health impacts due to full flight emissions. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-92 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Use data directly measured from aircraft Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and PM emissions to replace, to 

the extent possible, approximation methods and factors used in modeling tools. 

In FY 2013, the Energy and Environment Program will continue to focus on multiple fronts to support the Flight Plan 

goals of Greater Capacity and International Leadership. These include (1) development, harmonization of module 

and databases and integrated noise and emissions as well as cost-benefit analyses using aviation environmental suite 

of tools (AEDT, EDS and APMT); (2) advance science and develop metrics to characterize aviation noise and 

emissions at the source level, their dispersion as well as environmental, health and welfare impacts; and (3) update, 

simplify and harmonize procedures and technical guidance for aircraft noise and emissions certification of aircraft. 

2. What Is This Program? 

The program is developing and validating methodologies, models, metrics, and tools to characterize, assess and 

mitigate the effects of aircraft noise and aviation emissions in a manner that balances the interrelationships between 

emissions and noise and considers economic consequences. It is also developing computer models and impact 

criteria for use by civil aviation authorities in assessing proposed actions. Researchers are also developing a better 

science-based understanding and characterization of the impacts of aircraft noise and aviation emissions. 

The Environment and Energy (E&E) Program helps achieve FAA’s environmental compatibility goal and supports the 

FAA Flight Plan. The program also provides fundamental knowledge and tools to support the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen) research and development plan. The efforts complement activities in aircraft 

technology, alternative fuels, and efficient operations based mitigation solutions, environmental operational 

assessments, and environmental management systems development under NextGen investments. 

The program specifically supports the following outcomes: 

	 The Flight Plan Noise Exposure Performance Target to reduce the number of people exposed to significant 

noise by four percent compounded annually through FY 2014 from the calendar year 2005 

	 The Flight Plan Aviation Fuel Efficiency Performance Target to improve aviation fuel efficiency by one 

percent per year through FY 2014 to 12 percent, as measured by a 3-year moving average of the fuel 

burned per revenue mile flown, from the 3-year average for calendar years 2000-2002. FY 2013 Target is 

11 percent. 

Specific activities include: 

	 Conducting research and develop analytical tools to understand better the relationship between noise and 

emissions and different types of emissions, and to provide the cost-benefit analysis capability necessary for 

data-driven decision-making 

	 Leveraging a broad cross-section of stakeholders through the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and 

Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) Center of Excellence (COE) to foster breakthrough scientific, operations, 

policy, and work force advances to mitigate noise and emissions impacts 

	 Minimizing the impact of aircraft noise – actions include: advancing the state of science/knowledge 

concerning effects of aircraft noise and emissions; and assessing the need to refine noise and emissions 

impact criteria and metrics; and improving operational procedures and technical guidance for aircraft noise 

and emissions certification standards 

The Flight Plan International targets to foster international environmental standards, recommended practices, and 

guidance material that are technically feasible and economically reasonable to provide a measurable environmental 

benefit while taking interdependencies between noise and emissions into account. Specific activities include: 

	 Working with the international aviation community to reduce aircraft noise and emissions 

	 Improving aircraft noise and engine exhaust emissions certification standards and operational procedures 

	 Promoting compatible land use 

	 Characterizing the benefits of abatement measures to reduce population impacted by aircraft noise and 

analyzing measures to improve fuel efficiency and reduce aviation emissions, and the potential to reduce 

health and climate impacts 

Research, Engineering and Development A-93 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 Assessing the interrelationships and tradeoffs between measures to reduce aircraft noise and engine 

exhaust emissions 

The program also contributes to providing the foundation for the NextGen investments that help achieve and manage 

the NextGen goal to promote environmental stewardship by reducing significant community noise and air quality 

emissions impacts in absolute terms, limiting or reducing the impact of aviation greenhouse gas emissions on global 

climate, and balancing aviation’s environmental impact with other societal objectives. Specific activities include: 

	 Developing fundamental knowledge to aid in better science-based understanding of impacts of aircraft noise 

and aviation emissions on air quality and climate change to enable the NextGen goal of sustained aviation 

growth by 2025, while reducing significant community noise and air quality emissions in absolute terms 

	 Achieving carbon neutral growth by 2020 relative to aviation CO2 emissions in year 2005 as the base year 

	 Developing tools to assess the ability of technologies for airframes, more efficient engines, advanced 

propulsion concepts, new fuels, new materials, market-based options, environmental standards and policies 

to reduce source noise and emissions 

FAA works closely with other federal agencies (including NextGen Joint Planning and Development Office 

Environmental Working Group or JPDO/EWG), industry, academia, and international governments and organizations 

(e.g. ICAO/CAEP, International Civil Aviation Organization/Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection) to design 

research and development (R&D) efforts that can mitigate the environmental impact of aviation. This unified 

regulatory approach to research identifies and influences technologies, models, regulations, certification criteria, and 

policies that can improve our present and future global environment. 

The E&E program activities are closely coordinated with support from industry and federal agencies. FAA signed a 

series of Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with NASA and DOD to understand and mitigate aviation noise and 

emissions. FAA is also pursuing collaborative agreements with the Department of Energy and EPA to leverage 

resources to address aviation’s environmental impact. A number of E&E projects are executed by a consortium of 

PARTNER (Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction — is a leading aviation cooperative 

research organization, and an FAA/NASA/Transport Canada-sponsored Center of Excellence) universities. The Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center continues to provide substantial technical assistance in the areas of aircraft 

noise and engine emissions measurement and assessment. 

The E&E program supports the JPDO/EWG comprising FAA, NASA, EPA, DoD, DOC, Council on Environmental Quality, 

and OST, as well as industry, academia, local government, and community groups. The EWG is pursuing an 

intensive, balanced approach, emphasizing alignment across stakeholders in developing needed business and 

technology architectures and policy options and approaches, as well as other relevant tools, metrics, and products to 

address aviation’s environmental impact. FAA is working closely with FICAN (Federal Interagency Committee on 

Aviation Noise) to better understand, predict and control the effects of aviation noise. 

FICAN also offers a forum for partnership, as it comprises all federal agencies concerned with aviation noise. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Noise and Emissions Analyses and Interrelationships 

	 Completed annual assessment of noise exposure and fuel burn. 

	 Developed integrated architecture for noise and emissions modules communications. 

	 Developed model for assessing global exposure to noise from transport aircraft. 

	 Validated methodologies used to assess aviation noise exposure and impacts as well as emissions and their 

impacts on air quality and climate change. 

	 Developed guidance document for estimating and reducing emissions from airport ground-support 

equipment. 

	 Continued integration and harmonization of databases across tools and code management protocols. 

	 Continued upgrades to and assessment of Environmental Design Space Tool (EDS), and Aviation Portfolio 

Management Tool (APMT) models and use these models for integrated noise and emissions analyses, costbenefit analyses and to support the CAEP work program. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-94 
 

	 

 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

 Enhanced a preliminary planning version of Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) for integrated 

assessment of noise, emissions and fuel burn inventories at the local, regional, and global levels. 

 Developed methodology for use in AEDT to analyze open rotor aircraft noise and tradeoffs. 

Aircraft Noise 

	 Continued to update and/or develop, as well as publish procedures and technical guidance for noise 

certification of aircraft (transport category and subsonic jet airplanes that are both harmonized 

internationally and simplified. 

 Assessed land use practices and investigate mitigation strategies beyond 65 dB DNL. 

 Continued investigation of feasibility of more stringent international noise certification standards for 

transport category and subsonic jet airplanes. 

 Designed protocols for pilot studies to develop relationships between noise exposure and health and welfare 

impacts. 

 Advanced methodologies to model noise propagation and structural response for current and potential 

future unconventional aircraft configurations. 

 Investigated metrics for noise exposure from non-conventional open rotor and supersonic aircraft. 

 Advanced methodologies to incorporate potential health impacts of aircraft noise exposure within APMT. 

 Assessed potential global benefits of using newly developed noise-reduction technologies and identify 

technology goals for long-term reduction of aircraft noise. 

 Updated noise research roadmap. 

 With the Aviation Emissions activity, conducted two COE-focused sessions at a national and an international 

conference. 

 Published COE PARTNER research findings. 

Aircraft Emissions 

 Assessed technological and scientific basis to support future ICAO engine emission standards. 

 Advanced science-developed metrics and quantified uncertainties in assessment of regional and global 

climate impacts of aviation. 

 Advanced and exercised multiscale air quality analysis models for impacts of airport and full flight aircraft 

emissions. 

 Evaluated and published sampling, measurement and analyses techniques and procedures for aircraft 

emissions testing and certification that are both harmonized and simplified. 

 Developed measurement and sampling protocols and expanded databases for aviation emissions of 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and PM. 

 Validated modeling capability for dispersion of chemically reactive aircraft plume. 

 Applied methodologies to incorporate air quality and health impacts of aircraft emissions within APMT. 

 Assessed potential global benefits of using newly developed emissions-reduction technologies, and identified 

technology goals for long-term reduction of aircraft engine emissions and fuel burn. 

 With the Aircraft Noise activity, conducted two COE-focused sessions at a national and an international 

conference. 

 Published COE PARTNER research findings. 

The Environment and Energy Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Environmental Sustainability by reducing 

transportation related pollution and impact on eco systems through the mitigation of noise exposure. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-95 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

Noise and Emissions Analysis 

 By FY 2013, evaluate and expand model architecture for noise, emissions and fuel burn modules interfaces. 

 By FY 2013, evaluate and validate methodologies used in tools for noise exposure, and aviation emissions 

and their impact on air quality. 

 By FY 2013, forecast future global aircraft emissions and noise. 

 By FY 2013, expand environmental analysis capability of AEDT, APMT and EDS. 

 By FY 2013, harmonize AEDT, APMT and EDS databases and integrate cost and socioeconomic data. 

 By FY 2013, evaluate AEDT for its public release in 2014. 

 By FY 2013, perform integrated noise and emissions impacts analysis. 

Noise Characterization and Metrics 

 By FY 2013, assess technological and scientific basis to support future ICAO aircraft stringent noise 

standards. 

 By FY 2013, develop alternative, simplified aircraft noise certification test procedures and related 

implementation guidance materials. 

 By FY 2013, assess land use practices and investigate mitigation strategies beyond 65 dB DNL. 

 By FY 2013, develop noise modeling capability for all phases of aircraft operations. 

 By FY 2013, develop protocols to acquire noise exposure data for noise effects field studies, 

 By FY 2013, conduct pilot studies to develop relationships between noise exposure and health and welfare 

impacts. 

 By FY 2013, investigate metrics for noise exposure from non-conventional open rotor and supersonic 

aircraft. 

 By FY 2013, update noise research roadmap. 

Emissions Characterization and Metrics 

 By FY 2013, assess technological and scientific basis to support future ICAO aircraft and engine emissions 

standards. 

 By FY 2013, develop alternative, simplified engine exhaust emissions certification test procedures and 

related implementation guidance materials. 

 By FY 2013, develop measurement/sampling protocol and expand database for aircraft engine emissions. 

 By FY 2013, validate modeling capability for dispersion of chemically reactive aircraft plume. 

 By FY 2013, develop methodologies to quantify and assess the impact of aircraft emissions on climate. 

 By FY 2013, assess air quality and health impacts due to full flight emissions. 

 By FY 2013, use directly measured from aircraft Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and PM emissions data to 

replace, to the extent possible, approximation methods and factors used in modeling tools. 

 By FY 2014, enhance analytical capabilities of AEDT, APMT and EDS for integrated environmental analyses 

from aircraft to global domain. 

 By FY 2014, advance scientific understanding to characterize aircraft noise and emissions and associated 

risks. 

 By FY 2014, Assess technological and scientific basis to support future ICAO aircraft and engine emissions 

standards. 

 By FY 2014, Revise emissions certification test procedures and related implementation guidance materials. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-96 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

 By FY 2014, initiate development of simulation-based environmental models. 

 By FY 2015, advance capability for aviation noise; emissions; and fuel-burn-related, integrated-impact 

assessment. 

	 By FY 2015, initiate development of environmental models components to enable intermodal analyses. 

	 By FY 2015, demonstrate a first version of a simulation-based environmental model. 

	 By FY 2015, constrain uncertainties associated with aviation climate impacts, develop refined aviation 

climate impacts estimates and employ them for environmental cost-beneficial analyses. 

	 By FY 2015, advance multiscale air quality modeling capability for aviation health impacts and employ for 

environmental cost-benefit analyses. 

	 By FY 2015, advance characterization of aviation noise and related health and welfare impacts and employ 

for environmental cost-benefit analyses. 

	 By FY 2016, Advance scientific approaches and methodologies for improved integrated analysis of noise and 

emissions inventories and impacts. 

	 By FY 2017, enhance analytical capabilities of AEDT, APMT and EDS for integrated environmental analyses 

from aircraft level to global domain. 

	 By FY 2017, advance scientific understanding to characterize aircraft noise and emissions and associated 

environmental impacts and risks. 

	 By FY 2017, assess technological and scientific basis to support future ICAO aircraft and engine emissions 

standards. 

	 By FY 2017, revise emissions certification test procedures and related implementation guidance materials. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Despite the technological advancements achieved during the last forty years, aircraft noise still affects people living 

near airports, and aircraft emissions continue to be an issue, locally, regionally and globally. While energy efficiency 

and local environmental issues have traditionally been primary drivers of aeronautics innovation, the current and 

projected effects of aviation emissions on our global climate is a serious long-term environmental issue facing the 

aviation industry. Aside from their associated health and welfare impacts, aircraft noise and aviation emissions are a 

considerable challenge in terms of community acceptance of aviation activities and this challenge is anticipated to 

grow. Environmental impacts are often the number one cause of opposition to airport capacity expansion and 

airspace redesign. We must deal with these impacts to enable aviation to meet increased demand and operate with 

flexibility. 

To deal with aviation climate impacts entails an understanding and quantifying the potential environmental impacts 

of aviation to help policymakers address environmental health and welfare impacts associated with aviation. This 

research will ensure identifying the right issues, measuring their impact, and designing appropriate measures to 

mitigate their effects. In the 1990s, this research effort was focused on noise regulatory issue, and later on 

emissions. However, these were treated as separate subjects. In trying to assess health and welfare impacts, 

optimize energy efficiency and develop environmental mitigation strategies, it has become evident there are 

important interrelationships and potential trade-offs. Taking an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing energy 

efficiency and minimizing aviation environmental impacts by developing data, analytical tools, and models that 

characterize and quantify the interdependencies between energy use, aircraft noise and various air pollutant 

emissions is a key element of the way forward for this research program. The goal is a more complete 

understanding of the complex interdependencies that exist among aircraft noise, fuel burn and emissions required for 

designing and regulating aircraft. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

Research, Engineering and Development A-97 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction in funding to the Environment and Energy program would delay release of model capable of computing 

greenhouse gas emissions at airport level from six months to 18 months. This model is needed to address new 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for environmental assessments; absent this capability, projects to enhance 

capacity would be delayed. Budget reduction will also limit our understanding of source level aircraft noise and 

emissions as well as their impacts which will in turn compromise our ability to inform international standard settings 

for noise and emissions as well as development of environmental mitigation solutions. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-98 
 

 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A13.b NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A13.b NextGen – 

Environmental Research – 

Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, 

and Metrics 

$20,060,000 $23,500,000 $19,861,000 -$3,639,000 

For FY 2013, $19,861,000 is requested for NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics. Major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Technology Maturation 

 Perform system level assessment of CLEEN aircraft technologies. 

 Perform aircraft level noise and emissions reduction performance of CLEEN aircraft technologies. 

 Identify technical issues impacting commercialization of CLEEN technologies. 

 Perform detailed design review of system components and configurations. 

 Perform validation testing and analysis to verify technology performance and environmental impacts 

predictions. 

Alternative Turbine Fuels 

 Conduct fuel characterization testing and environmental assessments of additional “drop-in” renewable 

alternative fuels. 

 Conduct sustainability analysis of renewable fuels. 

 Assess mechanisms for increasing commercial use of aviation alternative fuels. 

 Initiate process for ASTM International approval of additional alternative fuel blends. 

Metrics, Goals and Targets 

 Refine and evaluate noise and emissions impacts metrics for use in NextGen environmental analysis. 

 Reduce key uncertainties in climate impacts of aviation. 

 Conduct evaluation of advanced analytical approaches for noise and emissions impacts assessment. 

 Refine intermediate targets towards meeting NextGen environmental goals performance targets for 

Destination 2025 and perform gap analysis. 

In FY 2013, the NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics Program will continue 

to advance system design, integration and testing of Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) aircraft 

technologies for accelerated progress towards flight demonstration and system-wide assessments. For alternative 

fuels, activities focused on safety, performance, and environmental assessments for qualification of renewable 

alternative fuels. Activities were also initiated to assess production capacity and fleet infusion for alternative fuels. 

On the Metrics, Targets and Goals front, activities continued to refine and evaluate metrics for NextGen 

environmental impacts, advance capability for and assessment of environmental noise, air quality and climate 

impacts. This also included improved climate impacts assessment under second phase of ACCRI activities. The work 

also continued to refine estimates of environmental targets and assess gaps towards meeting NextGen environmental 

goals. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-99 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

2. What Is This Program? 

The program is protecting the environment by reducing significant aviation environmental impacts associated with 

noise, exhaust emissions, and increasing energy efficiency and availability to enable mobility and scalable capacity 

growth. Collaborating with industry, the program will advance and mature engine and airframe technologies to 

reduce aviation noise, air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use. It will also provide data and 

methodologies to assess environmental sustainability including life-cycle environmental impact and support 

certification of alternative aviation fuels that could serve as drop-in replacements for today’s petroleum-derived 

turbine engine fuels. This will lead to faster deployment of these fuels, and accompanying reductions in greenhouse 

gas and aviation emissions that impact air quality. Ultimately, the program will demonstrate advanced technologies 

and alternative fuels in integrated ground and flight demonstrations. The program is also helping to achieve 

NextGen goals by improving metrics to define and measure significant aviation environmental impacts. The program 

will improve the fundamental understanding of aviation environmental health and welfare and climate impacts, and 

translate impact into improved metrics that can be used to better assess and mitigate aviation’s contribution. This 

program will identify the gaps in scientific knowledge to support NextGen; focus research in areas that will reduce 

key uncertainties to levels that allow action; and develop enhanced metrics to enable sound analyses. Ultimately, the 

program will enable the refinement of goals and targets to support the NextGen EMS to better manage and reduce 

aviation’s environmental impacts to enable mobility and scalable capacity growth. 

The NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics Program helps achieve NextGen 

goals to increase mobility by reducing environmental impacts of aviation in absolute terms, including significant 

community noise, air quality and global climate change. The program is focused on reducing current levels of aircraft 

noise, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use and advancing sustainable alternative aviation jet 

fuels. 

The Program specifically supports the following outcomes: 

Demonstrate aircraft and engine technologies that reduce noise and air quality and greenhouse gas emission at the 

source level, to a developmental level that will allow quicker industry uptake of these new environmental friendly 

technologies to produce a fleet that will operate more efficiently with less energy usage and permit expansion of 

airports and airspace capacity in a scalable manner consistent with the environmental goals of the NextGen plan. 

Specific activities include developing and demonstrating: 

	 Certifiable aircraft technology that reduces aircraft fuel burn by 33 percent compared to current technology, 

reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions. 

	 Certifiable engine technology that reduces landing-and-takeoff-cycle nitrogen-oxide emissions by 60 

percent, without increasing other gaseous or particle emissions, over the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) standard adopted at the sixth meeting of the ICAO Committee on Aviation 

Environmental Protection. 

	 Certifiable aircraft technology that reduces noise levels by 32 decibels at each of the three certification 

points, relative to Stage 4 standards. 

	 Determination of the extent to which new engine and aircraft technologies may be used to retrofit or reengine aircraft so as to increase the level of penetration into the commercial fleet. 

Demonstrate alternative fuels for aviation to reduce emissions affecting air quality and greenhouse gas emissions and 

increase energy supply security for NextGen. 

Specific activities include developing and demonstrating: 

	 The feasibility of the use of alternative fuels in aircraft systems, including favorable environmental 

qualification, successful demonstration and quantification of benefits and internationally agreed criteria to 

quantify relative carbon content. 

	 Processing capability and technical data to support certification and assured safety of a drop-in replacement 

for petroleum-derived turbine engine fuels. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-100 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Determine the appropriate enhancements of goals and metrics to manage NextGen aviation environmental impacts 

that are needed to support Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) and achieve environmental protection that 

enables sustained aviation growth. 

Specific activities include: 

	 Evaluate, establish, and implement advanced metrics to better assess and control noise, air quality impacts, 

and greenhouse gas emissions that may influence climate impacts from anticipated NextGen commercial 

aircraft operations. 

	 Evaluate and refine required technology and operational goals and targets to mitigate the environmental 

impact of NextGen and support NextGen EMS implementation. 

FAA works closely with other federal agencies (including NextGen Joint Planning and Development Office 

Environmental Working Group or JPDO/EWG and U.S. Global Change Research Program), industry, academia, and 

international governments, organizations (e.g. ICAO/CAEP, International Civil Aviation Organization/Committee on 

Aviation Environmental Protection) and coalitions (e.g. CAAFI, Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative) to 

design research and development (R&D) efforts that can mitigate the environmental impact of aviation and explore 

alternative gas turbine fuels. 

As does the Environment and Energy Research Program and other NextGen activities, the NextGen – Environmental 

Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics Program relies on a series of Memoranda of Agreement to work 

closely with NASA and DoD. FAA is also pursuing collaborative agreements with the Department of Energy, and EPA 

to leverage resources to address aviation’s environmental impact. 

Through the JPDO, the program supports the EWG comprising FAA, NASA, EPA, DoD, DOC, Council on Environmental 

Quality, and OST, as well as industry, academia, local government, and community groups. The EWG is pursuing an 

intensive, balanced approach, emphasizing alignment across stakeholders in developing needed business and 

technology architectures, as well as other relevant tools, metrics, and products to address aviation’s environmental 

impact. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Noise reduction, emissions and fuel burn reduction technology maturation 

	 Fabricated advanced aircraft component level flight test hardware. 

	 Integrated advanced low NOx combustor on engine demonstrator. 

	 Began integration of flight management system with air traffic management system for flight simulations of 

operational and environmental benefits. 

	 Conducted component level engine rig tests. 

	 Completed preliminary design review of advanced engine configuration for demonstration. 

	 Conducted engine tests of advanced turbine blades and ceramic matrix composite turbine blade tracks. 

Alternative Turbine Fuels 

	 Conducted fuel characterization testing of renewable alternative fuels. 

	 Conducted sustainability assessment of renewable alternative fuels. 

	 Conducted performance and environmental assessment of additional candidates for “drop-in” renewable 

alternative fuels. 

	 Assessed production capacity and impacts of commercial fleet infusion of aviation alternative fuels. 

	 Identified additional candidates for “drop-in” aviation alternative fuels. 

Metrics, Goals and Targets 

	 Evaluated noise and emissions impacts metrics for use in Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) environmental analysis. 

	 Performed integrated NextGen noise and emissions impacts analysis. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-101 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

 Assessed climate impacts of aviation climate impacts and underlying uncertainties. 

 Refined and assessed intermediate targets towards meeting NextGen environmental goals. 

The NextGen – Environmental Research – Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics program supports DOT strategic 

goal of environmental sustainability by increasing the use of environmentally sustainable practices in the 

transportation sector. Those practices will improve capital projects that include environmental management systems, 

context sensitive solutions, or use a sustainable transportation project evaluation to manage the environmental 

impacts of construction and operations. 

By FY 2017, complete design, fabrication and integration as well as system level analyses and testing of near-and 

mid-term CLEEN airframe and engine technologies to reduce noise, emissions, and fuel burn for civil subsonic jet 

aircraft; and initiate the second phase of CLEEN program. 

Airframe and engine technologies supporting milestones: 

 By FY 2013, perform system level tests and demonstrations of CLEEN aircraft technologies. 

 By FY 2013, perform aircraft level noise and emissions assessments of CLEEN aircraft technologies. 

 By FY 2013, identify technical issues impacting commercialization of CLEEN technologies. 

 By FY 2013, perform detailed design review of system components and configurations. 

 By FY 2013, perform validation testing and analysis to verify technology performance and environmental 

impacts predictions. 

 By FY 2014, characterize and test aircraft technologies for noise reduction.BY FY 2014, perform ground tests 

for advanced engine configurations. 

 By FY 2014, perform tests of advanced aircraft Flight Management System. 

 By FY 2014, develop plans for demonstration and environmental assessment of additional aircraft 

technologies in a potential second phase of CLEEN. 

 By FY 2015, perform tests and assessment for advanced engine and airframe configurations. 

 By FY 2015, conduct a market survey of additional aircraft technologies for a second phase of CLEEN. 

 By FY 2016, develop and issue a solicitation for a second phase of CLEEN to demonstrate and assess 

additional aircraft technologies that reduce fuel burn, emissions and noise. 

 By FY 2017, award cost share agreements with industry to demonstrate and assess additional aircraft 

technologies in a potential second phase to CLEEN. 

 By FY 2016, complete comprehensive assessment and research to support certification of drop-in and 

renewable alternative turbine engine fuels and develop implementation plan to foster implementation in the 

commercial fleet. 

Alternative fuels supporting milestones: 

 By FY 2013, conduct fuel characterization testing and environmental assessments of additional “drop-in” 

alternative fuels. 

 By FY 2013, conduct sustainability analysis of renewable fuels. 

 By FY 2013, assess mechanisms for increasing commercial use of aviation alternative fuels. 

 By FY 2013, initiate process for ASTM International approval of additional alternative fuel blends. 

 By FY 2014, conduct engine demonstrations for additional “drop-in” alternative fuels. 

 By FY 2014, complete environmental assessment of additional “drop-in” renewable alternative fuels. 

 By FY 2015, conduct flight test demonstrations for additional “drop-in” renewable alternative fuels. 

 By FY 2015, secure ASTM International approval of additional “drop-in” renewable alternative fuels. 

 By FY 2016, identify potential of non-drop-in fuels and develop plans for development and demonstration. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-102 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 By FY 2016, conduct initial feasibility study, including economic feasibility, environmental impacts, and 

assessment of potential for non-drop-in alternative aviation fuels. 

	 By FY 2017, initiate fuel characterization tests and assessments of a non-drop-in alternative aviation fuel. 

	 By FY 2017, investigate metrics, uncertainties on aviation emissions health and welfare and climate impact 

to facilitate NextGen EMS implementation. 

Metrics supporting milestones: 

 By F Y2013, refine and evaluate noise and emissions impacts metrics for use in NextGen environmental 

analysis. 

 By FY 2013, reduce key uncertainties in climate impacts of aviation. 

 By FY 2013, conduct evaluation of advanced analytical approaches for noise and emissions impacts 

assessment. 

 By FY 2013, refine intermediate targets towards meeting NextGen environmental goals performance targets 

for Destination 2025 and perform gap analysis. 

 By FY 2014, refine metrics that more accurately capture aviation emissions health and welfare and climate 

impact and goals to facilitate EMS implementation. 

 By FY 2014, refine estimates of interim NextGen environmental targets and perform gap analyses. 

 By FY 2014, complete second phase of ACCRI program with improved estimates of aviation climate impacts. 

 By FY 2015, continue refined assessment of aviation environmental, health, and climate impacts. 

 By FY 2015, complete an updated assessment of aviation environmental, health, and climate impacts. 

 By FY 2015, refine estimates of interim NextGen environmental targets and perform gap analyses. 

 By FY 2016, advance capabilities for integrated analysis for aviation noise and emissions impacts. 

 By FY 2016, develop improved estimates for targets and assess scenarios towards meeting the NextGen 

environmental goals. 

 By FY 2017, refine estimates of interim NextGen environmental targets and perform gap analyses. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Protecting the environment is at the heart of the NextGen plan. Ensuring energy availability and protecting the 

environment will be critical elements to enable the mobility (capacity and efficiency) our nation needs. The NextGen 

environmental strategy includes efforts to better understand the extent of the problem associated with aviation 

emissions and the development and fielding of new operational enhancements, aircraft and ATM technologies, 

alternative fuels, and policies to achieve near-term and long-term solutions. The NextGen Environment and Energy 

R&D program supports research to develop new aircraft technologies and sustainable fuels and to develop metrics to 

quantify NextGen’s environmental impacts and inform performance targets. 

The vast majority of improvements in environmental performance over the last three decades have come from 

enhancements in engine and airframe design. Although major contributors, improved technologies and air traffic 

management will not be enough to reduce aviation’s carbon dioxide (CO2) footprint. Sustainable alternative fuels 

with lower overall carbon foot prints are critical to reducing aviation’s climate impact in order to enable mobility. The 

main focus of this R&D effort is the CLEEN program. The CLEEN program is focused on reducing current levels of 

aircraft noise, emissions that degrade air quality, GHG emissions, and energy use, and it advances sustainable 

alternative fuels for aviation use. 

Embedded in energy and environmental issues are several scientific uncertainties concerning aviation energy issues 

and aviation environmental impacts, particularly on climate. There are large uncertainties in our present 

understanding of the magnitude of climate impacts due to aviation non-CO2 emissions. Understanding the relative 

impacts of different emission (including altitude emissions impacts on air quality) is vital for informing NextGen EMSs 

implementation. The ACCRI is an element of the R&D program focused on addressing these uncertainties. In 

addition, noise is the most immediately objectionable impact of aviation, and the impact demanding the most Federal 

Research, Engineering and Development A-103 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

resources (i.e., minimum AIP grant set aside of $300M annually). Research is outdated that underpins 

determinations of aircraft noise impacts, land use compatibility guidelines, and federally funded noise mitigation. 

New noise metrics research effort is needed to reflect public sensitivity and current air traffic conditions, guide 

mitigation funding and local land use planning near airports, and assure the U.S. response to aircraft noise keeps 

pace with NextGen needs and international efforts. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Any reduction in the requested budget will further slow our ability to mature aircraft technologies for reduction in 

noise, emissions and fuel burn, qualification of alternative fuels for commercial aviation as well as limit our efforts for 

analysis of environmental impacts and metrics including reduction in climate impacts uncertainties under ACCRI. 

Delay in advancing progress in these areas will further severely limit our ability to meet NextGen environmental 

goals, prepare for international negotiations and efforts for sustainable and secure supply of alternative sources of jet 

fuels. Finally, reduction in Environment and Energy specific NextGen R&D activities will cause delay in development 

of proven technology based environmental mitigation solutions which will result in billions of dollars of operational, 

human health, welfare and opportunity cost to government, industry and public. It will allow environmental concerns 

to become limiting factor and prevent us from full realization of expected NextGen benefits – which will eventually 

limit aviation growth. In other words, we will not be able to use full potential of ATM and NextGen capabilities 

without clean operating fleet that will allow environmental sustainability. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-104 
Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A14.a System Planning and Resource Management 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – System Planning and Resource Management 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A14.a System Planning and 

Resource Management $1,727,000 $1,717,000 $1,757,000 +$40,000 

For FY 2013, $1,757,000 is requested for System Planning and Resource Management. Major activities and 

accomplishments planned include: 

R,E&D Portfolio Development 

	 Prepare the FY 2015 R,E&D budget submission. 

	 Manage FAA’s R,E&D portfolio to meet efficiency goals. 

	 Obtain Research Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) recommendations on planned 

R,E&D investments for FY 2015. 

	 Support the REDAC in its preparation of other reports, as requested by the FAA. 

	 Deliver the 2013 National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) to the Congress with the President’s FY 2014 

Budget. 

Research Partnerships 

	 Coordinate R&D activities with internal and external partners. 

	 Conduct the 2013 U.S.A./Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar on NextGen and Single European Sky 

Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR). 

Performance Measurement 

	 Measure quality, timeliness, and value of international research collaboration. 

FAA will continue supporting the work of the REDAC in its task to advise the Administrator on the R&D program. In 

particular, it will seek the counsel and guidance of the committee for the FY 2015 program, review the proposed FY 

2015 program prior to submission of the budget requirements to the DOT, and seek the committee’s guidance during 

the execution of the R&D program. The agency will publish, as required by Congress, the NARP and submit it to 

Congress concurrent with the FY 2013 President’s Budget Request. 

The program will review the President’s R&D criteria, ensuring that the agency’s R&D program remains viable and 

meets national priorities. It will also publish program activities and accomplishments, as well as foster external 

review of and encourage customer input to the R&D program. 

The program will manage the FAA R&D portfolio, identify high value products being produced by the R&D program, 

and promote the use of these products globally to benefit the international market. In FY 2013, work will continue 

on measuring quality, timeliness, and value of collaboration, expanding upon work done in prior years. 

2. What Is This Program? 

This activity produces the National Aviation Research Plan (NARP), an annual strategic plan for FAA R&D; administers 

the congressionally mandated R,E&D Advisory Committee (REDAC); conducts external program coordination; fosters 

future research opportunities; and provides program advocacy and outreach. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-105 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

The value of working with international partners to leverage research programs and studies to improve safety and 

promote seamless operations worldwide is an outcome for this program. 

Ongoing activities will manage FAA’s Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) portfolio, meet the President’s 

criteria for R&D, increase program efficiency, and maintain management and operating costs. 

The REDAC reviews FAA research commitments annually and provides guidance for future R,E&D investments. The 

members of this committee and its associated subcommittees are subject matter experts drawn from various 

associations, user groups, corporations, government agencies, universities, and research centers. Their combined 

presence in the REDAC fulfills a congressional requirement for FAA R&D to be mindful of aviation community and 

stakeholder input. 

R&D partnerships include the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Joint Planning and Development Office 

(JPDO), NASA, other federal agencies, and EUROCONTROL. 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

R,E&D Portfolio Development 

	 Prepared the FY 2014 R,E&D budget submission. 

	 Managed FAA’s R,E&D portfolio to meet efficiency goals. 

	 Obtained Research Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) recommendations on 

planned R,E&D investments for FY 2014. 

	 Supported the REDAC in its preparation of other reports, as requested by the FAA. 

	 Delivered the 2012 National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) to the Congress with the President’s FY 2013 

Budget. 

Research Partnerships 

	 Coordinated R&D activities with internal and external partners. 

	 Began preparations for the 2013 U.S.A./Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar on NextGen and 

Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR). 

Performance Measurement 

	 Measured quality, timeliness, and value of international research collaboration. 

FAA continued supporting the work of the REDAC in its task to advise the Administrator on the R&D program. In 

particular, it sought the counsel and guidance of the committee for the FY 2015 program, reviewed the proposed FY 

2015 program prior to submission of the budget requirements to the DOT, and sought the committee’s guidance 

during the execution of the R&D program. The agency published, as required by Congress, the NARP and submitted 

it to Congress concurrent with the FY 2014 President’s Budget Request. 

The program reviewed the President’s R&D criteria, ensuring that the agency’s R&D program remains viable and 

meets national priorities. It also published program activities and accomplishments, as well as fostered external 

review of and encouraged customer input to the R&D program. 

The program managed the FAA R&D portfolio, identified high value products being produced by the R&D program, 

and promoted the use of these products globally to benefit the international market. In FY 2013, this initiative 

continued measuring quality, timeliness, and value of collaboration, expanding upon work done in prior years. 

The System Planning and Resource Management Program supports the DOT strategic goal of Organizational 

Excellence in maintaining cost control and audit on R&D budget portfolio. 

The goals of the focused research endeavors are: 

	 In FY 2013, FAA will maintain an R,E&D management workforce of no more than 10 percent of the total 

R,E&D workforce and will sustain the System Planning and Resource Management budget at 2 percent or 

less of the total R,E&D budget. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-106 
 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

	 In FY 2013, publish the NARP, which documents the annual R&D budget portfolio, describes activities of the 

REDAC, and contains the FY 2013-2017 R&D plans. 

	 By FY 2016, determine the value of international research collaborations. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

This program provides the support for the FAA to formulate their annual R,E&D portfolio and submit the mandatory 

plan for the FAA research and development to Congress each year. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the Research 

Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reports to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and 

provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, academia, and government. The REDAC 

specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the 

National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and priorities properly link to national needs. 

The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research and Development program (through its 

subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D 

program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members 

hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Further funding decreases would have negligible impacts on these efforts. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-107 
 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

Detailed Justification for 

A14.b William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

A14.b William J. Hughes 

Technical Center Laboratory $3,680,000 $3,777,000 $3,702,000 -$75,000 

For FY 2013, $3,702,000 is requested for the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) Laboratory Facility. Major 

activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Simulation Facilities 

 The Simulation Team will integrate the Target Generator Facility (TGF) with the AFTIL tower display. 

 The Simulation Team will develop Rotorcraft and lighter than air models for the TGF. 

 The Simulation Team will continue work with Aircraft Intent Description (AIDL), and trajectory prediction in 

support of TBO. 

Flight Program’s Airborne Laboratories 

 The Flight Program will seek Final Investment Decision to replace two Convair Flight Test Aircraft. 

 The Flight Program will complete Flight Testing of Un-Leaded Aviation Fuel in support of the Alternate Fuel 

Program. 

 The Flight Program will design, develop and fabricate a generic Data Acquisition System to support future 

programs without such capabilities. 

Concepts and Systems Integration – Human Factors 

	 Separation Management 2 – Human-in-the Loop (HITL) Simulation - After the completion of the first 

separation management experiment (SepMan1), we will continue development of concepts and prototypes 

within the separation management project. The Human Factors Field Team is creating prototypes of 

separation management functions that include variable separation standards, lateral offset, and support for 

nonsurveillance areas, integration of conflict probe functions on the radar console, and integration of 

automation functions across the radar and data positions. 

 Data Communication Failure HitL Simulation – Test impact of data communication failure. 

 Future Tracon Workstation/Tracon Data Communication HitL Simulation – Evaluation of NextGen concepts in 

the Tracon environment and using data communication. 

 High Altitude Generic Airspace Project – Research into the generic airspace sector concept and what 

information the controller will need using En Route Information Display System. 

2. What Is This Program? 

R&D programs require specialized facilities to emulate and evaluate field conditions. Human factors projects require 

flexible, high-fidelity laboratories to perform full-mission, ground-to-air human-in-the-loop simulations. Researchers 

measure baseline human performance using existing air traffic control (ATC) configurations, and changes in 

performance when new systems or procedures are introduced in order to evaluate human factors issues. These 

laboratories are comprised of integrated cockpit and ATC workstation simulators, and the performance issues they 

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, Engineering and Development A-108 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

FAA sustains research facilities located at the WJHTC in support of its R&D program goals. These facilities consist of 

the Flight Program’s Airborne Laboratories; Simulation Facilities, including the Target Generation Facility and the 

Cockpit Simulators; and the Concepts and Systems Integration Facilities Human Factors Laboratory. 

The WJHTC facilities directly support agency projects and integrated product teams in the following areas: 

	 FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) – The WJHTC laboratories support the ATO in the areas of capacity and 

air traffic management; communications, navigation, and surveillance; NextGen concept validation; 

weather; airport technology; aircraft safety; human factors; information security; and environment and 

energy. 

	 Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance – The Flight Program Team supports on-site flight tests of 

the GPS Local Area Augmentation System (GBAS) in Newark to aid in the development of the precision 

landing system. 

	 NextGen – The WJHTC laboratories support concept validation and system integration. 

	 Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) – Numerous flight test hours have been expended in 

support of field testing the new ITT system in Louisville, KY. Each test leads to improvements made to 

enhance the overall system. 

	 Terminal Instrumentation Procedures (TERPS) – Routine flight tests are ongoing in the development of 

Global Positioning System (GPS) Helicopter precision approaches to a heliport. 

	 Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) – The Flight Program Team has been working with the WAAS 

program, Bombardier Aircraft, Canadian Marconi, and Honeywell to design, test and certify a WAAS 

installation into a Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft. 

In addition to FAA’s research programs, WJHTC laboratories partnerships include: 

	 U.S. Air Force – The Flight Program Team has performed numerous test of the GPS signal security with the 

U.S. Air Force. 

	 National Transportation Safety Board – The Flight Program Team has, in the past, participated in the 

recreation of aircraft accidents for the purpose of collecting data in an attempt to determine the underlying 

cause. 

	 European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation - The simulation team exchanges aircraft modeling 

data for use in TGF. 

	 Industry – Flight tests are on-going to help develop and deploy the ITT ADS-B system in Louisville, KY, the 

Gulf of Mexico and Philadelphia, PA, as well as, the work being done with Bombardier, Canadian Marconi, 

and Honeywell in the design, installation, and certification on GPS WAAS onboard a Bombardier Global 5000 

aircraft. 

	 Industry - The Simulation team has partnered with Boeing to develop an Aircraft Intent Description 

Language (AIDL) which is a key component for NextGen 4D trajectory prediction.. 

Facilities supporting R&D Goals at FAA’s WJHTC: The following laboratory facilities provide the reliable test bed 

infrastructure to support these R&D customers, program goals, and outputs for FAA: 

Simulation Facilities – TGF and Cockpit Simulators 

	 Approach Procedures 

	 NextGen 

	 Airspace Design 

	 Operational Evolution Plan Concept Validation 

	 UAS 

	 ADS-B Concept Evaluation 

Research & Development Flight Program – Airborne Laboratories 

Research, Engineering and Development A-109 
 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

 Satellite Communications and Navigation Programs 

 Separation Standards 

 Ground-based Augmentation System – GBAS (LAAS) 

 TERPS 

 Safety 

 Runway Incursion 

 NextGen 

 Satellite-based Augmentation System – SBAS (WAAS) 

 ADS-B 

 Common Automated Radar Terminal System 

Concepts and System Integration Facilities – Human Factors Laboratory 

 ATC Human Factors 

 Airway Facilities Human Factors 

 NextGen Concept Validation Studies 

 Unmanned Aerial Systems 

 ADS-B 

 Data Communications (Data Comm) 

In FY 2012, major activities and accomplishments planned include: 

Simulation Facilities 

 The Simulation Team achieved four fully functional cockpit simulators in the Cockpit Simulation Facility. 

 The Simulation Team fully integrated Target Generator Facility (TGF) into the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen) Integration and Evaluation Capability (NIEC) simulation environment. 

 The Simulation Team supported FAA involvement in the Research Park located near the William J. Hughes 

Technical Center. 

Flight Program’s Airborne Laboratories 

	 The Flight Program installed a fully certified Future Air Navigation System (FANS) in support of the 4D 

Trajectory program. 

	 The Flight Program installed an Enhanced Vision System into the Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft in support 

of the Airport Lighting Program. 

	 The Flight Program continues to support NextGen through long term flight testing of ADS-B and related 

systems. 

	 The Flight Program will continue working with the program office and the US Air Force to support 

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) tests. 

Concepts and Systems Integration 

 Supported 4DT profiles. 

 Integrated Traffic Flow Management Auxiliary Platform into the NIEC. 

 Developed a robust capability to create multi-dimensional scenarios. 

FAA sustains research facilities located at the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) in support of its R&D 

program goals. These facilities consist of the Flight Program’s Airborne Laboratories; Simulation Facilities, including 

Research, Engineering and Development A-110 
 

 

	 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FY 2013 President’s Budget Submission 

the Target Generation Facility and the Cockpit Simulators; and the Concepts and Systems Integration Facilities, 

including the Human Factors Laboratory and the NIEC. 

	 The FAA continued to modify, configure, and sustain these research facilities located at the WJHTC to 

support its R&D program goals. 

The William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility supports the Department of Transportation Strategic 

Goals of Safety, Economic Competitiveness, and Environmentally Sustainability. Safety is supported through 

integration of the Target Generator facility for runway incursion testing, which reduces transportation related injuries 

and fatalities; Economic Competitiveness by leading U.S. transportation interest in target markets around the world 

through full-mission demonstrations on NextGen technology integration; and Environmentally Sustainability through 

testing of transportation evaluation tools to manage the environmental impacts of construction and operations. 

FAA will work to provide an integrated laboratory platform for the purpose of demonstrating operational procedures, 

defining human and system performance requirements, full-mission demonstrations integrating NextGen air and 

ground capabilities for pilot separation responsibility and controller efficiencies, and analysis, evaluation, and 

validation of R&D milestones. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

This particular program sustains research facilities located at the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) to 

support R&D program goals. These programs require specialized facilities to emulate and evaluate field conditions. 

The R&D programs require flexible, high-fidelity laboratories to perform full mission, ground-to-air, human-in-theloop simulations. The R&D laboratories are comprised of a human factors laboratory, integrated cockpits and ATC 

workstation simulators, and flying laboratories consisting of aircraft specially instrumented and reconfigurable to 

support a variety of projects. 

It is necessary to modify, upgrade, and sustain the R&D laboratory infrastructure and provide support services to 

support the R&D program goals. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) reviews and evaluates all programs in the 

FAA R&D program, including this line item, on an annual basis. Established by Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports 

to the FAA Administrator on R,E&D issues and provides a link between FAA’s program and similar efforts in industry, 

academia, and government. The REDAC specifically looks at the FAA research programs in terms of the relevance 

and appropriateness of the program to the National Airspace System and works to ensure FAA’s program goals and 

priorities properly link to national needs. The committee also examines the quality and performance of the Research 

and Development program (through its subcommittee structure) and provides FAA with advice on how to best 

allocate funds to ensure a high quality R,E&D program. Representing corporations, universities, associations, 

consumers, and other agencies, REDAC members hold two-year terms. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

A reduction of funding to this program will reduce the number of contractors available to support further 

modifications to the air traffic control simulation software which is vital to the human in the loop simulations done by 

the Concepts and Systems Integration – Human Factors team. Funding reductions will also impact contract support 

to the Target Generation Facility and the development of various air models for simulations. 

Research, Engineering and Development A-111 
R

A01 Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping 

 . What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping 

Difference FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Activity/Component from FY 2012 Enacted Enacted Request Enacted 

1A01 Advanced Technology $15,100,000 $17,100,000 $18,898,000 +$1,798,000 Development and Prototyping 

&D Activities FY 2013 Estimated Cost 

unway Incursion Reduction Program $2,898,000 

ystem Capacity, Planning and Improvements $5,600,000 

perations Concept Validation $4,300,000 

irspace Management Program $6,100,000 

otal $18,898,000 

or FY 2013, a total of $18,898,000 is requested for the activities shown above. 

he FAA’s mission is to provide the safest and most efficient aerospace system in the world. As the leading authority 

 the international aerospace community, FAA is responsive to the dynamic nature of customer needs and economic 

onditions. A key element of this mission is the safe and efficient use of airspace. To accomplish this mission, FAA’s 

dvanced Technology Development and Prototyping program develops and validates technology and systems that 

upport air traffic services. These initiatives support the goals, strategies, and initiatives of the agency's Flight Plan, 

cluding the requirements associated with the evolving air traffic system architecture and improvements in airport 

afety and capacity. 

R

S

O

A

T

F

2012 NARP Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

1

1

T

in

c

A

s

in

s

2. What Is This Program? 

Runway Incursion Reduction Program 

The Runway Incursion Reduction Program (RIRP) will continue research, development, and operational evaluation of 

technologies to increase runway safety. Consistent with standing National Transportation Safety Board 

recommendations and initiatives identified in the FAA Flight Plan, research emphasis will remain on technologies that 

provide for direct safety warnings to pilots and aircrews, as well as those that can be applied cost effectively at small 

to medium airports. The program will test alternative small airport surface detection technology and the application 

of these technologies for pilot, controller, and vehicle operator situational awareness tools. Current initiatives include 

Runway Status Lights technology enhancements such as Runway Intersection Lights (RIL) logic, Light Emitting Diode 

(LED) technology, Low Cost Ground Surveillance (LCGS) Pilot, and Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal 

(FAROS) for high density airports. When appropriate, investment analyses will be performed to support acquisition 

and implementation of selected solutions. 

The requested funding will support delivery of performance targets outlined in the FAA Flight Plan and ATO Safety 

Business Plan. Specifically, the funds will support (1) the completion of the RIL operational trials; (2) the 

sustainment of RWSL test beds until replaced by a production program; (3) the completion of LCGS pilot program 

operational trials; (4) the development of a low cost RWSL system design; and (5) the delivery of PAPI/FAROS 

modification kits to select sites. 

Facilities and Equipment A-112 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix A 

Key Outputs: 

	 Sustain RWSL test beds, LCGS pilot sites, and other test beds. 

	 Develop all artifacts required under the FAA Acquisition Management System to support investment decision 

for national LCGS deployment. 

	 Develop RWSL RIL requirement documents. 

	 Develop FAROS requirements documents. 

	 Conduct initial testing of RI prevention logic using LCGS surveillance input at a LCGS pilot site. 

	 Conduct operational evaluation of RWSL LED fixtures at San Diego. 

	 Conduct in cockpit simulations at MITRE CAASD HITL testing to respond to HF, safety logic, aircraft 

performance, or any uncertainty or deficiency pertaining to surface based RI indications. 

	 Conduct evaluation and testing of camera, acoustic, and other emerging runway incursion detection and 

prevention systems proposed for eventual deployment in the NAS. 

	 Test safety logic enhancements to any RI detection and prevention products or procedures. 

	 Support direct to cockpit indication and alerting capability development, demonstration and testing. 

Key Outcome: The above Key Outputs result in Reduced Runway Incursions, which supports the Flight Plan Goal of 

Increased Safety. 

System Capacity, Planning, and Improvements 

The System Capacity, Planning, and Improvements program identifies, evaluates, and formulates system capacity 

improvements for the NAS. This program sponsors NAS capacity and airport capacity studies where experts from the 

FAA, academia and industry collaborate to analyze and develop recommendations for improving capacity and system 

efficiency, and reducing delays at specific airports in alignment with FAA Flight Plan targets. In conjunction with 

providing recommendations for airport improvements, procedural updates, and simulation studies, this program 

delivers performance measurement systems and operations research to quantify the efficiency of the NAS and form 

the basis of proposals for system improvements. The Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) is a 

fully integrated performance measurement tool designed to help the FAA improve the NAS by tracking the daily 

operations of the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system and their environmental impacts. The tracking and monitoring 

capabilities of PDARS support studies and analysis of air traffic operations at the service delivery or national level. 

Also, the capacity and efficiency of the NAS is further expanded through capacity modeling which analyzes the 

impact of Next Generation air transportation system (NextGen) operational improvements. By recording the design 

and performance of the legacy NAS, PDARS establishes a de facto base case for before and after comparisons of 

NextGen accomplishments. 

Operations Concept Validation 

Developing operational concepts is an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommended first step in 

developing an Enterprise Architecture. This program develops and validates operational concepts that are key to the 

Air Traffic Organization’s (ATO) modernization programs and the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen). This work includes developing and maintaining detailed second level concepts that support validation and 

requirements development. Second level concepts identify the personnel and functional changes necessary for the 

ATO to provide customer service in ways that increase productivity and reduce net cost. Recent work includes 

developing second level concepts for En Route, Traffic Flow Management (TFM), NextGen Towers, and Integrated 

Arrival and Departure Operations. This information helps the aviation community anticipate what changes are 

needed in aircraft equipment in order to operate with the new technology being implemented in the NAS and develop 

new procedures. 

The Operational Concept efforts look at the changing roles and responsibilities of the Air Traffic workforce and the 

design of Advanced Facilities to derive the associated functional requirements imposed on the NAS infrastructure. 

Concept development includes preparing system specifications, roles and responsibilities, procedures, training, and 

certification requirements. These development and validation activities support NAS modernization through: (1) 

concept/scenario development; (2) concept validation; (3) simulation and analysis; (4) system design; (5) metric 

development; and (6) modeling. 

Facilities and Equipment A-113 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

Airspace Management Program 

This program supports increased capacity by funding the physical changes in facilities necessary to accommodate 

airspace redesign. Redesign projects will take on increased emphasis at both the national and regional levels to 

ensure that FAA is able to effectively manage the projected growth in demand at FAA facilities and airports. 

Implementation of airspace redesign efforts frequently results in changes in the number and shape of operational 

positions or sectors, including changes to sector, area or facility boundaries. Transition to a new configuration after 

airspace redesign is implemented requires changes in the supporting infrastructure. These infrastructure changes 

can include communication modifications such as changes in frequencies, connectivity of radio site to the control 

facility, controller-to-controller connectivity; surveillance infrastructure modifications to ensure proper radar 

coverage; automation modifications to the host data processing or flight data processing; interfacility transmission 

modifications; additional consoles and communications backup needs; and modifications to the facility power and 

cabling. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

Runway Incursion Reduction Program 

Multiple RIRP initiatives are currently being formulated as a result of strong interest from Congress, industry and 

other oversight agencies. Prioritization of those initiatives is likely to evolve during the FY 2010 cycle as a result of 

“Call to Action” mandates and runway incursion incident trends. All five Low Cost Ground Surveillance prototype 

sites will be funded under RIRP, along with the documentation to prepare the program for Joint Resources Council 2A 

decision. 

System Capacity, Planning, and Improvements 

This program will facilitate the modeling and analysis of new runways, airfield improvements, air traffic procedures, 

and other technological implementations to improve airport capacity and system efficiency. Study Teams evaluate 

alternatives for increasing capacity at specific airports that are experiencing or are projected to experience significant 

flight delays. Capacity studies provide recommendations and solution sets for improving airspace and airport 

capacity. 

Operations Concept Validation 

The FAA is proceeding with NAS modernization based on the NextGen Operational Concept for 2025. Concept 

development and validation is necessary to investigate specific concept elements, and to drive out operational and 

technical requirements and implications for human factors, training and procedures. This project assesses the 

interaction of changing roles and responsibilities of NAS service providers and pilots, airspace changes, procedural 

changes and new mechanized systems for distributing weather, traffic and other flight related information. It tests 

the assumptions behind common situational awareness and distributed information processing. 

Airspace Management Program 

Airspace Redesign is the FAA initiative that ensures all airspace related capacity benefits facilitated by the Airspace 

Management Program (AMP), facility changes and automation improvements are achieved. AMP serves as the FAA’s 

primary effort to modernize the nation’s airspace. The purpose of this national initiative is to review, redesign and 

restructure airspace. Modernization of airspace through AMP is characterized by the migration from constrained 

ground based navigation to the freedom of a Required Navigation Performance (RNP) based system. 

Airspace redesign efforts seek to optimize Terminal, En Route and Oceanic airspace by redesigning airspace in 

NY/NJ/PHL, CAP, Western Corridor, HAATS, and Las Vegas. F&E funding is planned for NY/NJ/PHL, CAP, Western 

Corridor, and national integration efforts of the program office. Airspace redesign efforts will modernize airspace in 

support of the new flows associated with the new runway in Chicago (ORD). 

Facilities and Equipment A-114 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

Runway Incursion Reduction Program (RIRP) 

The demonstration, evaluation and transition of mature runway safety technologies have proven to reduce the 

incidence of high-hazard (Category A/B) incursions and ultimately reduce the risk of a runway collision. Early 

development, testing and maturation of viable technologies result in reduced technical, cost and acquisition schedule 

risk, with early delivery of runway safety benefits. 

System Capacity, Planning, and Improvements 

Capacity studies identify the operational benefits and delay-reduction cost savings of capacity enhancement 

alternatives. Program output includes: flight operational data for use in performance analysis; system safety, delay, 

flexibility, predictability, and user access performance measures on a daily basis; and travel times within geometric 

areas and for route segments (arrival fix to runway, runway to departure fix, etc.). Output also includes 

methodologies and prototypes for measuring the benefits of airport, airspace, and procedural enhancements. PDARS 

is the Air Traffic Control System Command Center’s (ATCSCC) primary tool for accessing radar data and provides an 

objective tool for operational planning, assessment and support of flow management initiatives. Integration of 

PDARS with Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-X); Out, Off, On, and In time (OOOI) data; restrictions data; 

and playbook scenarios will help to reduce ground delays. These enhancements, which encompass the final phase of 

PDARS development and are an ATO community requirement, are critical for analyzing surface operations and 

baselining OEP performance. PDARS is a well-accepted and often used tool at all major ATC facilities. The impact 

will be realized on assessments of such issues as wake turbulence mitigation, New Large Aircraft (NLA), Very Light 

Jets (VLJs), reduced separation criteria, and alternative flow management methods. 

Operations Concept Validation 

This program uses a variety of validation techniques to explore, develop, and mature NAS operational concepts. The 

program undertakes research, study, and analysis to explore new opportunities for service delivery, solve problems 

with current operations, and define high level operational and performance requirements. The ATDP Operational 

Concept Validation program is doing the early concept research for advanced operational concepts to ensure they are 

well understood and are based on valid assumptions. Concepts such as High Altitude Airspace and Integrated Arrival 

Departure Airspace were researched and validated under this Program prior to transition to NextGen PreImplementation Programs to ensure the operational impacts were well understood. 

Airspace Management Program 

AMP has successfully managed airspace projects throughout the NAS. Without the coordination of AMP, multiple 

projects supporting the same airspace could arise. By having a central location all airspace changes and efforts are 

coordinated, thus ensuring project efficiency and success to the NAS. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

$18,898,000 is required to continue all activities within the Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping 

(ATDP) budget line item. A reduction to ATDP could slow achievement of programmatic milestones. 

Facilities and Equipment A-115 
	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

1A08 Next Generation Transportation System (NextGen) – System Development 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Next Generation Transportation System (NextGen) – System Development 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

1A08 Next Generation 

Transportation System 

(NextGen) – System 

Development 

$60,400,000 $85,000,000 $61,000,000 -$24,000,000 

R&D Activities	 FY 2013 Estimated Cost 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency and Air Ground Integration) $5,000,000 

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements $22,000,000 

NextGen - Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling $5,000,000 

NextGen – Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) $3,500,000 

NextGen - Environment and Energy – Environmental Management System 

and Advanced Noise and Emissions Reduction $9,500,000 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization $1,500,000 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation $7,500,000 

NextGen - Operational Assessments $7,000,000 

Total $61,000,000 

For FY 2013, $61,000,000 is requested to provide for the following: 

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

 Conduct demonstration simulations of integrated ATC workstations showing the phased introduction of 

NextGen decision support tools and new capabilities. 

 Determine the information requirements for ATC as UAS are integrated in the NAS in a less restricted 

manner than is currently used. 

 Manage safety risk associated with human performance in the NextGen environment. 

 Develop a tech ops integrated work environment in the NextGen maintenance environment. 

 Continue development of the Human System Integration Roadmap in support of the human element in the 

NAS Enterprise Architecture. 

 Conduct simulations of major air-ground simulation human factors issues. 

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 

	 Weather Transition 

− Coordinate NextGen Weather Requirements with the International community (e.g., ICAO, SESAR). 

− Conduct policy analyses on FAA/NWS roles and responsibilities. 

Facilities and Equipment A-116 
	 

	 

 

 

	 

 

	 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix A 

− Conduct requirements allocation and validation with NWS. 

− Conduct service analysis activities to address operational problems (e.g., Path Based Shear, Ground 

Deicing, Time-of-Wind-Return, and Terminal Haze). 

− Provide weather information demonstration and evaluation support for concept maturity and technology 

development (CMTD) activities (e.g., Concept of Operations). 

	 TCAS 

- TCAS/ADS-B Compatibility/Future Requirements 

- Future CAS Logic Development/Future Surveillance Requirements 

- CAS Logic Assessment/Avionics Model 

	 Airborne SWIM 

- Acquisition planning to support requirements levied on NAS systems by uses of AAtS 

	 Trajectory Modeling 

- Development of NAS trajectory performance requirements 

- Development of NAS trajectory interoperability requirements 

- Development of NAS trajectory information requirements 

- Trajectory Concepts Alternative Analysis 

- Initial Trajectory information items for Flight Object 

	 New Radar Requirements (Surveillance and Weather) 

- Deliver initial report on Full-Antenna Aperture Performance Model for Multifunction 

- Deliver report on Industry Solutions for Multifunction Radar Backend Architecture 

- Concepts and Requirements Definition (CRD) Team Kick-off 

- Deliver CRD Plan 

- Deliver Technical/Cost Trade Offs Report 

NextGen - Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling 

	 Continue process of developing and validating high priority Mid-Term operational concepts and conducting 

research to reduce the risk of NextGen programs being implemented before flawed operational concepts are 

identified. 

	 Simulation and modeling needed to validate concepts described in concept documents and scenarios will 

occur as dictated by research gaps that exist in programs transitioning to an implementation phase. 

	 Benefits associated with concepts will also be modeled in 2013 to determine the level of capacity and 

efficiency benefits that can be attributed to NextGen operations. 

	 Development of operational requirements for validated concepts 

NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) 

 Program requirements update 

 Surface surveillance operational suitability (formerly ASDE-X Certification) documentation 

 Initial procedures for surface surveillance operational suitability 

 System safety analysis for surface surveillance operational suitability 

Facilities and Equipment A-117 
  

	 

	 

	 

	 

 

 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix A 

NextGen - Environment and Energy – Environmental Management System and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction 

 Development and enhancement in provisions of NextGen EMS in coordination with stakeholders 

 Advance NextGen EMS framework through pilot studies, data collection for decision support analyses and 

scope out development of EMS tracking and IT system. 

 Explore NextGen EMS adoption incentivization options. 

 Assessment of NAS-wide benefits of NextGen Aircraft and Alternative Fuels Technologies through tests, 

demonstration and simulation analyses 

 Exploration and demonstration of Environmentally and Energy Favorable Operational procedures 

 Assessment of NAS-wide benefits of environmental standards and market based measures 

 Implement EMS Framework including elements of multi-year activities on analysis of EMS environmental 

impacts and metrics, EMS communication and outreach, refinement of decision support tools, EMS testing 

and pilot studies, EMS tracking and IT system, analysis of EMS incentivization and NEPA compliance, EMS 

prioritization and implementation. 

 Elements of multi-year activities exploring, environmentally efficient gate to gate operational procedures 

 Investigate NAS-wide benefits of potential aircraft CO2 emissions standard metrics aviation specific market 

based measures.. 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization 

	 Begin engineering assessments for incorporating leader/follower pair-wise static wake separation standards 

into the FAA ATC automation platforms. 

	 Continue to support implementation of six category wake separation standards into the FAA ATC automation 

platforms. 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 

	 SMS - Implement an integrated hazard tracking capability across all AVS services and offices with oversight 

responsibility. 

- SMS DAH capability with hazard tracking oversight software 

 SRM - Initiate annual FAA-wide safety risk management (SRM) training requirements, implementation and 

coordination works. 

- RARM Annual FAA-wide safety risk management training 

 SSA - Implement and validate the ability to calculate periodic system risk baselines for surface operations 

(all 35 major airports). 

- Baseline software acquisition and deployment 

- Baseline system wide fatigue modeling 

 Implement integrated system risk analysis program and analyze potential impacts of other domestic safety 

initiatives. 

- System safety metrics (all airports) 

- Integrated system risk analysis (System Wide) 

NextGen - Operational Assessments 

	 Develop, evaluate and implement enhancements in AEDT to cover study fidelity for local airport to regional 

NAS-wide NextGen environmental analysis 

	 Develop, evaluate and implement enhancements in APMT-Economics for domestic/ regional NAS-wide 

NextGen environmental analysis 

Facilities and Equipment A-118 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

 Refine analysis and assessment of NAS-wide NextGen environmental mitigation and cost-beneficial options 

for decision support 

 Integrate AEDT environmental assessment capabilities with NextGen NAS simulation models 

 Update the overall cost estimates for the government's NextGen investment, to reflect the latest technology 

and procedures development plans and the approved budget 

 Update the NextGen avionics costs estimates to reflect the latest industry trends, traffic forecasts, industry 

costs, and technology readiness 

 Continue to modernize FAA's System Wide Analysis Capability (SWAC), a state-of-the-art simulation of the 

NAS used to estimate the operational benefits of NextGen 

 Update the NextGen benefits estimates to reflect modeling improvements, revised development plans, and 

new traffic and fleet forecasts 

 Update the overall NextGen business case, to reflect the updated cost and benefits estimates 

 Conduct an operational evaluation of NextGen operational capabilities deployed in 2012 

2. What Is This Program? 

The FAA operates arguably the safest, most efficient, and most cost-effective air traffic control (ATC) system in the 

world, while handling more traffic and controlling more airspace than any other air navigation service provider 

(ANSP). Yet we endeavor to do more. The goal of NextGen is to provide new capabilities that make air 

transportation safer and more reliable while improving the capacity of the National Airspace System (NAS) and 

reducing aviation’s impact on our environment. The achievement of these goals will be extremely challenging. The 

NextGen System Development program provides cross-cutting research, development, and analysis to help achieve 

these goals, in such areas as human factors research, requirements development, environmental and operational 

modeling and analysis, and safety research and analysis. The specific activities of the program are described below. 

NextGen - Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors (Controller Efficiency and Air 

Ground Integration) 

The significant features of this program are the development of a Human System Integration (HSI) Roadmap to 

complement the other roadmaps in the Enterprise Architecture, the development of a common air traffic workstation 

to accommodate the various NextGen technologies when providing services, and a series of integrated workstations 

that deliver the required services using the common workstation. The HSI Roadmap will explain the roles and 

responsibilities of the actors in the NAS (air traffic controllers, pilots, dispatchers, traffic managers, etc.), their 

interactions with NextGen technologies, linkage to required changes to staffing, personnel selection, training, and 

required research and development activities in the human factors area that are needed to realize the NextGen 

vision. 

Research will examine the roles of ANSP and facilities maintenance personnel to ensure safe operations at increased 

capacity levels and the way the roles would be best supported by allocation of functions between humans and 

automation. The success of new NextGen technologies hinge upon the actions of air traffic service providers using 

new decision support tools or automation to achieve the operational improvement. The effectiveness of each of 

these solutions is contingent upon the proper human engineering of the new capability. This human engineering is 

not just the visible interface, but the characteristics of the tool and how the tool is used in the context of the work. 

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 

The NextGen - New ATM Requirements Program addresses FAA's goal for capacity and the DOT reduced Congestion 

Strategic Objective to "Advance accessible, efficient, inter-modal transportation for the movement of people and 

goods." Furthermore, this program fits the NextGen goal of expanding capacity by satisfying future growth in 

demand (up to three times capacity) as well as reducing transit time. For FY 2013, the program will focus on five 

areas: Weather Transition, TCAS, Airborne SWIM, Trajectory Management, and New Radar Requirements 

(Surveillance and Weather). 

Facilities and Equipment A-119 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

Weather Transition ensures that weather concepts coming from the Aviation Weather Research Program are matured 

and technically developed under the FAA guidelines for Concept Maturity Technology Development (CMTD) to a level 

of appropriate readiness for transition to NAS operational production. Weather Transition will manage appropriate 

CMTD activities to include the creation, testing and evaluation of prototypes and operational demonstrations for the 

purpose of defining and refining an appropriate operational use concept. The Weather Transition program will also 

ensure that any risk inherent in the introduction of a new weather product to the NAS is done so in accordance with 

ATO Safety Risk Management guidelines. 

TCAS had extraordinary success in reducing the risk of mid-air collisions. Now mandated on all large transport 

aircraft and installed on many smaller turbine powered aircraft, TCAS has been in operation for over a decade and 

has been credited with preventing several catastrophic accidents. TCAS is a critical decision-support system in the 

sense that it has been widely deployed (on more than 25,000 aircraft worldwide) and is continuously exposed to a 

high-tempo, complex air traffic system. 

TCAS is the product of carefully balancing and integrating sensor characteristics, tracker and aircraft dynamics, 

maneuver coordination, operational constraints, and human factors in time-critical situations. Missed or late threat 

detections can lead to collisions, and false alarms may cause pilots to lose trust in the system and ignore alerts, 

underscoring the need for a robust system design. NextGen airspace will have increased capacity due to decreased 

aircraft separation made possible by new technologies and new procedures, such as the increased use of RNAV/RNP 

routes and Closely Space Parallel Runways operations. As aircraft separation is decreased, it is critical that TCAS be 

made even more accurate and dependable to ensure continued pilot trust in the system. 

Airborne System-Wide Information Management (SWIM) - The current development of SWIM includes a gap in 

servicing airborne clients. European concepts of SWIM, built by SESAR, cover this. Thus, there is a need for 

concepts that would harmonize the FAA and SESAR SWIM systems. There is a need to determine if airborne SWIM is 

a requirement or an optional feature. Airborne SWIM will identify performance and bandwidth requirements for 

airborne internet capability to support the exchange of ATM information such as weather, aeronautical information 

and flight information to support Traffic Flow Management. The program will develop standards and publish 

standards that will ensure harmonization with SESAR SWIM systems. 

Trajectory-based operations require multi-domain interaction with aircraft trajectories in the far-term future. As a 

step towards that end, concepts of use (ConUse) for trajectory operations (TOps) have been defined to focus on the 

NextGen midterm. The TOps activity defined an initial cross-stakeholder, common view of the utilization of 

Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) components related to TOps in the midterm. The Trajectory 

modeling project will develop NAS-wide trajectory-related requirements for Mid-Term automation systems. System 

level requirements will then be developed and allocated across the automation systems. The project focuses on 

defining what trajectory information and exchange methods are required, which trajectory prediction types are 

required and what is required to achieve trajectory interoperability across multiple domains. . In addition, 

international collaboration will be an integral part of trajectory based operations, as other regions of the world shift 

toward the same goal. 

New Radar Requirements (Surveillance and Weather) is a concept maturity and technology development initiative in 

support of the NextGen Surveillance and Weather Radar Capability. The objective of this effort is to identify viable 

solution implementation alternatives that could provide for FAA’s aircraft and weather surveillance radar needs and 

weather surveillance radar needs of both FAA and NOAA. It will include identifying the technical challenges, 

evaluating cost models, developing technology approaches and proposed solutions, and concept demonstration 

through modeling and prototyping. The overall project includes four major areas: Multifunction Phased-Array 

Antenna Maturation, Engineering Studies – Technology Assessment, Multifunction Radar Backend Definition, and 

Concept and Requirements Definition. The outcome of this body of work will result in an initial Antenna and Radar 

Backend specification. The information gained through this effort will support an FAA investment analysis readiness 

decision (IARD) in 2014 and will provide the government a greater capability of defining specific requirements for a 

potential joint radar acquisition. 

NextGen - Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling 

The NextGen - Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling program addresses 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 will identify 

Facilities and Equipment A-120 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

procedures that can decrease workload and increase reliance on automation for routine tasking to increase efficiency 

of the NAS. This program works toward developing operational methods that will meet the NextGen goal of 

expanding capacity by satisfying future growth in demand as well as reducing transit time (reduce gate-to-gate 

transit times by 30 percent and increasing on-time arrival rate to 95 percent). 

The research provides an end-to-end NAS Operational Concept and a complete set of scenarios for the mid-term 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. 

NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) 

The Staffed NextGen Tower (SNT) concept provides for a paradigm shift from using the out-the-window (OTW) view 

as the primary means for providing tower control services to using surface surveillance approved for operational use. 

SNTs will provide for improved safety and increased capacity at night and during periods of inclement weather when 

impaired visual observation from an air traffic control tower results in delays or a reduced level of access to the 

airport. SNT will also allow the FAA to expand its service to meet projected increases in Air Traffic Control Tower 

(ATCT) operations. 

SNT is planned for high density airports as these airports are likely to have the surveillance infrastructure and most 

aircraft equipped with avionics that will support SNT operations. 

NextGen - Environment and Energy – Environmental Management System and Advanced Noise and 

Emissions Reduction 

There are two environmental projects that support this program: Environmental Management System (EMS) and 

Environment and Energy. 

The NextGen Environmental Management System (EMS) will manage NextGen environmental impacts and help to 

define and identify optimum mitigation actions and assess their benefits in order to achieve NextGen environmental 

goals. This subprogram will develop, refine and evaluate EMS framework, support implementation as well as 

communication and coordination strategies, decision support tools, and environmental impacts metrics and analysis 

approaches. 

Environment and Energy - Advanced Noise and Emission Reductions: Three main components of this subprogram 

are: Evaluate potential NAS-wide environmental benefits of mitigation solutions i.e. new aircraft technologies 

matured under CLEEN (Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise) for reduction in noise, emissions and fuel 

burn through testing, demonstration and benefits analysis, aviation alternative fuels, potential and viable policy, and 

environmental standards and market based measures; explore and assess new optimized operational procedures for 

energy efficiency and improved environmental performance; and identify ways to integrate environmental impacts 

mitigation options with the NAS infrastructure and demonstrate any NAS adaptation required to implement these 

solutions and to maximally benefit from NextGen provisions. 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence – Re-categorization 

This program focuses on satisfying the capacity demands of future aviation growth. The last full review of wake 

separation standards used by air traffic control occurred nearly 20 years ago in the early 1990s. Since then, air 

carrier operations and fleet mix have changed dramatically, airport runway complexes have changed and new aircraft 

designs (A-380, very light jets, unmanned aircraft systems) have been introduced into the NAS. The 20 year old 

wake separation standards still provide safe separation of aircraft from each other's wakes but it no longer provides 

the most capacity efficient spacing and sequencing of aircraft in approach and en-route operations. This loss of 

efficient spacing is adding to the gap between demand and the capacity the NAS can provide. 

This program is part of a joint EUROCONTROL and FAA program that has reviewed the current required wake 

mitigation aircraft separations used in both the USA's and Europe’s air traffic control processes and has determined 

the current standards can be safely modified to increase the operational capacity of airports and airspace that will 

have heavy operational demand in the NextGen era. Associated work is incorporating new aircraft (i.e. Boeing 787, 

Facilities and Equipment A-121 
 

2012 NARP Appendix A 

Airbus A-380, Boeing 747-8 and others) in this ongoing development of safe capacity efficient wake separation 

standards. 

The next phase of the Wake Re-Categorization program is now underway. By 2014, this program will develop sets of 

tailored leader aircraft and follower aircraft pair-wise static wake separation standards whose application would 

depend on flight conditions and aircraft performance; resulting in being able to get more aircraft into and out of 

airports and in the same volume of airspace. 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 

This program provides research leading to a comprehensive and proactive approach to aviation safety in conjunction 

with implementation of NextGen capacity and efficiency capabilities. The implementation of these capabilities will 

require changes in the process of safety management, the definition and implementation of risk management 

systems, and management of the overall transformation process to ensure that safety is not only maintained but 

improved. A core foundation of the system safety transformation is the introduction of system-wide access and 

sharing of aviation safety data and analysis tools within the aviation community, providing safety resources that are 

integrated with operations of aviation industry stakeholders. 

Capabilities to merge and analyze diverse sets of aviation information will be provided to expose and track precursors 

to incidents/accidents, allowing safety analysts within the FAA and aviation industry to understand emerging risks 

before they become potential safety issues. This research also enables safety assessments of proposed NextGen 

concepts, algorithms, and technologies and provides system knowledge to understand economic (including 

implementation) and operational and performance impacts (with respect to safety) of NextGen system alternatives. 

A demonstration will be conducted at a National Level. System Safety Assessment working prototype that will 

proactively identify emerging risks as NextGen capabilities are defined and implemented. 

NextGen - Operational Assessments 

The NextGen - Operational Assessment program focuses on two areas: Systems and Environmental Analysis. 

The transition to NextGen requires NAS 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 evaluates current airspace design and develops new 

procedures to be implemented within the NAS. This project will continue to conduct system safety assessments, 

environmental-specific assessments, system performance evaluations, and risk management activities. This research 

will include initial NAS-wide assessment of methods to mitigate NextGen environmental impacts and developing costbeneficial options to support decision making. This research will also continue to explore integration of advanced 

performance assessment capability with NAS models for other NextGen programs. This project will contribute to 

system safety enhancements across the NAS, reducing aircraft emissions and noise, and improving capacity, 

efficiency, and delay reduction. 

The focus of the Environmental program is to enhance local to NAS-wide environmental assessment capability within 

Aviation Environment Design Tool (AEDT) and within Aviation Environment Portfolio Management Tool (APMT) tools 

and to integrate environmental assessment capability with NAS design tools, simulation models and performance 

monitoring systems. It also involves application of NAS-wide environmental assessment models to assess 

environmental benefits of NextGen NAS-wide mitigation options for decision support. This environmental assessment 

capability will be used to support Environmental Management System so that evolving environmental state of aviation 

system can be continually quantified, appropriate targets can be developed and adjusted towards meeting NextGen 

environmental goals and the effectiveness of mitigation solutions can be quantified in order to develop guidance for 

adaptations. 

NextGen environmental analyses require that external forecasts of operations, such as the FAA Terminal Area 

Forecast (TAF), be combined with fleet technology assumptions to generate future year fleet and operations 

sequences. The plan is to develop a fleet and operations sequence (FOS) module that is leveraged for U.S. NextGen 

analysis and compatible with Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Regional and Aviation Portfolio 

Management Tool (APMT) Economics analysis requirements. This would include compatibility with the FAA TAF U.S. 

city-pair structure; and, once completed, would support the FAA Aviation Environmental Tools Suite and other 

aviation analysis tools. 

Facilities and Equipment A-122 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The solution involves four areas of research and development – safety, capacity, human factors, and environment. 

The safety research includes expanding information sharing and data analysis to identify and mitigate risks before 

they lead to accidents. The capacity research develops new air traffic management systems to support NextGen 

measures and NextGen concepts to determine if they can achieve the targets for 2025; and develops flexible airspace 

categories to increase throughput. The human factors research provides higher efficiency levels in air traffic control 

and identifies the new role for controllers as more responsibility shifts to the flight crew. The environmental research 

explores new procedures, and adapts new technologies and fuels into the National Airspace System (NAS) to reduce 

emissions, fuel burn, and noise; and includes demonstrations, methods to adapt the current infrastructure, and 

estimates of costs and benefits. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

Projects in the Systems Development solution set encompass the entirety of the airspace and airports within the NAS. 

Since its beginning SYSDEV has made great progress expediting the integration of new technologies within these 

domains. Below are examples of such successes and planned activities that have and will continue to improve the 

overall operations within the NAS. 

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

 Completed Integrated NG En Route Workstation - Initial midterm NextGen En Route Workstation Human 

Factors Requirements 

 Completed cross-cutting Automation Requirements - Initial Human Factors Automation Guidelines and 

Requirements 

 Completed development of Initial Air/Ground Integration Simulation Roadmap 

NextGen - New Air Traffic Management Requirements 

 Delivered the latest version of FIP Severity and GTG2 to Aviation Digital Data Service (ADDS) 

 Investigate the feasibility of ADS-B message content as an input for future Collision Avoidance Systems 

 AAtS Final Integrated Operational and Technical Requirements Document 

 Trajectory Synchronization Demonstration 

 Final Airborne SWIM Concept of Use 

 Initial Multifunction Radar Backend Architecture definition 

NextGen - Operations Concept Validation – Validation Modeling 

 Time Based Flow Management Integrated Research Plan 

 Time Based Flow Management (TBFM) Transient Analysis Results on the effectiveness of various 

alternatives to mitigate the impact of transient events on TBFM 

 Final Data Communications Segment 2 Requirements in support of data communications investment 

decisions 

NextGen - Staffed NextGen Towers (SNT) 

 Completion of Field Demo 2 at DFW 

 Preliminary Program Requirements 

 Updated concept of operations 

Facilities and Equipment A-123 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix A 

NextGen - Environment and Energy – Environmental Management System and Advanced Noise and Emissions 

Reduction 

	 Application of EMS for NextGen to manage environmental performance and its development in coordination 

with stakeholders 

	 Assessment of NAS-wide benefits of aviation environmental standards for aircraft emissions and noise and 

market based measures 

	 Demonstration of control algorithms for environmentally and energy favorable gate to gate operational 

procedures 

	 Assessment and demonstration of NAS-wide benefits of CLEEN aircraft and alternative fuels technologies 

NextGen - Wake Turbulence - Re-categorization 

	 New 6 Category air traffic control wake separation airport capacity enhancing standards submitted to ICAO; 

and, FAA has initiated the process for implementing them. 

	 Concept for using Leader/Follower Pair-Wise Static air traffic control wake separation standards has been 

developed – potential additional airport runway capacity increase of 4 percent. 

NextGen - System Safety Management Transformation 

 SSA - Baseline risk assessments for system-wide risks associated with current operations in (1) terminal 

area airspace (2) transition airspace or (3) en route airspace 

 SMS - Design Approval Holder (DAH) SMS requirements 

NextGen - Operational Assessments 

 AEDT Integration 

 Updated NextGen cost analysis 

 Updated NextGen benefits analysis 

 Annual NextGen Performance Assessment 

 Updated NextGen business case 

 Analysis of the potential benefits of Collaborative Air Traffic Management (CATM), using a stochastic NASwide model incorporating Traffic Flow Management (TFM) procedures 

 Improved modeling capability, incorporating Low Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) 

representation, dynamic Ground Delay Program (GDP) representation, surface congestion model, and simple 

weather re-routes 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

$61,000,000 is required to allow for continued execution of work within the System Development solution set. The 

FY 2013 work will support strategies to meet future aviation demand in an environmentally sustainable manner, 

reduce domestic curb-to-curb transit time by 30 percent and minimize the impact of weather and other disruptions to 

achieve 95 percent on time performance. System Development provides the research and development required to 

resolve these potential problems. In addition, an increase in demand could cause an increase in the number of 

accidents, aircraft noise and emissions, as well as the ATC workload. With a reduction in funding, achievement of 

these targets and solving these issues by 2025 will not occur. 

Facilities and Equipment A-124 
 

2012 NARP Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

4A08A Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 – Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

Center for Advanced Aviation 

Systems Development $20,812,000 $20,045,000 $17,990,000 -$2,055,000 

For FY 2013, $17,990,000 is requested for the research and development portion of the Center for Advanced Aviation 

Systems Development (CAASD) Program. The research and development portion of the CAASD program is 

approximately 25.7% of the total program requested FY 2013 budget ($70,000,000). The Federally Funded 

Research and Development Center (FFRDC) Executive Board has approved the seventh edition of the FAA CAASD 

Long Range Plan (FYs 2012 – 2016). 

What Is This Program? 

The Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) is a Federally Funded Research and Development 

Center (FFRDC), operating under a Sponsoring Agreement with The MITRE Corporation. CAASD has unique 

knowledge, skills, and capabilities in aviation research, systems engineering, and analysis. CAASD also conducts a 

continuing program of research, development, system architecture, and high-level system engineering to meet FAA’s 

long-term National Airspace System (NAS) requirements. MITRE has developed a broad and deep understanding of 

the entire installed NAS, including NAS systems and their interdependencies. MITRE’s unique experience and 

expertise has been indispensable to the FAA in helping define and validate key concepts and evolutionary paths to 

achieve NextGen. Its contributions will continue to be critical to FAA in transforming the nation’s air transportation 

system in an effective and timely manner. The CAASD Product Based Work Plan and FAA CAASD Long Range Plan 

(FY 2012 – 2016), approved by the FAA’s FFRDC Executive Board, define an outcome-based program of technically 

complex research, development, and system engineering assignments designed to support the goals and 

requirements of the NAS and the NextGen. CAASD R&D activities include: 

NAS and NextGen Systems Integration and Evolution - Research and develop an approach to valuing changes in 

predictability that can be implemented in the FAA’s cost-benefit guidance and used by the aviation community; 

conduct research toward implementation of route-choice and aircraft-choice algorithms in the TAF-M framework for 

longer term (+5 year) forecasting. 

Performance-Based NAS - Research new concepts for achieving a performance-based NAS; provide technical and 

engineering analysis, and prototyping and modeling to inform and contribute to FAA’s requirements to develop, 

implement, and validate new PBN criteria, understand operational impacts, and address mid-term and far-term PBN 

requirements of NextGen; continue to develop and refine prototypes, models, and databases that provide the ability 

to estimate benefits, validate Flight Standards procedure development tools, identify problems that emerge in the 

implementation of RNP and RNAV procedures and recommend resolutions, and analyze and model all aspects of the 

FAA’s navigation assets. 

En Route Evolution - Develop integrated operational concepts and prototypes to demonstrate and evaluate new en 

route capabilities and procedures for NextGen; develop and validate operational en route evolution plans that are 

integrated and aligned with the other domains including terminal and traffic flow management; conduct analyses to 

identify and mitigate key technical and operational risks for specific NextGen mid-term capabilities; validate the 

operational feasibility and expected efficiency and productivity gains for NextGen mid-term capabilities; evaluate the 

CAASD-developed prototype Approach Control Training Module to demonstrate the specific training capabilities that 

are needed to support ongoing NextGen training for the ATC workforce. 

Facilities and Equipment A-125 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

Terminal Operations and Evolution - Research emerging terminal operational capabilities, concepts, and concept gaps 

in current plans in order to better inform terminal planning and evolution activities that support mid-term terminal 

operations; enhance the terminal training prototype, focusing on skill based training capabilities that can be applied 

and evaluated more generally across most TRACON facilities; conduct additional field evaluations of the prototype; 

continue to integrate into the prototype real-time performance assessment and feedback capabilities, and automated 

speech recognition to provide for an interactive and realistic operational training environment. 

Airspace Design and Analysis - Conduct research, modeling, and analysis to inform FAA decisions on mid-term and 

long-term airspace concepts and capabilities; provide research, modeling, and analysis to support the development 

and evolution of the strategic plan for airspace and procedures (the National Airspace and Procedures Plan). 

NAS System Operations - Research, develop, and prototype analysis techniques for evaluating en route sector traffic 

characteristics and improving techniques used for identification and management of en route congestion with a 

focus on enhancing the safety and efficiency of en route operations; prototype real time prediction capabilities 

needed for Traffic Flow Management to assist with identifying en route congestion issues focusing on improvements 

in predictive capabilities through the inclusion of additional data sources and improvements to underlying algorithms 

and methods; evolve the initial prototype Terminal Workload modeling capabilities and expand the ability of the 

model to evaluate workload at additional sites. 

Traffic Flow Management (TFM) Operational Evolution - Explore concepts, prototype, and develop Collaborative Air 

Traffic Management (CATM) strategic Flow Contingency Management (FCM) capabilities that can be leveraged in the 

mid-term, focusing on capabilities that apply to specific tactical flight adjustments for the enroute environment; 

refine the concepts of tactical Traffic Flow Management (TFM) constraint identification, planning and execution in the 

en route environment; refine the En Route Flow Planning Tool (EFPT) prototype and conduct additional concept 

exploration through Human in the loop (HITL) lab experiments; conduct research that extends the scope of terminal 

TFM activity to achieve integrated decision support automation over the TFM terminal domain, especially in the area 

of managing arrival and departure traffic flows to achieve maximum efficiency and throughput of NAS resources. 

Aviation Safety - Develop metrics and processes that allow FAA to proactively identify potential safety issues with 

both operations and architecture; identify risks before they lead to incidents or accidents; and identify and assess the 

feasibility of new or advanced capabilities and standards that mitigate safety issues in the NAS; study changes in 

runway standards that may support improved access to runways and airports by smaller general aviation aircraft, 

through the application of vertically guided approaches and the resulting availability of precision approach guidance; 

research and evaluate empirical human performance data in the Tower environment to identify key operations 

variables that impact response time when tower-based surface safety systems generate alerts for potential runway 

incursions; prototype algorithms and develop requirements for safety metrics that can be computed and reported on 

a regular basis to track and monitor the safety of the National Airspace System; investigate issues related to the 

collection, delivery, processing and fusion with threaded tracks of controller-pilot voice communications audio to 

support the creation of a large scale voice communications archive which will support incident analysis, data mining, 

tracking and trending of ATC operations with the intent of improving aviation safety through reduced Controller-pilot 

miscommunication; investigate improving safety by applying automated speech recognition, data fusion and other 

technologies to help identify and mitigate late and missing landing clearances and possibly other voice 

communications related errors; conduct research leading toward operational performance standards for the 

Enhanced Surface Indications and Alerts (SURF IA) flight deck-based direct pilot warning system. 

Mission Oriented Investigation and Experimentation (MOIE) - Conduct forward thinking research and experimentation 

in two thrust areas (1) modeling, simulation and prototyping, and (2) future concepts and technologies to identify 

and mature innovative solutions to system problems. Modeling, simulation, and prototyping research projects 

include: Measuring the Safety of NextGen Runway Operations, NAS-wide Environmental Impact Assessment for 

NextGen, and Strategic Planning for Flow Contingency Management. Future concepts and technologies projects 

include: Implications of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Operations in Controlled Airspace, Wake Turbulence 

Avoidance Automation, Reinventing High Density Area Departure/Arrival Management, Staffed NextGen Towers Block 

Occupancy Display, and Arrival/Departure Runway Integration Scheduler. 

Broadcast and Surveillance Services – Research ADS-B ground and cockpit-based solutions that will permit the FAA to 

deploy ADS-B throughout the entire NAS in a cost effective and timely manner, while reducing the cost of ownership 

for FAA surveillance infrastructure and ATC, and improving safety for all NAS users; prototype basic and advanced 

ADS-B applications that will result in improved efficiency and capacity for FAA and the airlines. 

Facilities and Equipment A-126 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

Special Studies, Laboratory and Data Enhancements - Provide the CAASD work program with a research environment 

where prototypes and capabilities can be brought together with the appropriate mixture of fidelity and development 

flexibility to facilitate integration investigations, compressed spiraling of operational concepts and procedure 

development; provide the CAASD work program with the capabilities of the Aviation Integration Demonstration and 

Experimentation for Aeronautics (IDEA) Laboratory that provides an integrated end-to-end evaluation environment to 

support realistic assessments of new operational concepts and procedures before moving forward with operational 

field demonstrations; provide the CAASD work program with a data repository system that allows analysts more 

efficient access to aviation data and associated tools to support data analysis resulting in more useful products across 

the work program at a lower cost to our customers; and provide the CAASD work program with a flexible model of 

the NAS capable of quickly and reliably estimating the high-level impacts of new technologies, procedures, or 

infrastructure improvements on key system performance metrics. 

Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The FAA, along with its aviation partners, faces a broad range of technically complex challenges to achieve the 

NextGen. Although FAA employees are highly knowledgeable about those technologies, it would be impossible to 

employ all of the research, science and engineering expertise needed to develop and improve them. The FAA 

requires highly specialized simulation and computer modeling capabilities that it does not have in-house and are only 

available through an FFRDC that has unique knowledge, skills, and capabilities in aviation research, systems 

engineering and analysis. In addition, CAASD’s charter permits access to sensitive and confidential agency 

information and data that is not normally available to support contractors. CAASD’s expertise is critical to FAA in 

transforming the nation’s air transportation system in an effective and timely manner. 

How Do You Know The Program Works? 

While the relationship between the FAA and CAASD can be described as a well-functioning partnership, the FFRDC 

entity must be managed and focused to perform the most important work of the agency, while conserving scarce 

resources. Periodic program assessments are employed and a structured management framework is in place to 

ensure that completed work yields effective and efficient results. A major review is conducted every five years to 

validate and justify the continued need for the FFRDC as well as to assess its efficiency and effectiveness. Two key 

components of the FAA’s ongoing CAASD management program are the FAA’s FFRDC Executive Board (FEB) and the 

Outcome Management Team (OMT). The FEB meets semi-annually to approve Outcomes, formulate and review 

goals and objectives of CAASD programs, and determine broad policy matters. The OMT, chaired by the Director, 

Systems Engineering and Safety, is comprised of senior managers responsible for ensuring the optimal allocation of 

resources, maximizing benefits from CAASD products and services, and ensuring that work performed by CAASD is 

consistent with the mission and criteria approved for the FFRDC. This senior management involvement illustrates the 

importance FAA places on CAASD. The CAASD PBWP, the traditional foundation for CAASD planning, defines the 

research, systems engineering, analysis activities, and products targeted to achieve several defined Outcomes. The 

FAA CAASD Long Range Plan maps out projected requirements for five years. CAASD is evaluated periodically using 

several structured mechanisms to ensure FFRDC efficiency and effectiveness. 

Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

MITRE/CAASD conducts high quality research, systems engineering, and analytical capabilities that help FAA meet 

the technically complex challenges in the NAS. CAASD efforts support all strategic plan goals across the board and 

the FFRDC continues to play a key role in defining NextGen. Its expertise is critical to FAA’s efforts to transform the 

nation’s air transportation system in an effective and timely manner. 

Facilities and Equipment A-127 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

Airport Cooperative Research Program 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 - Airport Cooperative Research Program 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

Airport Cooperative Research 

Program $15,000,000 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 -$0 

R&D Activities FY 2013 Estimated Cost 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Capacity 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Environment 

Airport Cooperative Research Program - Safety 

Total 

$5,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$15,000,000 

For FY 2013, FAA requests $15 million, 2 positions and 2 FTE. Pay Inflation will be absorbed within the requested 

level. 

Funding in FY 2013 will support the following key outputs and outcomes: 

	 ACRP will select approximately 30 research topics to fund in FY 2013. Research reports will be for research 

studies that develop handbooks and best practices and other research that will provide information for 

airport owners, operators, and consultants in the areas of airport safety, airport management and financing, 

airport environmental and sustainability, airport planning. 

2. What Is The Program? 

This program supports DOT’s Safety goal (Reduction in transportation-related injuries and fatalities), Economic 

Competitiveness goal (Maximum economic returns on transportation policies and investments), and Environmental 

Sustainability goal (Reduced transportation related pollution and impact on ecosystems). 

ACRP was authorized by section 712 of Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The Secretary of 

Transportation signed a Memorandum of Agreement among DOT, FAA, and National Academy of Sciences to 

implement the ACRP. The Secretary also appointed the 13 members of the board of governors of the ACRP. The 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academy administers the program. The ACRP board of 

governors has met every six months to review progress and select additional topics to fund. Over 100 submitted 

topics will be reviewed at the July 2010 meeting and the most promising topics selected for subsequent contract 

award. The Board of Governors selects the highest rated topics, subject to the funds available, to proceed to 

contract solicitation and award. The TRB appoints expert technical panels for each selected project. The technical 

panels convert the topics into requests for proposals to select contractors to perform the research. The panels also 

monitor each project to ensure it stays on track and meets project deliverables. 

ACRP conducts research studies that provide information to airports in the form of handbooks and best practices 

among other research on issues of interest to airports in the areas of safety, airport management, airport financing, 

airport sustainability, and airport planning. Recent ACRP reports published included such studies as: 

	 Common Airport Pavement Maintenance Practices 

	 Guidebook for Developing and Managing Airport Contracts 

	 Guidebook of Practices for Improving Environmental Performance at Small Airports 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-128 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

 Planning for Offsite Airport Terminals 

 Resource Guide to Airport Performance Indicators 

 Impact of Jet Fuel Price Uncertainty on Airport Planning and Development 

Anticipated FY 2013 accomplishments include: 

 ACRP awards contracts for the topics selected for funding in FY 2012. 

 ACRP Board of Governors will meet to select projects to fund in 2014. 

 TRB will appoint project technical panels for new projects selected in FY 2013. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The Airport Cooperative Research Program was established by Congress to conduct research on issues common to 

airports but that is not being done under other federal research programs. The research is selected from topics 

submitted by airports and the aviation community. The Board of Governors consists of airport executives, airport 

associations, and federal agencies that ensure the projects selected will benefit airports and will not duplicate 

ongoing federal research. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

We know the program works by the interest of the airport community that submits over 100 topics for research each 

year. We also track the ACRP performance by the number of research studies underway and the number of reports 

published. We have also initiated a dissemination project to improve the methods used to make the published 

reports available to airports and consultants using electronic methods and web based availability, and to develop 

statistics on the number of requests for ACRP reports. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Each year ACRP receives approximately 150 suggested topics for research. Each study costs on average about 

$300,000. Reducing funds below the $15 million request will result in fewer studies. 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-129 
Advanced Airport Pavement Design 300 300 0 

Pavement Design & Evaluation Methodology 1,000 2,018 1018 

National Airport Dynamic Tests 3,000 3,027 27 

Airport Pavement Test Vehicle 500 2,107 1607 

Field Instrumentation & Testing 750 636 -114 

Improved Paving Materials and Lab 2,000 1,716 -284 

Non-Destructive Pavement Testing 1,500 1,892 392 

Center of Excellence 250 250 0 

Airport Planning 500 500 0 

Airport Design 700 700 0 

Operation of New Large Aircraft (NLA) 700 700 0 

Composite Materials Firefighting 500 500 0 

Airport Wildlife Hazards Abatement 2,550 2,550 0 

Airport visual guidance/runway incursions reduction 3,900 3,029 -871 

Aircraft Safety Technologies 2,100 61,02 -1074

Aircraft Braking friction 2,250 2,220 -30 

Aircraft Noise Annoyance Data and Sleep Disturbance 

Around Airports 1,500 1,009 -491 

Surface Operations 300 300 0 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-130 

Airport Technology Research Program - Capacity $12,507,000 

Airport Technology Research Program - Environment $1,500,000 

Airport Technology Research Program - Safety $15,293,000 

Total $29,300,000 

2012 NARP Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

Airport Technology Research Program 

1. What Is The Request And What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 - Airport Technology Research Program 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

Airport Technology Research 

Program $22,472,000 $29,250,000 $29,300,000 +$50,000 

R&D Activities FY 2013 Estimated Cost 

For FY 2013, the Associate Administrator for Airports request $29.3 million, 23 positions and 23 FTE to fund the 

Airport Technology Research program. The request will fund research in the areas of airport pavement, airport 

marking and lighting, airport rescue and firefighting, airport planning and design, wildlife hazard mitigation, runway 

surface technology, and visual guidance. The results of this research are used in updating Advisory Circulars, 

manuals, and technical specifications that airports rely on when expending Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant 

funds. We will also continue to conduct noise measurements across airport communities and concurrent public 

surveys and sleep disturbance studies to collect data that will be used to guide national aviation noise policy, 

determinations of community impacts from aircraft noise, federal land use compatibility guidelines around airports, 

and noise mitigation funding. 

The table below summarizes the research activities funded by this request. 

FY 2013 Airport Technology Research Program Projects ($000) 

FY 2012 FY 2013 Increase/ Research Project Enacted Request Decrease 
 

1

 “An Updated Catalog of 628 Social Surveys of Residents' Reaction to Environmental Noise (1943-2008)”, 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/research/science_integrated_modeling/ 

2012 NARP Appendix A 

FY 2013 Airport Technology Research Program Projects ($000) 

FY 2012 FY 2013 Increase/ Research Project Enacted Request Decrease 

Rescue and Fire Fighting 700 700 0 

Subtotal—Contracts 25,000

In-House (FTEs, ) 4,250 4,120 -130 

TOTAL 29,250 29,300 50

25,180 180

The FY 2013 request includes decreases and increases in several research areas that reflect completion of several 

projects, continuation of an existing project and two major new initiatives. Major changes are detailed below. 

DECREASES: 

Decrease of $114,000 Field Instrumentation: We have completed the pavement instrumentations at several airports 

and do not anticipate any new starts in FY 2013. These projects were initiated to study long-term pavement 

behavior in the field under different climates and operational conditions. 

Decrease of $284,000 Materials and Testing Laboratory: The Materials Testing Lab should be well outfitted by FY 

2012, therefore a reduction of funding is requested. The Alkaline Silica Reactivity Affected Concrete Slabs project will 

be nearing completion and should only have report writing and minor monitoring of slabs. The Asphalt Mix Design of 

the Gyratory Compactor project will be nearing completion and should be in the final report writing phase. The 

reflective cracking tests will continue but the construction of the test apparatus will be complete, and the initial 

learning curve associated with the first few reconstruction cycles will have been overcome, anticipating a more 

efficient process for reconstructions. The Effects of Sub-base Quality for Flexible Pavements project will be complete 

and therefore will no longer be funded. Testing support for ERDC IA will be reduced as their involvement with the 

Asphalt Mix Design of the Gyratory Compactor project will be completed. 

Decrease of $491,000 Airport Sleep and Noise Data: FY 2013 funding will be sufficient to meet objectives of this 

effort. In FY 2012, we initiated a new effort to investigate the effects of aircraft noise near representative U.S. 

airports. Community annoyance, impacts on schools and other noise sensitive institutions, and land uses due to 

aircraft noise have historically driven public opposition to airport development and changes in flight procedures near 

airports. Measuring subjective reactions through social surveys is accepted as the most direct method for 

determining how people in a community respond to noise. The seminal work by Schultz published in 1978 developed 

a correlation (exposure-response relationship) between transportation noise exposure levels in terms of the day-night 

average noise level DNL and the percent of the population highly annoyed by that transportation noise from social 

surveys. Schultz’ work was re-affirmed by the federal Interagency Commission on Noise (FICON) in 1992. Currently 

available data shows that people react more adversely to aircraft noise than to noise from other transportation 

modes (e.g., highway, rail). Research that is specific to the aircraft noise dose-response relationship has largely 

been done in European and Asian countries1 . The most recent U.S. data have been acquired in conjunction with 

lawsuits against airports, which may not be reflective of normal situations. It is, therefore, unlikely that an aircraft 

noise exposure-response relationship based on current available data is sufficiently representative of current U.S. 

conditions. In summary, the U.S. is depending upon increasingly outdated research as the basis of federal 

determinations of aircraft noise impacts on residential communities and noise sensitive institutions, federal land use 

compatibility guidelines, and federally-funded noise mitigation. 

Another prominent public concern has been sleep disturbance from nocturnal aircraft noise. Developing a 

relationship between the degree of sleep disturbance and the level of nocturnal noise exposure is a prerequisite for 

identifying and protecting communities from adverse noise effects. There is currently no widely accepted exposureresponse relationship for sleep disturbance. 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-131 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

Establishing up-to-date exposure-response relationships for community annoyance and sleep disturbance in the U.S. 

requires an extensive data acquisition campaign covering a wide variety of airport types and geographic locations. 

The results of this work will be used to guide national aviation noise policy, determinations of community noise 

impacts, land use guidelines around airports, and mitigation funding. 

This new program is a follow on effort to related research conducted under the Airport Cooperative Research 

Program. Specifically, the new effort will conduct social surveys to measure subjective reactions to aircraft noise, 

collect sleep disturbance data, and characterize community noise exposure across a broad spectrum of airports 

having different service missions, and at locations covering a broad range of aircraft noise exposure and responses. 

Decrease of $871,000 in Visual Guidance/Incursions Reduction Program: The reduction of $871,000 in funding 

request in FY 2013 from FY 2012 level is predicated on completion of all critical Vertical Flight Visual Guidance 

projects required to update the Heliport Design Advisory Circular. 

Decrease of $2,044,000 in Airport Safety Technology Projects: This reduction in funding is due to completion of 

Visual Guidance Test Bed in FY 2012, and completion of the Radiant Heating Project in FY 2012. 

INCREASES: 

Increase funding for an existing project: We are requesting an additional $1,607,000 over the FY 2012 base for the 

Airport Pavement Test Vehicle (APTV). The APTV was procured for $ 2.4 million in FY 2011. The APTV was acquired 

to conduct performance tests on pavement surface layers as a function of high tire pressure and high wheel loads 

under high temperatures; it is easier and more economical to insulate and heat the test pavement under the APTV. 

The National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF), where we conduct performance testing to evaluate the effects 

of landing gear configurations, is an indoor facility and there are limitations on achievable high pavement 

temperatures. The trend in aircraft industry is to produce aircraft with extended range capability, which results in 

higher gross weights and higher tire inflation pressures. This makes it imperative to study the effects of high tire 

pressures on the Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) surface and also develop HMA mix design procedures to produce mixes that 

can withstand these anticipated higher tire pressures. Full-scale tests at high surface temperatures are very crucial 

for the success of these projects. The requested funding will be invested in three areas: construction of the housing 

for the APTV, construction of the test pavements, and acquisition of instrumentation and data collection system. 

The major portion ($1,369,000) of this increase is for the construction of the building to house APTV ($609,000), and 

the construction of test pavements ($760,000) to meet research objectives in greener / sustainable pavement 

technology as outlined and prioritized by FAA RE&D sub-committee. 

The building is needed to protect the test sections from the rain/snow/ice and sun and to provide a controlled 

environment for meaningful testing. The building will be a steel frame tensioned fabric structure 300-feet long by 

150-feet wide. 

Six test pavements (each 245-foot long by 20-feet wide) will be constructed using greener/sustainable pavement 

technologies such as warm mix asphalt (WMA), asphalt overlays of PCC, Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA), Recycled 

Asphalt Pavement (RAP), Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB), and geosynthetics. 

The remaining funding ($238,000) will be used for acquiring sensors and gages, data acquisition system, spare parts 

for APTV, pavement testing, developing database, processing and analyzing data, APTV operation, and for APTV 

maintenance. 

We expect much smaller funding requests to maintain the APTV in the years beyond FY 2013. 

New Initiative #1: Heated Pavements: We are requesting $1,018,000 in FY 2013 (under Aircraft Safety 

Technologies) for a new initiative for research on heated pavements. This effort was initiated on a smaller scale in 

FY2010. Events of this winter have brought this initiative in a sharper focus. Severe weather of the past winters 

(December 2010 thru February 2011) resulted in significant flight delays and cancellations around the country. One 

current study (based on an article in Wall Street Journal) placed the cost to an airline at $7,000 per cancelled flight. 

Almost 20,000 flights were cancelled in one week (based on a news article) alone when snow blanketed hub airports 

across the country. While some of the cancelled flights resulted from the inability to actually fly in bad weather 

conditions, it is probably realistic to assume that at least half of the cancelled flights were a result of snow removal 

operations at airports costing airlines $70 million in lost revenue. Actual costs to airline passengers are much more 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-132 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix A 

difficult to quantify. Recent studies at University of California, Berkeley have estimated this number at approximately 

twice the cost to airlines. So the total cost to passengers for the week in question equates to a loss of $140 million 

to passengers for the week. When combined, the total cost is $210 million for the week. These costs are substantial 

and warrant further investigation into heated pavements. 

The premise of this initiative is that if runway surfaces can be efficiently and economically heated, the buildup of 

snow can be avoided, thereby eliminating the need for snow removal operations. The most promising current 

methods of heating pavement take advantage of “green energy” to reduce operational costs and carbon footprint. 

Ideally, a pavement heating system should have a dual use to offset the cost of the system while in standby mode 

during times of the year when pavement temperatures are above freezing. For example, geothermal heat 

exchangers can be used to heat fluids for pavement de-icing when needed around apron areas while also providing 

nearby airport facilities with low cost heating and cooling for the remainder of the year. Solar panels will be able to 

produce electrical energy throughout the year and not only when needed to heat pavements. On-site power 

generation through the use of gas turbines, micro turbines, or fuel cells could produce the electricity required for a 

heated pavement installation without the need for major infrastructure investments. Nano-technology also holds 

some promising potential for applications into heated pavements. New materials to conduct electricity at lower costs 

may become available through research. Likewise better insulation and thermal conducting materials included into 

the pavements could greatly reduce the energy required to operate a heated pavement. 

We have already started research in this area in FY 2010 and to continue through FY 2012: In 2010 we provided 

funding for two projects to begin research into heated pavements. One project at the Greater Binghamton Airport is 

exploring hydronic heating by designing and installing piping under a portion of concrete apron. Another project at 

the University of Arkansas is using solar energy along with battery banks to heat an electrically conductive pavement. 

Our FY 2012 funding will be used to fund the construction of the geothermal wells, pump house and equipment 

necessary to complete the apron project at the Greater Binghamton Airport as well as provide support funding to 

analyze the efficiency of the system. 

The FY 2013 funding request of $1,018,000 is needed to conduct advanced research in heated pavements in the 

following areas: 

	 Study Heated Pavement Applications at Airports. A new study is needed to identify which U.S. airports and 

what specific locations at the airport would most benefit from heated pavement installations. The study 

must incorporate the total cost of a heated pavement installation including system operational and 

maintenance costs as compared to the total benefits expected from reductions in snow plowing equipment, 

materials, labor, and plow maintenance. In order to provide a realistic comparison, the actual true savings 

must also account for airline losses and passenger delay costs. Cost: $358,000 

	 Advanced Materials for Heated Pavements. Fund research into advanced materials; materials developed 

through nanotechnology for the purpose of improving the insulating capacity of a pavement layer located 

directly below heating elements or improving the heat conductance of the pavement heating elements. 

Cost: $408,000 

	 Advanced Construction Techniques for Heated Pavement. Study how to best automate construction of large 

scale heated pavements. Significant problems that must be answered include material selection, joint 

interfaces, new equipment necessary for installation of heating elements, time factors for installation, and 

location of ancillary equipment at the airport. Cost: $252,000 

New Initiative #2: Design of Pavements for 40-year Life: In FY 2013 we are requesting $1,018,000 (under 

Pavement Design and Evaluation Methodology) for initiating a new project as a core activity doubling the expected 

life of runway pavements at large hub airports from the current standard of 20 years to 40 years. 

The current 20-year design life for all airport pavements is specified in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6E. Surveys 

and anecdotal evidence show that designs meeting current standards already provide service life in excess of 20 

years. AC 150/5320-6E (Appendix 1) also recommends using an analysis period for life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) of 

20 years, while a technical report from the Airfield Asphalt Pavement Technology Program (AAPTP) entitled “Lifecycle 

Cost Analysis” (Jan. 2011) characterizes this period as “too short” and specifically recommends increasing it to 40 

years. Extending the standard pavement life would result in lower life cycle costs overall, due to: 

	 The relatively small marginal cost increase for initial construction would be more than offset by amortizing 

the cost over 40 years rather than 20 years. 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-133 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix A 

 Lower present value of construction-related closures and delays. 

 Lower present value of environmental costs associated with major construction activities. 

In order to accomplish the required extension of pavement life, a 4-year coordinated R&D effort will be needed, 

including: 

	 Modify the existing pavement design program “FAARFIELD” to accommodate the new pavement life 

standard. 

	 Better modeling of pavement remaining life. Current procedures are best at predicting performance 

deterioration once significant structural distress is manifest. For a 40-year life, this may not occur for 

decades after opening, so an improved estimate of used fatigue life is needed. 

	 Quantify the reliability of design procedures for flexible and rigid pavements based on field survey data, 

including available FAA pavement management data from FAA PAVEAIR databases. 

	 Revise standard PCN reporting procedures (COMFAA) to accommodate the expected 40-year life. 

Funding in FY 2013 will support the following key outputs and outcomes: 

 Evaluate the performance of current generation Auto Brake Systems with Antiskid (ASBS) in decelerating 

large commercial airplanes on contaminated runways. The product of the evaluation will be a Math 

Simulation Model capable of predicting landing distances for decelerating and stopping large commercial 

airplanes on contaminated runways. 

 Continue investigating the effects of aircraft noise near representative U.S. airports. Community annoyance, 

impacts on schools and other noise sensitive institutions, and land uses due to aircraft noise have 

historically driven public opposition to airport development and changes in flight procedures near airports. 

 Conduct research to study the effects of high tire pressures on the pavement surface using the Airport 

Pavement Test Vehicle and also develop pavement mix design procedures to produce mixes that can 

withstand these anticipated high tire pressures. 

 New technology and techniques that can improve airport lighting and marking to help reduce surface 

accidents and runway incursions while improving capacity. 

 Improved aircraft rescue and firefighting to address double decked aircraft carrying up to 800 passengers. 

 Modify the habitats of increasing numbers of wildlife on or near airports. 

 Study the emerging technologies for detecting and deterring hazardous wildlife species on or near airport. 

 Continue full-scale live fire testing of cargo aircraft to provide better guidance to airport fire fighters on the 

unique characteristics of cargo aircraft fires. 

 Continue to evaluate green technologies in airfield pavements. 

 Certification of the Materials Testing Laboratory at the National Airport Pavement Test Facility. 

 Integration of FAA suite of software programs into one web application. 

 Upgrade of FAA PAVEAIR to include Life Cycle Cost Analysis. 

2. What Is The Program? 

Safety 

The research conducted within the Airport Safety Technology Research Program directly supports FAA’s Advisory 

Circular system, which is the principal means by which FAA communicates with the nation’s airport planners, 

designers, operators, and equipment manufacturers. These Advisory Circulars commonly referred to as an AC, 

present the standards used in the design, construction, installation, maintenance, and operation of airports and 

airport equipment. Additionally, the AC provides current advice on airport operational and safety topics. To date, 

the research conducted within the Airport Safety Technology Research Program has provided the necessary technical 

data to support hundreds of ACs that have been published on a wide range of technical subjects. These technical 

subjects include airport design standards, visual guidance aids such as lighting marking, or navigational aids, airport 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-134 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix A 

rescue and firefighting equipment and procedures, pavement surface conditions, wildlife mitigation and detection, 

airport capacity enhancements, pavement friction, and snow and ice mitigation. Some examples of the research 

include: 

	 Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Detection research efforts will be conducted to evaluate new detection 

technologies, conduct a FOD characterization study, and also develop a national FOD database that can be 

used to track safety issues related to FOD. 

	 Taxiway Deviation research efforts will be conducted to better understand the behavior of larger design 

group aircraft on smaller airport design group airports, in support of the projected increase in levels of travel 

at smaller airports as part of the NextGen program. 

	 Cargo Aircraft Interior Fire Suppression research program will develop better tactical guidance for ARFF 

departments responding to interior fire emergencies on cargo aircraft. This will be accomplished through 

full-scale, live fire testing of various Unit Load Devices (ULDs) types and configurations in aircraft main deck 

and lower deck holds. 

	 Advanced Composite Material Cutting is a project to determine the effectiveness of the fire service rescue 

saw and a variety of available blades on traditional and new commercial aircraft skin materials. With this 

shift toward advanced material structures over traditional aluminum structures the tools firefighters use 

must be evaluated to ensure they will continue to be as effective as they are now. 

	 New Airfield Lighting Infrastructure is an effort focused on identifying an efficient and standardized airfield 

lighting infrastructure that supports the operation of new light sources including Light Emitting Diodes 

(LEDs). The new system architecture will provide potential resolutions to issues that have arisen with the 

implementation of the LED fixtures in the current airfield lighting infrastructure. 

	 Low Cost Surface Surveillance Framework is a research effort initiated to assess the efficacy of using 

localized surveillance sensors to provide real-time situational awareness of aircraft and vehicle movements 

in the non-movement area at airports without the use of Surface Movement Radars (SMR). This effort is 

focused on how these systems can be employed to enhance operational capability and safety. 

Wildlife habitat management research results are published in a widely distributed manual. The FAA’s wildlife strike 

database and website provides information about wildlife habitat management and hazardous species control and 

serves as a repository of incidents and accidents involving wildlife strikes around the nation. The FAA continues to 

evaluate emerging and adapted technologies, to detect and deter birds and provide timely alerts to airport personnel 

regarding hazardous bird activity. Research will continue to develop improved FOD detection and management 

techniques. Ongoing research is also conducted in aircraft rescue and firefighting technology leading to more 

efficient firefighting techniques for post-crash fire protection of both the conventional aluminum constructed aircraft 

as well as newer advanced composite material construction. 

Past research also led to the development of EMAS that have been installed at more than 40 airports and have safely 

stopped overrunning aircraft in at least five separate instances. 

State of Good Repair 

The pavement research leads to updates in pavement design and constructions standards and improvements in 

pavement maintenance techniques that keep airport runways and taxiways in good or better condition. 

The research conducted is producing significant benefits in increased safety and potential cost savings. In support of 

capacity, the research results from the National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF) are providing technical data 

needed to validate new design standards and to assure compatibility between aircraft and airport runways 

worldwide. The cooperative research and development agreement and collaboration with international research 

organizations has led to the creation of many innovative, FAA-developed software programs that have changed the 

way airport pavements are designed and evaluated. Some examples include: 

	 FAARFIELD, or FAA Rigid and Flexible Iterative Elastic Layer Design, provides a simpler way for airport 

designers to determine the needed thickness of airport pavements. It also helps meet the standards for 

different airplanes, and models the thicknesses needed to handle the mix of aircraft traffic. It has the 

potential to save FAA and airport authorities tens of millions of dollars in airport pavement redesign efforts. 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-135 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix A 

	 ProFAA, a runway profile data analysis software program, is an innovative method that allows users to 

calculate roughness and simulate aircraft response to obtain a better understanding of overall pavement life 

and aircraft fatigue. 

	 COMFAA computes Aircraft Classification Numbers following the internationally mandated ICAO standard. A 

library of common aircraft types is provided and the user can also define arbitrary gear configurations. The 

program is valuable for computing the Pavement Classification Number (PCN) for any mix of aircraft traffic, 

which an airport may currently or in the future experience. 

	 BAKFAA is a program designed to be used with falling-weight deflectometer (FWD) equipment as part of a 

pavement evaluation program. BAKFAA reads the data from a variety of FWD devices and returns back 

calculated layer properties. The computational engine in BAKFAA is LEAF (Layered Elastic Analysis – FAA). 

LEAF is built into FAARFIELD, but can also be downloaded and run separately under BAKFAA. The FAA has 

made the Visual BasicTM source code for BAKFAA and LEAF available for programmers to run LEAF from 

their own applications. 

	 FAA PAVEAIR is a web-based airport pavement management system that provides users with historic 

current information about airport pavement construction, maintenance and management. The program 

offers users a planning tool capable of modeling airport pavement surface degradation due to external 

effects such as traffic and the environment. The program can be used with other FAA pavement 

applications, such as BAKFAA and COMFAA, to give users input to determine repair scheduling and 

strategies. It has been developed for installation and use on a stand-alone personal computer, a private 

network, an intranet and the internet. An implementation of the internet version of FAA PAVEAIR is hosted 

and supported on a server at the William J. Hughes Technical Center and is accessible from the FAA 

PAVEAIR website. 

	 High Tire Pressure Testing (HTPT) - NAPTF has completed three cycles of testing the effects of tire pressure 

on asphalt pavement in conjunction with the Airport Technology group of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. 

The full scale tests determined that by increasing tire pressure from 210 psi (1.45 MPa) to 245 psi (1.66 

MPa) had an insignificant effect on the amount of rutting caused by trafficking at two different wheel loads 

on two different asphalt mixes but increasing wheel load caused a significant increase in rutting on asphalt 

pavements. This testing is helping to support a revised tire pressure classification for ICAO standards. 

Environmental Sustainability 

In FY 2013, FAA will continue to investigate the effects of aircraft noise near representative U.S. airports. The results 

of this work will be used to guide national aviation noise policy, determinations of community noise impacts, land use 

guidelines around airports, and mitigation funding. 

Anticipated 2013 accomplishments include: 

	 Complete evaluation to characterize FOD found on airports. 

	 Initiate collection of taxiway deviation data at a design group I airport. 

	 Initiate research program on cargo aircraft interior fire suppression to include full-scale live fire testing. 

	 Complete Advanced Composite Material Cutting study. 

	 Conduct evaluation of proposed new lighting infrastructure utilizing Visual Guidance test bed. 

	 Conduct demonstration of baseline Low Cost Surface Surveillance Framework project. 

	 Continue analyzing full-scale data from the NAPTF. 

	 Continue improvements upon and update the pavement design procedures (FAARFIELD) based on full scale 

data from NAPTF and airport instrumentation sites. 

	 Continue conducting technical workshops of all FAA analysis tools (PROFAA, FAARFIELD, BAKFAA, LEDFAA 

and FAA PAVEAIR). 

	 Continue development of increasing pavement design life from 20 to 40 years for large hub airports. 

	 Conduct full-scale tests on reflective cracking of flexible pavement at the NAPTF. 

	 Conduct testing of Alkali-Silica Reactive (ASR) concrete pavement under full-scale loading. 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-136 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

 Complete development of a web-based application for FAA APVEAIR as a suite of FAA analysis tools 

(PROFAA, FAARFIELD, BAKFAA, LEDFAA). 

 Analyze data collected from pavement instrumentation at assorted Airports throughout the Unites States. 

 Start full scale testing of “green” paving materials with Accelerated Pavement Test Vehicle (APTV). 

 Determine Runway Roughness Index Scale for Pavement Evaluation and Ride quality Evaluation. 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The Airport Technology Research Program is essential as it leads to improvements in airport safety and marking, 

airport design, airport lighting, aircraft rescue and firefighting, mitigation of wildlife hazards and improvements in 

pavement design and construction. The new technology developed from the research such as the EMAS and the 

penetrating firefighting nozzles have been implemented and are improving airport safety. EMAS technology alone 

has safely arrested 6 overrunning aircraft with no fatalities or injuries. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

The Airport Technology Research Program is reviewed every six months by FAA’s Research, Engineering and 

Development Committee’s (REDAC) Subcommittee on Airports. The Subcommittee has members from airports, 

aircraft manufacturers, Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) and airport associations. The Subcommittee is briefed on 

both ongoing research and planned research and offers recommendations to ensure the research program is 

responsive to the needs of FAA and the airport community. 

Each research project is sponsored by a Headquarters engineer that prepares the research requirements, reviews the 

research plan, and approves the completed deliverables. The success of the research is reflected in our ability to 

issue updated and new program guidance. For example, the results of the research into the capability of FOD radar 

resulted in publication of a FOD radar specification that airports can use to competitively procure FOD radars with 

AIP grant funds. 

5. Why Do We Want/Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

The funds are requested to continue the ongoing research and the new research activities programmed for FY 2013. 

A reduction in funding would mean decreased contract support and would defer some project activities. 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports A-137 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

Detailed Justification for 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety 

1. What Is The Request and What Will We Get For The Funds? 

FY 2013 - Commercial Space Transportation Safety 

Activity/Component FY 2011 

Enacted 

FY 2012 

Enacted 

FY 2013 

Request 

Difference 

from FY 2012 

Enacted 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety $165,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 

In FY 2013, the FAA AST R&D program plans to be executing approximately 25-35 individual R&D tasks based on 

actual numbers of research tasks of past years. 

Of that number, approximately 15-20 will be executed under the auspices of the FAA AST Center of Excellence for 

Commercial Space Transportation (COE CST). The rest will be performed though other contracts or grants 

conducted by AST. 

No new major R&D initiatives are anticipated to be started in FY 2013. 

FY 2013 Key Outputs and Outcomes 

Execute research and development projects awarded to the Center of Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation, with additional small research tasks through other entities. The requested funds are required to 

continue the following ongoing research projects in FY 2013: 

 Wearable Biomedical Monitoring Equipment for Passengers on Suborbital and Orbital Spaceflights 

 Space Environment MOD Modeling & Prediction 

 Space Situational Awareness Improvements 

 Unified 4-Dimensional Trajectory Approach for Integrated Traffic Management 

 Develop a Spaceport Operations Framework 

 Air and Space Traffic Considerations for Commercial Space Transportation 

 Masters Level Commercial Operations Instruction Criteria 

 Analysis Environment For Safety Assessment of Launch & Re-Entry Vehicles 

 Magneto-Elastic Sensing for Structural Health Monitoring 

 High Temperature Pressure Transducers for Hypersonic Vehicles 

 Ultra High Temperature Composites for Thermal Protection Systems 

 Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking (For Space Debris Mitigation) 

 Wearable Biomedical Monitoring Equipment For Human Spaceflight 

 Physiological Database Definition and Design 

 Human System Risk Management Approach 

 Additional NASTAR Centrifuge Testing 

 Human Rating of Commercial Spacecraft 

 Flight Crew Medical Standards & Participant Acceptance Guidelines 

Operations A-138 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

2. What Is The Program? 

The FAA AST R&D program includes multiple tasks in each of the four major Commercial Space Transportation R&D 

areas, including (1) Space Traffic Management and Launch Operations, (2) Launch Vehicles, Operations, 

Technologies & Payloads, (3) Human Spaceflight, and (4) Space Transportation Industry Viability. These tasks are 

conducted through contract work or the newly established Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation 

(COE CST). 

Currently, there are nine COE CST member universities, including (in alphabetical order): Florida Institute of 

Technology (FIT or Florida Tech), Florida State University (FSU), New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 

(NMT or New Mexico Tech), New Mexico State University (NMSU), Stanford University (SU), University of Central 

Florida (UCF), University of Colorado at Boulder (CU), University of Florida (UF), and University of Texas Medical 

Branch at Galveston (UTMB). 

The major accomplishments of FY 2012 include (1) completion of R&D research project milestones, and (2) 

publication and presentation of FY 2011 R&D research project results at technical conferences. 

The DOT RD&T Strategic Goals, FAA Flight Plan Goals, and FAA R&D strategic goals are all supported by the AST 

R&D program are shown in the graphic below: 

3. Why Is This Particular Program Necessary? 

The beneficiaries, public, and customers of the AST R&D program are primary comprised of the U.S. public and 

members (i.e., economic entities deriving direct and indirect benefits) of the U.S. commercial space transportation 

industry. 

The intended benefits of the AST R&D program to its beneficiaries, public, and customers are (1) better 

understanding of the physiological and other effects on the human spaceflight participants (including crew) as a 

result of activities associated with commercial space flight, (2) increased understanding and application of the 

analytical, technological and operational methods and tools to increase the safety of commercial space vehicles, (3) 

improvements in safety, efficiency and environmental impact of space traffic management operations and integration 

with air traffic systems, including those aspects as applied to launch and reentry sites, and (4) better awareness and 

understanding of the impact of commercial, policy, international, legal, and regulatory factors on the viability of the 

commercial space transportation industry. 

Operations A-139 
2012 NARP Appendix A 

There are no viable alternatives to the AST R&D activities that exist within the sectors of government, industry, or 

academia. Independent civil and military government R&D interests that intersect with the commercial space 

transportation industry are sharply focused on achieving their agency-specific mission goals. In-house R&D activities 

of the established aerospace industry is strongly focused on technologies needed by their government customers, 

and the combined R&D of the emerging commercial space industry is not sufficiently comprehensive to be considered 

a viable alternative to the AST R&D program. 

4. How Do You Know The Program Works? 

All AST R&D funded activities undergo multiple review processes within the Office by Technical Monitors and finally 

members of the Senior Staff. Annual funding reviews have been implemented to ensure sufficient efficiency, 

effectiveness and progress on all research tasks performed. 

The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) has no evaluative role for AST R&D 

activities. Instead, the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) evaluates the AST R&D 

portfolio on an annual basis. 

For the portion of AST R&D activities that are performed within the Center of Excellence for Commercial Space 

Transportation (COE CST), internal review processes of research task proposals are conducted by their Principal 

Investigator Advisory Council with input from their Industry Advisory Board. These additional layers of academic and 

industry review help ensure high quality and relevant research that aligns closely with industry needs. 

5. Why Do We Need To Fund The Program At The Requested Level? 

Because of the long-term commitment made by the FAA to the COE CST, any reductions in funding will directly 

reduce the amount of R&D that can be performed by AST with the COE CST program. 

Operations A-140 
This Page Is Intentionally Blank 
 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Appendix B: Partnership Activities 

Table of Contents 

Introduction................................................................................................................................. B-1 

1.0 Working with Government ................................................................................................ B-1 

1.1 Memoranda of Understanding ........................................................................................ B-1 

1.2 Memoranda of Agreement ................................................................................................. B-3 

1.3 Interagency Agreements ................................................................................................. B-6 

1.4 Interagency Committees ............................................................................................... B-13 

1.5 International Agreements .............................................................................................. B-13 

2.0 Working with Industry..................................................................................................... B-15 

2.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements .................................................. B-15 

2.2 Patents Issued Through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ................................... B-18 

2.3 Small Business Innovation Research ............................................................................ B-19 

3.0 Working with Academia .................................................................................................. B-19 

3.1 Joint University Program for Air Transportation Research .......................................... B-19 

3.2 Aviation Grants ............................................................................................................. B-20 

3.3 Air Transportation Centers of Excellence..................................................................... B-21 

List of Tables 

Table B.1 - Active MOUs in FY 2011 ........................................................................................ B-2 

Table B.9 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport 

Table B.11 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise 

Table B.2 - Active MOAs in FY 2011 ........................................................................................ B-3 

Table B.3 - Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2011 ........................................................... B-6 

Table B.4 - Active International Agreements in FY 2011 ........................................................ B-14 

Table B.5 - Active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements in FY 2011 ............ B-15 

Table B.6 - Patents Issued for DOT/FAA ................................................................................. B-19 

Table B.7 - FAA Research Grants Started in FY 2011 ............................................................. B-20 

Table B.8 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the COE for Commercial Space Transportation . B-23 

Environment .............................................................................................................................. B-24 

Table B.10 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the Joint COE in Advanced Materials............... B-25 

and Emissions Reduction .......................................................................................................... B-27 

Table B.12 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the COE for General Aviation Research ........... B-31 

Table B.13 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the COE for Airport Technology ...................... B-31 

B-i 
2012 NARP Appendix B 

Introduction 

The FAA enhances and expands its R&D capabilities through partnerships with other 

government, industry, and academic organizations. Such partnerships help the FAA leverage 

critical resources and capabilities to ensure that the Agency can achieve its goals and objectives. 

By reaching out to other government agencies, industry, and the academic community, the FAA 

gains access to both internal and external innovators, promotes the transfer of FAA technologies 

to the private sector for other civil and commercial applications, and expands the U.S. 

technology base. The Agency uses a variety of partnership mechanisms. 

1.0 Working with Government 

Researchers at the FAA collaborate with their colleagues in government, both foreign and 

domestic, through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), Memoranda of Agreement (MOA), 

Interagency Agreements (IAs), and International Agreements. 

Both MOUs and MOAs support joint research activities between departments or agencies. An 

MOU is a high-level agreement describing a broad area of research that fosters cooperation 

between departments or agencies and develops a basis for establishing joint research activities. 

An MOA is an agreement describing a specific area of research under a broader MOU. An 

MOA may include IAs, which are written agreements between the FAA and other agencies in 

which the FAA agrees to receive or exchange supplies or services with the other agency. 

International Agreements establish an R&D relationship between the FAA and foreign 

governments or quasi-governmental entities. 

1.1 Memoranda of Understanding 

An MOU is a written document that establishes policies or procedures of mutual concern. An 

MOU does not require either party to obligate funds and does not create a legally binding 

commitment. 49 U.S.C. § 106(f)(2)(A) and 106(l) and (m) authorize the FAA to establish 

MOUs. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the FAA’s closest R&D 

partner in the federal government. The two agencies cooperate on research through an MOU. 

The FAA also works closely with the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), especially in the environmental area. Table B.1 provides details of the 

MOUs currently in place. 

B-1 
 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Table B.1 - Active MOUs in FY 2011 

Active MOUs in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number 

Agreement 

Title Partner Objective 

1/31/2011 

Advanced 

Concepts and 

Technology 

Development 

Anthony 

LaSure 

Pilot Training, 

Flight 

Proficiency, 

and Developing 

Training 

Curriculums for 

Unmanned 

Aerial Systems 

NASA -

DFRC 

9/30/2010 Environment 

and Energy 

Lourdes 

Maurice 

58-0202-0-

173N 

Develop the 

Feedstock 

Readiness Tool 

USDA 

This MOU sets a 

framework of cooperation 

with USDA, facilitating 

research to assess the 

dependability of 

feedstock supplies for the 

production of advanced 

biofuels for jet aircraft. 

7/8/2010 

Advanced 

Concepts and 

Technology 

Development 

10-173-RH01MOU 

AFRL NextGen 

Research 

Liaison 

AFRL -

WPAFB 

12/5/2008 

Advanced 

Concepts and 

Technology 

Development 

Advanced 

Implementation 

of NextGen 

NETJETS 

6/9/2008 

Joint Planning 

and 

Development 

Office 

Next 

Generation Air 

Transportation 

System Joint 

Planning and 

Development 

Office 

DoD 

DOC 

DHS 

NASA 

This MOU constitutes a 

formal agreement to 

implement the 

congressionally-mandated 

Next Generation Air 

Transportation System 

(NextGen) joint planning 

and development pursuant 

to the Vision 100 – 

Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act (Pub. 

L. 108-176). 

4/9/2008 

Advanced 

Concepts and 

Technology 

Development 

Roles and 

Responsibilities 

for NextGen 

DOT 

DOC 

DoD 

DHS 

NASA 

JPDO 

5/15/2006 R&D Integration Richard 

May FNA/11 

A Partnership 

to Achieve 

Goals in 

Aviation and 

Space 

Transportation 

NASA 

This MOU seeks 

partnering in the pursuit 

of complementary goals 

in aviation and space 

transportation, including 

safety, airspace system 

efficiency, environmental 

compatibility, 

international leadership, 

and others. 

B-2 
2012 NARP Appendix B 

1.2 Memoranda of Agreement 

An MOA is a written document that creates a legally binding commitment and may require the 

obligation of funds. 49 U.S.C. § 106(f)(2)(A) and 106(l) and (m) authorize the FAA to establish 

MOAs. NASA and DoD are the FAA’s closest R&D partners. Table B.2 provides details of the 

MOAs currently in place. 

Table B.2 - Active MOAs in FY 2011 

Active MOAs in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number 

Agreement 

Title Partner Objective 

5/25/2011 

NextGen – 

Staffed 

NextGen 

Towers 

Michele 

Triantos 

Staffed 

NextGen 

Tower Camera 

Stream and No 

Cost Use of 

Land 

DFW 

Airport -

International 

Airport 

Board 

10/13/2010 Environment 

and Energy 

Lourdes 

Maurice 

Research on 

the Potential 

Effects of 

Aircraft Noise 

and Emission 

on Public 

Health and 

Welfare 

DHHS 

CDC 

The MOA establishes a 

working relationship to 

facilitate collaborative 

research on the potential 

effects of aircraft noise 

and emissions on public 

health and welfare, 

leading to potential 

program 

recommendations to 

reduce adverse impacts. 

9/10/2010 

Technology 

Development 

and Prototyping 

Neal Suchy 

Message 

Downlink 

Development 

Alaska 

Airlines 

2/04/2010 Continued 

Airworthiness 

John 

Bakuckas 

DTFACT10-A-00002 

Collaborative 

Technical 

Interchange 

and Continued 

Support of 

Advanced 

Damage 

Tolerant 

Structural 

Design 

Concepts 

NASA 

This MOA establishes a 

working relationship 

with NASA to conduct 

research on damage 

containment of unitized 

stitched composites. 

B-3 
 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active MOAs in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number 

Agreement 

Title Partner Objective 

9/22/2009 

Advanced 

Operational 

Concepts 

Albert 

Schwartz, 

Mike 

Paglione 

DTFACT09-OTA00001 

Research to 

Build an FAA 

Lab Asset for 

the William J. 

Hughes 

Technical 

Center in 

Collaboration 

with Academia 

that Can Fast 

Time Simulate 

Drexel 

University 

the National 

Airspace 

System (NAS) 

Today and the 

NAS of 2018-

2025 

6/30/2009 

Technology 

Development 

and Prototyping 

Tom 

Prevost 

DTFAWA09-A-80016 

Operational 

Assessment of 

Advanced 

Airport Surface 

Traffic 

Management 

FEDEX 

3/1/2009 Aircraft Icing Warren 

Underwood PA-17 

Deicing and 

Anti-icing 

Research 

Transport 

Canada 

Research aircraft ground 

deicing and anti-icing 

12/18/2008 

Traffic 

Management 

Advisor 

Bill Boyer SAA2-

402282 

Interconnecting 

Information 

Systems to the 

FAA Traffic 

Management 

Advisor 

(TMA) 

WJHTC Test 

Subsystem 

Under MOU 

FNA/11 

NASA 

This MOA provides 

NASA access to certain 

NAS data from the 

FAA's TMA WJHTC 

Test Subsystem to 

facilitate the 

development of air 

traffic management 

decision support tools. It 

prescribes the security 

policies and procedures 

for interconnecting 

NASA information 

systems to the FAA's 

TMA WJHTC Test 

Subsystem. 

10/1/2008 Aircraft Icing James Riley NAT-I-8417 

Aircraft and 

Propulsion 

System Icing 

Research 

National 

Resource 

Council of 

Canada 

Cooperating in research 

on the facility simulation 

of ice crystal 

environments for the 

investigation of the 

effects of such 

environments on engines 

5/29/2008 

Technology 

Development 

and Prototyping 

Jason Coon LL-4461 

Installation of 

RWSL in 

Boston 

MASSPORT 

B-4 
 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active MOAs in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number 

Agreement 

Title Partner Objective 

12/12/2007 

Technology 

Development 

and Prototyping 

Jason Coon AA_Basic Data Sharing American 

Airlines 

6/23/2005 Environment 

and Energy 

Lourdes 

Maurice 

Impact of 

Aviation Air 

Emissions on 

Climate and 

Global 

Atmospheric 

Composition 

Under MOU 

FNA/11 

NASA 

This MOA establishes 

programs and plans to 

determine aviation 

emissions that have the 

potential to impact 

global atmospheric 

composition, 

stratospheric ozone, and 

climate. 

4/25/2005 Environment 

and Energy 

Lourdes 

Maurice 

Collaboration 

on Research 

and 

Development 

to Measure and 

Mitigate the 

Environmental 

DoD 

This MOA supports 

conducting and 

coordinating research 

and development 

projects and exchanging 

research and 

development data, 

analyses and related 

Impacts of 

Aircraft Noise 

and Aviation 

Air Emissions 

information and material 

concerning the 

environmental impacts 

of aircraft noise and 

aviation emissions. 

6/2/2004 

Technology 

Development 

and Prototyping 

Jason Coon Evaluation of 

FAROS 

City Of Long 

Beach 

10/6/2003 

Technology 

Development 

and Prototyping 

Jason Coon 

Installation of 

RWSL in 

Dallas 

DFW 

Airport 

6/25/2003 Digital System 

Safety 

Charles 

Kilgore 

DTFACT--

03-Y-90018 

MOA between 

the FAA and 

TEES, 

Aerospace 

Vehicle 

Systems 

Institute 

(AVSI) 

Texas 

Engineering 

Experiment 

Station 

6/15/1999 Flight Safety John Frye FNA/08-99-

01 

Aviation Safety 

Reporting 

System 

(ASRS) 

Under MOU 

FNA/11 

NASA 

This MOA describes the 

basic relationship 

between the FAA’s 

Aviation Safety 

Reporting Program and 

the NASA ASRS and 

outlines the roles and 

responsibilities of each 

agency. 

4/29/1999 Aircraft Icing James Riley NAT-I-3444 

Atmospheric 

Icing Flight 

Research 

AES -

Environment 

Canada 

Research of in-flight 

icing environments and 

the instrumentation used 

to measure the variable 

employed to describe 

those environments 

B-5 
 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

1.3 Interagency Agreements 

An IA is a written agreement between the FAA and another Federal agency, as defined in 5 

U.S.C. § 551(a), where one agency agrees to receive or exchange supplies or services with 

another agency, and the agreement includes an obligation of funds. The Federal Aviation Act of 

1958, 49 U.S.C. § 106(l) and (m), and 31 U.S.C. § 1535 authorize the FAA to establish IAs. 49 

U.S.C. § 40121(c)(2) further authorizes the FAA to establish joint activity with DoD. Table B.3 

provides details of the active interagency agreements in FY 2011. 

Table B.3 - Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2011 

Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number Partner Purpose of Agreement 

9/15/2011 Digital System 

Safety 

Charles 

Kilgore 

FAAWA11-V-00026 

Mod 1 

DOT -

RITA Aeronautical systems security 

5/14/2011 Continued 

Airworthiness 

John 

Bakuckas 

DTFACT11-X-80000 DoD 

Support research into areas of safety and 

airframe structural integrity, especially 

verification of the design, analysis, and 

application of bonded repair technology 

3/31/2011 Data 

Communication Brent Phillips 

DTFAWA08-X80021_MO 

D 05 

NASA -

Glenn 

Modeling, simulation and analysis of VHF 

Digital Link Mode 2 and airport surface 

wireless network analysis and assessment 

11/14/2010 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80002_MO 

D 06 

NOAA -

NSSL Advanced weather radar technology 

9/30/2010 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA10-X-80013 MIT - LL 

Research and development of improved 

storm forecasts and the required scientific 

analyses and support research prototype 

algorithm development in support of 

CoSPA; including probabilistic forecasts 

and weather avoidance fields, development 

of standards, code documentation, and 

support of a quality assessment evaluation 

9/15/2010 Digital System 

Safety 

Charles 

Kilgore 

DTFACT10-X-00008 NASA -

Langley 

Design, verification, and validation of 

advanced digital airborne systems 

technology 

9/13/2010 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80002_MO 

D 08 

NOAA -

NSSL 

Creation of air route traffic control centers 

regional and national mosaics 

9/13/2010 Surveillance 

Systems 

DTFAWA09-A80018_MO 

D 07 

NASA -

Langley 

Pacific Organized Track System 

(PACOTS) 

8/5/2010 Weather Guillermo 

Sotelo 

DTFAWA09-X80005_MO 

D 05 

NSF 

Advanced weather radar techniques 

research team, model development and 

enhancement product team, and turbulence 

product development team 

8/1/2010 Continued 

Airworthiness Cu Nguyen 

AJP-RNACT-10-1-

12 

DOT -

RITA 

Develop non-destructive evaluation on the 

next generation of aircraft engines 

B-6 
 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number Partner Purpose of Agreement 

7/30/2010 ATM/ATC Steve 

Bradford 

DTFAWA08-X80031_MO 

D 12 

NASA -

Ames Trajectory prediction 

7/15/2010 ATM/ATC Cynthia 

Morris 

DTFAWA08-X80031_MO 

D 11 

NASA -

Ames Multi sector planner 

7/9/2010 ATM/ATC Anton Koros 

DTFAWA08-X80031_MO 

D 09 

NASA -

Ames High altitude trajectory 

7/9/2010 ATM/ATC Mike 

Paglione 

DTFAWA08-X80031_MO 

D 10 

NASA -

Ames ACES modeling 

6/25/2010 Data 

Communication 

DTFAWA08-X80021_Basic 

NASA -

Glenn 

Communications Navigation Surveillance 

Information (CNSI) 

6/23/2010 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA10-A80033_TD1 

AFRL -

WPAFB 

Aeronautical research and technology 

development 

6/18/2010 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80001_MO 

D 05 

NOAA -

NCEP 

Model development and enhancement, 

AWRP transition support, and transition of 

weather algorithms into operations 

/10/2010 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80002_MO 

D 07 

NOAA -

NSSL 

Advanced weather radar technology and 

model development and enhancement 

product development team 

6/3/2010 Data 

Communication 

DTFAWA08-X80021_MO 

D 04 

NASA -

Glenn 

VDL M2 Data Communications system 

assessment 

6/1/2010 

Advanced 

Operational 

Concepts 

Albert 

Schwartz 

DTFACT10-X-00003 NASA -

KSC 

Integrating UAS, modeling, simulation and 

demonstration into NAS 

5/17/2010 Weather DTFAWA10-X-80020 

NOAA -

ESRL 

Efforts in support of RUC, WRF/RR 

infrastructure, data assimilation, 3 km 

HRRR development, and test and 

maintenance; numerical modeling forecast 

efforts in support of CoSPA Op Evaluation 

and on-going CoSPA numerical model 

research efforts 

5/11/2010 RWSL Jason Coon NASA -

Ames Data sharing at DFW 

4/30/2010 Continued 

Airworthiness 

Traci 

Stadtmueller 

DTFACT10-X-00005 ARMY -

AED 

Joint Rotorcraft Research, Development, 

and Evaluation (R,D&E) with the Army 

Aviation Engineering Directorate (AED) 

4/27/2010 Human Factors Midori 

Tanino 

DTFAWA08-X80031_MO 

D 07 

NASA -

Ames 

Weather integration into air traffic 

management 

4/27/2010 ATM/ATC Charles 

Buntin 

DTFAWA08-X80031_MO 

D 08 

NASA -

Ames 3D-Path Arrival Management (3D-PAM) 

B-7 
 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number Partner Purpose of Agreement 

3/23/2010 Advanced 

Materials Curt Davies DTFACT10-X-00009 

NASA -

Langley 

Assessment of safety characteristics and 

substantiation strategies for aircraft and 

related systems 

3/10/2010 Human Factors 

DTFAWA09-A80018_MO 

D 06 

NASA -

Langley 

Develop interval management safety and 

performance requirements 

3/10/2010 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA09-X80005_MO 

D 03 

NSF 

Convective weather program, CoSPA, and 

model development and enhancement 

testing 

2/24/2010 Human Factors 

DTFAWA09-A80018_MO 

D 05 

NASA -

Langley Synthetic vision systems 

1/27/2010 Human Factors Tom McCloy DTFAWA10-X-80005 NASA 

NextGen human factors air traffic control 

research under MOU (FNA/11): This IA 

establishes roles and responsibilities for the 

FAA and NASA to collaboratively develop 

NextGen. The FAA and NASA will 

research, study, analyze, model, test, and 

implement the advanced services and 

capabilities that will be required for 

NextGen. 

1/27/2010 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA10-X80005_Basic 

_Annex 01 

NASA -

Ames Navigation reference system NextGen HF 

1/27/2010 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA10-X80005_Basic 

_Annex 02 

NASA -

Ames Automation roles and responsibilities 

1/27/2010 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA10-X80005_Basic 

_Annex 04 

NASA -

Ames Evaluating human-automation interaction 

1/27/2010 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA10-X80005_Basic 

_Annex 05 

NASA -

Ames Closely Spaced Parallel Operations 

1/27/2010 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA10-X80005_Basic 

_Annex 06 

NASA -

Ames 

Pilot/ATC/AOC communication and 

coordination 

1/27/2010 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA10-X80005_Basic 

_Annex 07 

NASA -

Ames 

Closely Spaced Parallel Operations in 

NextGen 

1/27/2010 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA10-X80005_Basic 

_Annex 08 

NASA -

Ames 

Shared information needs for collaboration 

and decision making 

1/27/2010 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA10-X80005_Basic 

_Annex 09 

NASA -

Ames 

Decision making capabilities and 

limitations 

B-8 
2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number Partner Purpose of Agreement 

1/27/2010 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA10-X80005_Basic 

_Annex 10 

NASA -

Ames Evaluation of flight crew awareness 

1/7/2010 Human Factors 

DTFAWA09-A80018_MO 

D 03 

NASA -

Langley 

Collision avoidance and separation 

assurance systems for merging and spacing 

operations 

11/30/2009 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80002_MO 

D 04 

NOAA -

NSSL 

Advanced weather radar technology and 

model development research team 

11/17/2009 ATM/ATC Charles 

Buntin 

DTFAWA08-X80031_MO 

D 05 

NASA -

Ames 3D-Path Arrival Management (3D-PAM) 

10/14/2009 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA08-X80023_MO 

D 01_Task 

02 

NASA -

Ames Operator effects on decision making 

10/14/2009 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA08-X80023_MO 

D 01_Task 

03 

NASA -

Ames Electronic Flight Bag 

10/14/2009 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA08-X80023_MO 

D 01_Task 

05 

NASA -

Ames Vision model to predict target detection 

10/14/2009 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA08-X80023_MO 

D 01_Task 

06 

NASA -

Ames Very light jet simulator study 

10/14/2009 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA08-X80023_MO 

D 01_Task 

08 

NASA -

Ames FMS data entry errors 

10/14/2009 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA08-X80023_MO 

D 01_Task 

09 

NASA -

Ames Guidance for heads up display (HUD) 

10/14/2009 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA08-X80023_MO 

D 01_Task 

10 

NASA -

Ames Human performance issues 

B-9 
 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number Partner Purpose of Agreement 

9/22/2009 Flight Safety John Frye DTFAWA09-X-80016 NASA 

Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) 

under MOU (FNA/11): The ASRS is 

designed to provide information to the 

FAA and the aviation community to 

identify and eliminate unsafe conditions to 

prevent accidents. NASA receives, 

processes, and analyzes the raw 

information ensuring confidentiality of the 

reporter. 

9/15/2009 Human Factors Dino Piccione 

DTFAWA08-X80011_MO 

D 15 

NASA -

Ames 

NextGen evaluation of controller schedule 

changes 

9/15/2009 Human Factors Dino Piccione 

DTFAWA08-X80011_MO 

D 15 (2) 

NASA -

Ames NextGen workstation design requirements 

9/14/2009 

Airport 

Technology 

Capacity 

Albert Larkin DTFACT09-X-00005 

ARMY -

ERDC 

9/1/2009 Human Factors Tom McCloy 

DTFAWA08-X80011_MO 

D 16 

NASA -

Ames NextGen Air Ground Integration 

8/17/2009 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA09-X-80005 NSF 

Conduct applied aviation weather research 

to improve safety, efficiency, and capacity 

of the NAS. Detect, diagnose, and forecast 

weather phenomena using instrumentation, 

advanced models, and algorithms. 

8/17/2009 Weather Guillermo 

Sotelo 

DTFAWA09-X80005_MO 

D 01 

NSF 

CoSPA, NextGen network enabled weather 

transition team, convective weather 

research team 

8/12/2009 CSPO Jason Coon IA1-973 NASA -

Langley SAPA tool 

8/11/2009 

Airport 

Technology 

Safety 

Joseph Breen DTFACT09-X-00006 

USAF -

780th TS Improve airport safety 

6/12/2009 Human Factors William 

Johnson 

DTFAWA09-A-80018 NASA 

Enhancement of aeronautical research and 

technology development under MOU 

(FNA/11): This IA provides a framework 

under which NASA and the FAA can 

collaborate in aeronautics research and 

technology. 

6/12/2009 Human Factors 

DTFAWA09-A80018_Basic 

NASA -

Langley Enhancement of aeronautical RTD 

5/20/2009 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80002_MO 

D 05 

NOAA -

NSSL 

Advanced weather radar technology and 

model development research team 

5/18/2009 Weather Midori 

Tanino 

DTFAWA08-X80031_MO 

D 01 

NASA -

Ames 

Analysis of SFO stratus weather 

information 

 B-10 
 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number Partner Purpose of Agreement 

3/20/2009 Surveillance 

Systems 

DTFAWA09-X00018_Basic 

NASA -

Langley ADS-B merging and spacing 

3/12/2009 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80001_MO 

D 03 

NOAA -

NCEP 

RUC, WRF infrastructure support, RR 

development, ensemble development, and 

development of dissemination techniques 

for aviation weather information 

2/26/2009 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80001_MO 

D 02 

NOAA -

NCEP 

Ashflow research team, convective 

weather research team, in-flight research 

team, model development and 

enhancement research 

1/26/2009 

Airport 

Technology 

Safety 

Ryan King DTFACT09-X-00001 USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) 

10/20/2008 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80002_MO 

D 02 

NOAA -

NSSL Model development and enhancement 

10/17/2008 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80002_MO 

D 03 

NOAA -

NSSL 

Advanced weather radar technology and 

model development research team 

10/1/2008 

Airport 

Technology 

Safety 

Satish 

Agrawal 

DTFACT08-X-00003 

DOI -

Smithsonian 

Inst., 

NMNH 

Defines an R&D program in DNA-based 

bird identification techniques in 

cooperation with the National Museum of 

Natural History (NMNH) and the 

Smithsonian Institution (SI) 

9/30/2008 Human Factors Cynthia 

Morris 

DTFAWA08-X80031_Basic 

NASA -

Ames Multi Sector Planner (MSP) 

9/10/2008 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80001_MO 

D 01 

NOAA -

NCEP 

Model development and enhancement and 

Weather Tech implementation 

8/28/2008 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z-80001 NOAA -

NCEP 

Conduct collaborative research activities to 

develop, test, evaluate, and implement 

results that provide analyses and forecast 

products, algorithms, and visualization 

techniques tailored to aviation weather 

needs. Improve operational forecasting of 

weather conditions hazardous to aviation. 

8/28/2008 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80001_MO 

D 08 

NOAA -

NCEP 

Infrastructure support for running of 

models (RUC, WRF/RR); develop test and 

implement improvements to WRF/RR; 

develop improvements to data assimilation 

8/12/2008 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Systems 

Research 

Xiaogong Lee DTFACT08-X-00005 NASA 

P-STAR Radar Systems under MOU 

(FNA/11): This IA establishes 

collaborative research activities on manned 

and UAS, and in particular, on utilization 

of ground based radar systems to support 

the FAA UAS safety studies. 

7/15/2008 Weather Cyndi 

Flournoy 

DTFACT08-X-00006 USGS 

Monitor volcanic seismic networks and 

continue real-time seismic monitoring on 

dangerous volcanoes in the Aleutian arc for 

air traffic safety. 

 B-11 
2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number Partner Purpose of Agreement 

7/9/2008 Aircraft Icing James Riley DTFACT08-X-00007 NASA 

Characterization of High Ice-Water 

Content Environments under MOU 

(FNA/11): This IA fosters collaborative 

icing research with NASA Glenn Research 

Center with main, but not exclusive, focus 

on propulsion icing in high ice water 

content environments potentially 

hazardous to engines. 

7/7/2008 Continued 

Airworthiness Felix Abali DTFACT08-X-00004 NASA 

Software enhancement, standardization and 

material database generation for damage 

tolerance analysis under MOU (FNA/11): 

This IA establishes a cooperative 

procedure to enhance the NASA crack 

growth program software and generate 

material database for damage tolerance 

analysis. 

6/27/2008 Weather Warren 

Fellner 

DTFAWA08-Z80002_MO 

D 01 

NOAA -

NSSL 

Model Development and Enhancement 

Research Team (MDERT) 

6/4/2008 Data 

Communication 

DTFAWA08-X00009_MO 

D 01 

NASA -

Langley Glenn, IETF study 

4/14/2008 ATM/ATC Charles 

Buntin 

DTFAWA08-X80011_Basic 

(2) 

NASA -

Ames 3D-Path Arrival Management (3D-PAM) 

3/24/2008 Weather Jackie Hill DTFAWA08-X-80008 

NOAA -

ESRL/GSD NNEW dissemination 

9/21/2007 

NextGen -

Wake 

Turbulence 

Jeff 

Tittsworth 

DTFAWA07-X-80026 NASA 

Wake turbulence and associated reduced 

separation research under MOU (FNA/11): 

This IA builds upon and expands the longstanding research relationship between the 

FAA and NASA in the areas of wake 

turbulence and required separation between 

aircraft to insure flight safety. 

9/21/2007 ATM/ATC 

DTFAWA07-X80026_Basic 

NASA -

Langley Wake turbulence 

9/21/2007 ATM/ATC 

DTFAWA07-X80026_MO 

D 01 

NASA -

Langley 

Transition of wake vortex research to 

products in support of NGATS 

3/13/2007 Weather Cyndi 

Flournoy 

DTFACT07-X00002_MO 

D 08 

NSF Liquid water equivalent research team 

3/13/2007 Weather Cyndi 

Flournoy 

DTFACT07-X00002_MO 

D 10 

NSF Snow machine research 

3/13/2007 Weather Cyndi 

Flournoy 

DTFACT07-X00002_MO 

D 19 

NSF 

Terminal Area Icing Weather Information 

System (TAIWIS) product development 

team 

 B-12 
 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active Interagency Agreements in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number Partner Purpose of Agreement 

1/10/2007 Aircraft Icing James Riley DTFACT07-X-00002 NSF 

Ground deicing/anti-icing program: This 

IA fosters technical participation with and 

financial support for National Center for 

Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on ground 

icing research. 

8/1/2006 Continued 

Airworthiness 

Traci 

Stadtmueller SAA3-872 NASA -

Glenn Maintenance credit evaluation 

6/27/2006 

Airport 

Technology 

Safety 

Keith Bagot DTFACT06-X-00007 AFRL 

Establish a mechanism for the conduct of 

research and exploratory development 

efforts in aircraft and firefighting. 

6/27/2005 Human Factors Charles 

Johnson 

DTFACT05-X-00011 DoD 

Flight deck illumination by unauthorized 

lasers: This IA evaluates laser eye 

protection during human-in-the-loop 

simulation studies; develops database 

models to enhance airmen training; and 

develops and evaluates procedures for 

flight crew awareness and recovery action. 

Human Factors 

Sabrina 

SaundersHodge 

DTFAWA10-A-80033 AFRL -

WPAFB 

Aeronautical research and technology 

development 

1.4 Interagency Committees 

The FAA creates partnerships with other agencies through a variety of interagency 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 on the needs for 

future aviation noise abatement and new research efforts. The committee conducts annual public 

forums in different geographic regions to align noise abatement research with local public 

concerns. 

1.5 International Agreements 

The FAA uses International Agreements with foreign governments or quasi-governmental 

entities to establish technical assistance or an R&D relationship between the FAA and the 

foreign entity. 49 U.S.C. § 40113(e) authorizes the FAA to establish International Agreements. 

Table B.4 presents the active international agreements in FY 2011. 

 B-13 
 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Table B.4 - Active International Agreements in FY 2011 

Active International Agreements in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number Partner Purpose of Agreement 

12/9/2011 Aircraft Icing Jim Riley NAT-I-8417 

National 

Resources Council 

of Canada 

Aircraft and Propulsion System 

Icing Research (Annex 1 to MOC): 

This agreement forms cooperative 

research on simulation of ice crystal 

environments for the investigation 

of effects of such environments on 

engines. 

7/1/2011 System Safety 

Management John Lapointe AIA/CA-52 Annex 8 CAA - Netherlands Aviation System Safety 

10/1/2010 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Systems 

Research 

Xiaogong Lee 

AIA/CA-52 

Annex 8 

Appendix 6 

(2) 

CAA - Netherlands Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

8/1/2010 System Safety 

Management John Lapointe 

AIA/CA-52 

Annex 8 

Appendix 9 

(2) 

CAA - Netherlands Unified framework for risk 

assessment and risk management 

9/1/2009 System Safety 

Management 

Stephen 

Barnes 

AIA/CA-52 

Annex 8 

Appendix 8 

CAA - Netherlands Pilot model development for 

collision risk modeling studies 

6/19/2007 

Airport 

Technology 

Capacity 

Albert Larkin AIA/CA-5 

Annex 16 

La Direction 

Generale de 

L'Aviation Civile 

(DGAC) 

Coordination of R&D activities and 

the sharing of information resulting 

from related studies, tests, and 

analyses in the field of airfield 

pavement 

9/24/2004 Wake Vortex 

Research Paul Fontaine MOC NATI-3454-1 EUROCONTROL 

Air Traffic Management Research: 

Collaborate and share experiences 

on various ATM research topics that 

are of interest to both the U.S. and 

Europe. 

9/24/2004 

Environmental 

Modeling for 

ATM and 

Safety 

Management 

Techniques 

Lourdes 

Maurice 

NAT-I3454-5 EUROCONTROL 

Harmonizing Safety and 

Environmental Factors (Annex to 

MOC): Collaborate on and share 

methods for evaluating safety 

management, ATM security, and 

ATM environmental factors. 

9/1/2004 System Safety 

Management 

Andrew 

Cheng 

AIA/CA-52 

Annex 8 

Appendix 4 

(Amendment 

2 approved 

08/2009) 

CAA - Netherlands Landing Distance Performance 

Analysis 

8/1/2004 System Safety 

Management Cristina Tan 

AIA/CA-52 

Annex 8 

Appendix 5 

CAA - Netherlands Risk Assessments of Potential 

Unsafe Conditions 

4/2/2004 Fire Safety Gus Sarkos 

AIA/CA-41 

Annex 3 

Appendix 7 

CAA – United 

Kingdom 

Establish a method of cooperation in 

performing research to improve 

passenger survivability during 

aircraft emergencies or accidents 

involving fire. 

 B-14 
 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active International Agreements in FY 2011 

Effective 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Agreement Number Partner Purpose of Agreement 

7/10/2001 System Safety 

Management John Lapointe MOC AIA/CA-52 CAA - Netherlands 

Aviation System Safety: This 

agreement establishes a method of 

cooperation in R&D programs in the 

area of aviation system safety 

including the risks to the public 

connected with civil aviation 

activities and operations in the 

vicinity of airports. 

6/18/1970 Aircraft Icing Warren 

Underwood 

MOC NATI-0831 PA17 

Transport Canada 

Deicing and Anti-Icing Research: 

The investigation of aerodynamic 

flow-off characteristics of anti-icing 

fluids contaminated with different 

types of frozen precipitation; the 

investigation of the effectiveness of 

proposed laboratory test procedures 

in evaluating aircraft anti-icing 

fluids’ failure modes in mixed icing 

conditions; and the investigation 

into other associated aircraft deicing 

problems and issues. 

2.0 Working with Industry 

The FAA complies with all applicable federal guidelines and legislation concerning the transfer 

of technology. The FAA’s goal is to transfer knowledge, facilities, equipment, or capabilities 

developed by its laboratories and R&D programs to the private sector. This helps expand the 

U.S. technology base and leverage federal R&D investments. 

2.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRDAs) allow the FAA and its partners to 

share facilities, equipment, services, intellectual property, and personnel resources with industry, 

academia, and state and local governments in collaborative R&D activities. CRDAs are a highly 

effective way to meet congressionally mandated technology transfer requirements. In FY 2011, 

the FAA maintained 31 active CRDAs. Table B.5 provides details on the active CRDAs in FY 

2011. 

Table B.5 - Active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements in FY 2011 

Active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC CRDA Number 

Industry 

Partner Subject 

5/12/2011 Airport 

Technology Albert Larkin 10-CRDA0271 

Northeastern 

University 

Research the feasibility of measuring 

surface and subsurface runway 

conditions from a moving vehicle 

using remote sensing technology. 

10/12/2010 Airport 

Technology 

10-CRDA0270 

Norsk 

Glassgjenvinning 

AS 

 B-15 
 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC CRDA Number 

Industry 

Partner Subject 

8/10/2010 Airport and 

Aircraft Safety Nelson Miller 2010-A0269 

RFID TagSource 

LLC 

Camden, NJ 

Research that will support the 

improvement of flight safety 

operations by storing maintenance 

history information directly on 

aircraft parts by using radio 

frequency identification (RFID) 

technologies 

5/13/2010 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Systems 

Research 

Xiaogong Lee 10-CRDA0266 

Insitu, Inc., The 

Boeing Company 

UAS safety research, modeling, and 

simulation 

7/15/2009 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Systems 

Research 

Kerin Olson 2009-A0258 

General Atomics 

Aeronautical 

Systems, Inc. 

San Diego, CA 

Modeling and simulation to assess 

the impact of UAS 

6/26/2009 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Systems 

Research 

Kerin Olson 2009-A0259 

AAI Corporation 

Hunt Valley, MD 

Modeling and simulation to assess 

the impact of UAS 

6/19/2009 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Systems 

Research 

Kerin Olson 2009-A0260 

GE Aviation 

Systems LLC 

Grand Rapids, MI 

Modeling and simulation to assess 

the impact of UAS 

1/27/2009 

Laboratory 

Future 

Development 

Joseph 

DiLuzio 

2009-A0257 

Diakon Solutions, 

LLC 

Cape May Court 

House, NJ 

Aircraft geometric height 

measurement element 

1/6/2009 Human Factors Ben Williams 2008-A0252 

The Richard 

Stockton College 

of New Jersey 

Pomona, NJ 

Index of cognitive activity and 

characteristics of the air traffic 

control task 

12/10/2008 

Laboratory 

Future 

Development 

Joseph 

DiLuzio 

2008-A0251 

Diakon Solutions 

LLC 

Cape May Court 

House, NJ 

Advancement and commercialization 

of the Sun Keyboard System 

Translator 

10/23/2008 Weather Thomas Ryan 2008-A0255 

Center for 

Network Centric 

Product Support 

Research LLC 

East Hartford, CT 

Network centric airborne microserver 

8/5/2008 

Technical 

Strategies and 

Integration 

John Wiley 2008-A0249 

HiTec Systems 

Inc. 

Egg Harbor 

Township, NJ 

Aviation-related research in support 

of DoD rapid response third 

generation activities 

2/19/2008 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Systems 

Research 

James 

Sizemore 

2008-A0245 

New Mexico 

State University 

Las Cruces, NM 

UAS research 

10/30/2007 Continued 

Airworthiness 

John 

Bakuckas 

2007-A0236 

The Boeing 

Company 

Huntington 

Beach, CA 

Composite repair of aircraft 

structures 

 B-16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC CRDA Number 

Industry 

Partner Subject 

9/21/2007 SERC/NextGen Trung 

Nguyen 

2007-A0235 

Network Centric 

Operations 

Industry 

Consortium Inc. 

Newport Beach, 

CA 

Provide guidance for NetCentric 

standards and protocols that may be 

incorporated by the NextGen 

Program. 

7/18/2007 Surveillance Michael 

McNeil 

2007-A0233 CNS Aviation 

Vienna, VA 

Flight testing for ADS-B separation 

standards 

2/20/2007 

Human Factors 

and Aviation 

Medicine 

Ben Williams 2006-A0219 

Drexel University 

Philadelphia, PA 

Air traffic controller cognitive 

modeling 

12/13/2006 Surface 

Surveillance 

Jeffery 

Livings 

2006-A0223 RVision LLC 

San Diego, CA Airport Surface Surveillance 

7/25/2006 

Air Traffic 

Models and 

Evaluation 

Tools 

Mike 

Pagilone, Ben 

Williams 

2006-A0216 

Rowan 

University 

Glassboro, NJ 

Development and improvement of a 

graphical user interface for the 

display of recorded air traffic data, 

predictions of this air traffic data 

from NAS decision support tools, and 

a visualization framework for radar 

data integrity 

1/17/2006 

Air Traffic 

Models and 

Evaluation 

Tools 

Graham Elliot 2005-A0213 

Ordinate 

Corporation 

Menlo Park, CA 

Machine-graded aviation English test 

for pilots for measuring levels of 

English language proficiency 

7/17/2002 

Capacity and 

Air Traffic 

Management 

Technology 

Albert 

Rehmann 

2002-A0171 

The Boeing 

Company 

McLean, VA 

Development of modeling and 

simulation tools to assist in 

technology implementation of 

capacity enhancing capabilities for 

the NAS 

4/5/2002 

Airport 

Technology 

Research – 

Safety 

Jim Patterson 2001-A0164 

The Boeing 

Company 

Seattle, WA 

Utilization of statistical analysis for 

determining airplane contact risks of 

varying-span airplanes on taxiways 

of varying separation 

7/29/1996 

Airport 

Technology 

Research – 

Capacity 

Satish 

Agrawal 

1996-A0097 

The Boeing 

Company 

Seattle, WA 

Development of the National Airport 

Pavement Test Machine for the 

research on pavement design 

procedures to ensure compatibility 

between aircraft and airports 

throughout the world 

9/7/1994 

Airport 

Technology 

Research – 

Safety 

Ryan King 1994-A0065 

Engineered 

Arresting 

Systems Corp. 

Logan Township, 

NJ 

Testing of a soft ground arresting 

system developed to safely stop 

aircraft that overrun the available 

length of runway 

Human Factors Ben Williams 06-CRDA0219 Drexel University Data collected during high fidelity 

human in the loop simulations 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Systems 

Research 

Karen 

Buondonno 

09-CRDA0259 AAI Corporation Support research activities to 

integrate UAS into NAS 

 B-17 
 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC CRDA Number 

Industry 

Partner Subject 

 Surveillance Mike McNeil 07-CRDA0233 

CNS Aviation 

Services 

Corporation 

Support the participation in a series 

of flight scenarios to obtain data 

supporting the analysis of separation 

standards, standards and rulemaking, 

and risk management for the 

evaluation of NextGen concepts and 

technologies. 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Systems 

Research 

Karen 

Buondonno 

09-CRDA0258 

General Atomics 

Aeronautical 

Structures 

Support research activities to 

integrate UAS into NAS 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Systems 

Research 

Karen 

Buondonno 

09-CRDA0260 General Electric 

Aviation Systems 

Support research activities to 

integrate UAS into NAS 

Engineering 

Development 

Services 

Stephen 

Beamer 

10-CRDA0268 United Parcel 

Service 

Provide data of the SDSS in daily 

operations at the Louisville 

International Airport.

 Weather Thomas Ryan 08-CRDA0255 

Center For 

Network Centric 

Product Support 

Research 

Establish a network-centric airborne 

web server test capability on a 

WJHTC aircraft for use in NextGen 

NEO and SWIM tests. 

2.2 Patents Issued Through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

The FAA encourages its inventors to patent new technologies through the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office. A patent is a grant of a property right and gives the owner the right to 

exclude anyone else from making, using, or selling the invention. Inventions patented by FAA 

inventors are available for commercial licensing with royalty payments shared with the inventor 

and the agency. Legislation allows inventors to receive up to $150,000 per year over their salary 

from royalty payments. The agency’s Technology Transfer Program Office promotes the 

agency’s patents for commercialization. Table B.6 lists the current U.S. patents issued to the 

U.S. DOT/FAA. 

Two licensing agreements are in effect for Patent No. 5,981,290 “Microscale Combustion 

Calorimeter” and Patent No. 6,464,391 “Heat Release Rate Calorimeter for Milligram Samples.” 

Under the patent provisions of government funding agreements, recipients must disclose each 

subject invention they make to the federal agency and may elect to retain title to any patentable 

subject matter. If the recipient retains title, the government receives a broad license to use the 

invention for government purposes throughout the world. 

The FAA has identified approximately 60 active patents resulting from FAA funded agreements. 

These patented technologies are available for use by the government and its contractors on a 

cost-free basis when used for government purposes. For more information, see 

http://www.tc.faa.gov/technologytransfer/ttpatentsthru_grant.html. 

 B-18 
 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Table B.6 - Patents Issued for DOT/FAA 

Patents Issued for DOT/FAA 

Date Issued Patent 

Number Title Description 

09/22/2009 7,592,816 Localizer Cable Fault Analyzer An analyzer that memorizes which antenna in a 

Localizer antenna array caused a fault 

11/02/2004 6,812,834 Reference Sample for Generating 

Smoky Atmosphere 

A reference sample for testing fire detectors and a 

method for testing using the reference samples 

10/29/2002 6,470,730 

Dry Transfer Method for the 

Preparation of Explosives Test 

Samples 

A method of preparing samples for testing explosives 

and drug detectors of the type that search for particles 

in air 

10/22/2002 6,467,950 

Device and Method to Measure 

Mass Loss Rate of an Electrically 

Heated Sample 

A device and a method for measuring the mass loss 

rate of a sample of combustible material placed on a 

mass-sensitive platform 

10/15/2002 6,464,391 Heat Release Rate Calorimeter for 

Milligram Samples 

A calorimeter that measures heat release rates of very 

small samples (on the order of 1 to 10 milligrams) 

without the need to separately and simultaneously 

measure the mass loss rate of the sample and the heat 

of combustion of the fuel gases produced during the 

fuel generation process 

09/12/2000 6,116,049 Adiabatic Expansion Nozzle 

A nozzle for producing a continuous gas/solid or 

gas/aerosol stream from a liquid having a high room 

temperature vapor pressure 

11/09/1999 5,981,290 Microscale Combustion Calorimeter A calorimeter for measuring flammability parameters 

of materials using only milligram sample quantities 

2.3 Small Business Innovation Research 

These contracts encourage the private sector to invest in long-term research that helps the federal 

government meet its R&D objectives. Eligible small businesses compete for Phase I contracts to 

conduct feasibility-related experimental or theoretical research. The government awards a Phase 

II contract based on the results of Phase I, which is the actual research phase. The government 

encourages contractors to pursue other funding sources for Phase III and to attract venture 

capitalists to commercialize the innovation. 

3.0 Working with Academia 

The FAA works with academia in three ways: the Joint University Program (JUP), aviation 

grants, and Air Transportation Centers of Excellence (COEs). 

3.1 Joint University Program for Air Transportation Research 

The JUP is a research partnership between the FAA and Ohio University, Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology, and Princeton University. The program aids in the development of a safer and 

more efficient air transportation system by identifying promising targets for development, 

conducting long-term research, and educating technological leaders. The FAA and NASA 

benefit directly from the results of the research and gain valuable feedback from university 

researchers regarding the goals and effectiveness of government programs. An additional benefit 

of JUP is the creation of a talented cadre of engineers and scientists who will form a core of 

 B-19 
 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

advanced aeronautical expertise in industry, academia, and government. For more information, 

see http://u2.princeton.edu/~jup/. 

3.2 Aviation Grants 

Public Law 101-508 authorized the FAA to establish research grant programs that encompass a 

broad spectrum of aviation research activities. These programs encourage and support 

innovative and advanced research with potential benefit to the FAA mission. All colleges, 

universities, and other non-profit research institutions are eligible for research grants. This FAA 

program supports the long-term growth of the aviation industry by encouraging academic 

institutions to establish and nurture aviation research programs that increase the aviation talent 

base. Table B.7 lists the FAA research grants started in FY 2011. The FAA awarded $3,657,792 

in new research grants in FY 2011. 

Table B.7 - FAA Research Grants Started in FY 2011 

FAA Research Grants Started in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program 

FAA 

POC 

Grant 

Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

9/14/2011 

System Wide 

Information 

Management 

(SWIM) 

Todd 

Gardner 

2011-G018 

Quality of Service and 

Service Availability in 

Mission Critical Service 

Oriented Architectures - An 

Analysis of the FAA 

NextGen Swim Architecture 

Curators of the 

University of 

Missouri-on 

behalf of 

UMKC 

$40,000 

6/31/2011 Continued 

Airworthiness 

John 

Bakuckas 

2011-G004 

Aluminum 2024 and 

Aluminum-Lithium 2198 

Crack Growth Comparison 

Study 

University of 

Dayton $61,505 

8/30/2011 

Flightdeck 

Maintenance 

System 

Integration 

Human 

Factors 

Dan 

Herschler 

2011-G017 

Determination of NextGen 

Human Factor Issues and 

Recommended R&D 

Requirements for Single-Pilot 

Aircraft Operations in the 

NextGen Environment 

Florida 

Institute of 

Technology 

$98,998 

8/29/2011 

Joint 

University 

Program 

Paul Tan 2011-G016 

FAA Joint University 

Program for Air 

Transportation Proposal for 

Activities by the 

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$150,000 

8/18/2011 

Aircraft 

Catastrophic 

Failure 

Prevention 

Research 

Don 

Altobelli 

2011-G015 

Non-linear Finite Element 

Modeling and Material Model 

Development for Aircraft 

Engine Failure Analysis 

The George 

Washington 

University 

$353,099 

8/17/2011 

Airport 

Technology 

Research 

Program 

David Brill 2011-G014 

Concrete Airfield Pavement 

Design Analysis 

The 

Pennsylvania 

State 

University 

$150,000 

8/16/2011 

Ground Based 

Augmentation 

System 

(GBAS) 

John 

Warburton 

2011-G012 

Personal Privacy Jammer 

Vehicle Modeling and 

Testing 

Oakland 

University $60,000 

 B-20 
 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

FAA Research Grants Started in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program 

FAA 

POC 

Grant 

Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

8/15/2011 

Propulsion 

and Fuel 

Systems 

Joseph 

Wilson 

2011-G009 

Probabilistic Integrity and 

Risk Assessment of Turbine 

Engines 

Southwest 

Research 

Institute 

$1,100,000 

8/10/2011 Continued 

Airworthiness 

John 

Bakuckas 

2011-G013 

Development of a Ten Year 

Emerging Metallic Structures 

Technology (EMST) R&D 

Roadmap 

Wichita State 

University $80,000 

8/9/2011 Continued 

Airworthiness 

Michael 

Walz 

2011-G011 

Development of 

Technologies to Improve the 

Reliability and Intelligence of 

Aircraft Electrical Wire and 

Interconnect Systems 

University of 

Dayton $100,000 

8/8/2011 

System Safety 

Management 

(Terminal 

Area Safety) 

Andrew 

Cheng 

2011- G010 

Analyses of Aircraft 

Performance Based on InFlight Recorded Parameters 

University of 

Louisville 

Research 

Foundation, 

Inc. 

$180,273 

7/14/2011 

Airport 

Technology 

Research 

Program 

Gordon 

Hayhoe 

2011-G008 

Performance of Unbound 

Layers of a Flexible 

Pavement System During 

aircraft Loading 

Rowan 

University $64,545 

7/14/2011 Environment 

and Energy 

Dale 

Livingston 

2011-G007 

Analysis, Modeling and 

Simulation of NextGen 

Trajectory-Based Operations 

Rutgers, The 

State 

University of 

New Jersey 

$144,027 

7/12/2011 GPS Civil 

Requirements 

Deane 

Bunce 

2011-G006 

Ionospheric Research in 

Support of Next Generation 

Satellite Based Augmentation 

Systems 

Trustees of 

Boston 

College 

$265,000 

6/7/2011 

Aircraft 

Catastrophic 

Failure 

Prevention 

Research 

Don 

Altobelli 

2011-G003 

Characterization of Aircraft 

Materials for Dynamic 

Impact Loading Applications 

The Ohio 

State 

University 

$300,000 

6/2/2011 Aeromedical 

Research 

G A 

McLean 

2011-G005 

Development and Validation 

of Computer Simulations for 

Aircraft Emergency 

Evacuation 

Rutgers, The 

State 

University of 

New Jersey 

$75,362 

3/25/2011 

Aircraft 

Catastrophic 

Failure 

Prevention 

Research 

Don 

Altobelli 

2011-G002 

Non-Linear Finite Element 

Modeling Guidelines for 

Aerospace Impact 

Applications 

Central 

Connecticut 

State 

University 

$141,869 

3/7/2011 

System Safety 

Management 

(Terminal 

Area Safety) 

Andrew 

Cheng 

2011-G001 

Study of Aircraft 

Performance in Slippery 

Runway Conditions 

Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical 

University 

$293,114 

Total of awards originating in FY 2011: $3,657,792 

3.3 Air Transportation Centers of Excellence 

For the past decade, the Air Transportation Centers of Excellence have represented a major 

commitment by the FAA to support multi-year and multi-million dollar research that ensures 

coordination and innovation. These investments result in significant advancements in aviation 

 B-21 
2012 NARP Appendix B 

science and technologies and technology transfer. Since the inception of the COE program, the 

FAA has competitively established nine COEs with more than 60 university partners and over 

200 industry and government affiliates. Through long-term cooperative agreements, partnerships 

are formed that produce research in specific areas of aviation considered critical to the mission of 

the FAA. COEs also help develop the nation’s technology base by supporting the next 

generation of engineers and scientists. 

The agreements require the universities to match FAA grants dollar for dollar, thereby 

encouraging collaboration through partnerships with industry affiliates and state and local 

governments. Centers may also receive funds through cost-share contracts. The cooperative 

agreement allows funding for the center over a period of 10 years. This long-term commitment 

encourages each COE to become a self-sufficient national aviation resource. 

The COE for Aviation Operational Research (NEXTOR) currently serves as a self-sufficient 

resource for the aviation community. The FAA is actively sponsoring six centers with academic 

institutions throughout the United States: 

 COE for Commercial Space Transportation 

 COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment 

 Joint COE for Advanced Materials 

 COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction 

 COE for General Aviation Research 

 COE for Airport Technology 

COE for Commercial Space Transportation 

On August 18, 2010, the Secretary of Transportation announced the selection of the new COE 

for Commercial Space Transportation. The R&D efforts of the COE address four major areas: 

space launch traffic management and launch operations; launch vehicles, operations, 

technologies and payloads; human spaceflight; and industry viability, including commercial, 

policy, international, legal, and regulatory viability. New Mexico State University serves as the 

administrative lead with nine other university members, including Florida Institute of 

Technology, Florida State University, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 

Stanford University, University of Central Florida, University of Colorado at Boulder, University 

of Florida, and University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. For additional information, 

see: http://www.coe-cst.org/. 

 B-22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Table B.8 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the COE for Commercial Space Transportation 

COE for Commercial Space Transportation Awards in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Grant Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

9/9/2011 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

Nick 

Demidovich 

10-C-CSTUFL-005 

High Temperature, Optical 

Sapphire Pressure Sensors 

for Hypersonic Vehicles 

University of 

Florida $60,000 

9/9/2011 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

Nick 

Demidovich 

10-C-CSTFSU-007 

Autonomous Rendezvous 

and Docking for Space 

Debris Mitigation 

Florida State 

University $45,000 

9/9/2011 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

Ken 

Davidian 

10-C-CSTFSU-008 Technical Oversight and 

Integration 

Florida State 

University $50,000 

9/6/2011 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

Megan 

Mitchell 

10-C-CSTSU-12 

Unified 4D Trajectory 

Approach for Integrated 

Management of 

Commercial Air and Space 

Traffic 

Stanford 

University $50,000 

9/6/2011 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

Megan 

Mitchell 

10-C-CSTSU-13 

Mitigate Threats through 

Space Environment 

Modeling/Prediction 

Including Micrometeoroid 

and Orbital Debris 

(MMOD) 

Stanford 

University $50,000 

9/6/2011 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

Nick 

Demidovich 

10-C-CSTSU-14 

Autonomous Rendezvous 

and Docking for Space 

Debris Mitigation 

Stanford 

University $40,000 

9/6/2011 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

Doug 

Graham 

10-C-CSTUTMB-12 

Flight Crew Medical 

Standards and Passenger 

Acceptance Criteria 

University of 

Texas Medical 

Branch at 

Galveston 

$35,000 

9/1/2011 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

Nick 

Demidovich 

10-C-CSTFSU-6 

High Temperature, Optical 

Sapphire Pressure Sensors 

for Hypersonic Vehicles 

Florida State 

University $30,000 

8/31/2011 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

Megan 

Mitchell 

10-C-CSTCU-11 

Development of Masters 

Level Commercial Launch, 

On-orbit, and Re-entry 

Operations Instruction 

Criteria 

University of 

Colorado at 

Boulder 

$50,000 

8/31/2011 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

Ken 

Davidian 

10-C-CSTUCF-4 Technical Oversight for 

UCF 

University of 

Central Florida $10,000 

8/31/2011 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

Julie Price 10-C-CSTCU-10 

Space Situational 

Awareness Improvements 

to Enable Safe Commercial 

Space Operations and 

Traffic Management 

University of 

Colorado at 

Boulder 

$80,000 

Total awarded in FY 2011: $500,000 

 B-23 
2012 NARP Appendix B 

COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment 

In 2004, the Administrator selected the COE for Airliner Cabin Environment (ACER) with 

Harvard University and Purdue University as the technical leads and Auburn University as the 

administrative lead. Following the Phase I evaluation, the COE expanded scope from airlinercabin research activities to include the intermodal transport environment. In 2008, it was 

renamed the COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment (RITE). This COE 

conducts R&D on cabin air quality, chemical and biological threats, and related topics. The 

FAA expects this COE to become self-sufficient by 2014. The core university team includes 

Auburn University, Boise State University, Harvard University, Kansas State University, Purdue 

University, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. RITE generated close 

to $1.5M in matching contributions in FY 2011. For additional information, see: 

http://www.acer-coe.org/. 

Table B.9 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the COE for Research in the Intermodal 

Transport Environment 

COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment Awards in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program 

FAA 

POC 

Grant 

Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

6/16/2011 Aeromedical 

Research 

Jean 

Watson 

10-C-RITEAU-002 

Research in the Intermodal 

Transport Environment 

(RITE)-Sensors and 

Prognostics to Mitigate Bleed 

Air Contamination Events 

Auburn 

University $384,683 

6/16/2011 Aeromedical 

Research 

Jean 

Watson 

10-C-RITEPU-001 

Developing a Risk Paradigm 

for Pesticides and VOC’s 

from Ozone Reactions in 

Aircrafts 

Purdue 

University $159,995 

6/16/2011 Aeromedical 

Research 

Jean 

Watson 

10-C-RITEBSU-001 

Sensors and Prognostics to 

Mitigate Bleed Air 

Contamination Events 

Boise State 

University $135,965 

6/16/2011 Aeromedical 

Research 

Jean 

Watson 

10-C-RITEKSU-002 

Sensors and Prognostics to 

Mitigate Bleed Air 

Contamination Events 

Kansas State 

University $105,333 

5/27/2011 Aeromedical 

Research 

Jean 

Watson 

10-C-RITEHU-001 Exposure to Flame Retardants 

in Commercial Aircraft 

Harvard 

University $302,071 

5/27/2011 Aeromedical 

Research 

Jean 

Watson 

10-C-RITEKSU-001 

Application of Hazard 

Analysis and Critical Control 

Points (HACCP) Methods to 

Disease Transmission on 

Fomites in Aircraft 

Kansas State 

University $76,174 

5/27/2011 Aeromedical 

Research 

Jean 

Watson 

10-C-RITEAU-001 

Hazard Analysis and Critical 

Control Points Methods 

Applied to Disease 

Transmission 

Auburn 

University $217,362 

10/18/2010 Aeromedical 

Research 

Jean 

Watson 

07-C-RITEAU-006 

Sensors and Prognostics to 

Mitigate Bleed Air 

Contamination Events 

Auburn 

University $100,000 

Total awarded in FY 2011 $1,481,584 

 B-24 
 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Joint COE for Advanced Materials 

In 2003, the Administrator selected the Joint COE for Advanced Materials (JAMS) with the 

University of Washington and Wichita State University as the lead members. Wichita State 

University was designated as a Center of Excellence for Composites and Advanced Materials 

(CECAM) and the University of Washington was designated as a center for Advanced Materials 

in Transport Aircraft Structures (AMTAS). 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. The FAA expects this COE to become 

self-sufficient by FY 2013. Members of CECAM include Northwestern University, Purdue 

University, Tuskegee University, University of California at Los Angeles, and University of 

Delaware. AMTAS members include Washington State University, Oregon State University, 

and Edmonds Community College. JAMS generated matching contributions close to $2M in FY 

2011. For additional information, see http://www.jams-coe.org/. 

Table B.10 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the Joint COE in Advanced Materials 

Joint COE in Advanced Materials Awards in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Grant Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

8/10/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

David 

Westlund 

08-C-AMUU-009 

Damage Tolerance Test 

Method Development for 

Sandwich Composites 

University 

of Utah $100,000 

8/10/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

David 

Westlund 

08-C-AMUU-008 

Durability of Adhesively 

Bonded Joints for Aircraft 

Structures 

University 

of Utah $75,000 

8/10/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

David 

Westlund 

07-C-AMFIU-006 

Effect of Surface 

Contamination on 

Composite Bond Integrity 

and Durability 

Florida 

International 

University 

$75,000 

8/9/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

Lynn Pham 08-C-AMWISU-026 

Damage Tolerance Testing 

and Analysis Protocols for 

Full-Scale Composite 

Airframe Structures under 

Repeated Loading 

Wichita 

State 

University 

$250,000 

8/9/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

David 

Westlund 

08-C-AMWISU-024 

Development of Dynamic 

Mechanical Analyzer 

(DMA) Calibration and 

Testing Procedures 

Wichita 

State 

University 

$200,000 

8/9/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

Lynn Pham 08-C-AMWISU-023 

Effect of CACRC Depot 

Repairs on Composite 

Airframe Structures 

Wichita 

State 

University 

$125,000 

8/9/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

Lynn Pham 08-C-AMUW-019 

Certification of 

Discontinuous Composite 

Material Forms for Aircraft 

Structures 

University 

of 

Washington 

$99,999 

8/9/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

David 

Westlund 

08-C-AMUW-021 

Compliance Methodology 

with FAA Requirements for 

Crashworthiness of 

Composite-Intensive 

Aircraft Structures 

University 

of 

Washington 

$99,984 

 B-25 
 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Joint COE in Advanced Materials Awards in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Grant Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

8/9/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

Curtis 

Davies 

08-C-AMWISU-025 

Administration of the Center 

of Excellence for 

Composites and Advanced 

Materials (CECAM) at 

Wichita State University 

Wichita 

State 

University 

$75,000 

8/9/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

Lynn Pham 08-C-AMOSU-004 

Failure of Notched 

Laminates Under Out-ofplane Bending 

Oregon 

State 

University 

$75,000 

8/9/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

David 

Westlund 

08-C-AMUW-020 

Improving Adhesive 

Bonding of Composite 

through Surface 

Characterization 

University 

of 

Washington 

$75,000 

8/9/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

Curtis 

Davies 

08-C-AMUW-018 

Administration of the FAA 

Center on Advanced 

Materials in Transport 

Aircraft Structures 

(AMTAS) 

University 

of 

Washington 

$74,835 

7/11/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

David 

Westlund 

08-C-AMUU-007 

Development and Evaluation 

of Fracture Mechanics Test 

Methods for Sandwich 

Composites 

University 

of Utah $62,790 

6/27/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

Allan 

Abramowitz 

08-C-AMWISU-022 Certification by AnalysisStructural Crashworthiness 

Wichita 

State 

University 

$153,000 

6/21/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

Curtis 

Davies 

08-C-AMWISU-021 Composites Materials 

Handbook 

Wichita 

State 

University 

$125,000 

6/9/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

Allan 

Abramowitz 

08-C-AMWISU-027 

Development and Safety 

Management of Composite 

Certification Guidance 

Wichita 

State 

University 

$127,500 

6/9/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

Curtis 

Davies 

08-C-AMWISU-020 

Development and Safety 

Management of Composite 

Certification Guidance 

Wichita 

State 

University 

$109,300 

1/24/2011 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

Curtis 

Davies 

08-C-AMWISU-018 

Composite Structural 

Engineering Safety 

Awareness 

Wichita 

State 

University 

$87,731 

Total awarded in FY 2011 $1,990,139 

COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction 

In 2003, the Administrator selected the COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and 

Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) with Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the lead 

member. This COE is co-sponsored by NASA and Transport Canada and conducts R&D to 

identify, understand, measure, and mitigate the impacts of aircraft noise and aviation emissions. 

PARTNER seeks to reduce uncertainty in issues dealing with climate impact and the health and 

welfare effects of emissions to actionable levels. The FAA expects this COE to become selfsufficient by FY 2013. Universities that collaborate with PARTNER include Boston University, 

Georgia Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

 B-26 
 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, Stanford University, University of Illinois at 

Urbana - Champaign, Missouri University of Science and Technology, University of North 

Carolina, University of Pennsylvania, and York University. PARTNER generated matching 

contributions in excess of $4.5M in FY 2011. For additional information, see 

http://www.partner.aero/. 

Table B.11 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the COE Partnership for AiR Transportation 

Noise and Emissions Reduction 

COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Awards in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Grant Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

9/2/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Laurette 

Fisher 

09-C-NEUPENN002 Noise Exposure 

Response- Sleep 

Disturbance 

Pennsylvania 

State University $30,000 

9/1/2011 Environment and 

Energy Pat Moran 09-C-NEMIT-014 

Low Power/Low 

Drag Approaches 

to Mitigate 

Environmental 

Impacts of 

Aviation 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$40,000 

8/31/2011 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, 

and Metrics 

Carl Ma 10-C-NEMST-005 

Aerospace 

Recommended 

Practice 

Measurement 

Protocol 

Demonstration 

Missouri 

University of 

Science and 

Technology 

$250,000 

8/17/2011 

NextGen -

Environment and 

Energy -

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emissions 

Reduction 

Warren 

Gillette 

09-C-NEMIT-013 

Alternative Jet 

Fuels DLA 

Energy Analysis 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$300,000 

8/17/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Laurette 

Fisher 

09-C-NEPU-013 

Human Response 

- Sleep 

Disturbance 

Purdue 

University $5,000 

8/17/2011 COE Management Mohan Gupta 09-C-NEMIT-012 

Program 

Management for 

Aircraft Noise 

and Aviation 

Emissions 

Mitigation COE 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$271,160 

7/22/2011 

NextGen -

Environment and 

Energy -

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emissions 

Reduction 

Warren 

Gillette 

09-C-NEMIT-009 

Environmental 

Cost-Benefit 

Analysis of 

Alternative Jet 

Fuels 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$150,000 

7/11/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Rangasayi 

Halthore 

10-C-NESU-003 

Studying the 

Effects of Aircraft 

Exhaust on 

Global and 

Regional Climate 

Stanford 

University $150,000 

 B-27 
 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Awards in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Grant Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

7/8/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Rangasayi 

Halthore 

10-C-NEUI-003 

Development and 

Evaluation of 

Climate Metrics 

for Aviation 

Based on 

ClimateChemistry 

Modeling 

Analyses 

University of 

Illinois at 

Urbana -

Champaign 

$150,000 

7/8/2011 Environment and 

Energy Natalia Sizov 09-C-NEHU-004 

Health Effects of 

Aviation-Related 

Noise in the 

Elderly 

Harvard 

University $40,000 

7/8/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Laurette 

Fisher 

09-C-NEPSU-009 Sonic Boom 

Metrics 

Pennsylvania 

State University $70,000 

7/8/2011 Environment and 

Energy Natalia Sizov 10-C-NEBU-002 

Health Effects of 

Aviation-Related 

Noise in the 

Elderly 

Boston 

University $50,000 

7/8/2011 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research - Aircraft 

Technologies, Fuels, 

and Metrics 

Carl Ma 10-C-NEMST-004 

In-depth Analysis 

of the E-31 

AAFEX II 

Missouri 

University of 

Science and 

Technology 

$50,000 

6/29/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Christopher 

Sequira 

10-C-NEBU-001 

Health Impacts of 

Aviation-Related 

Air Pollutants 

Boston 

University $120,000 

6/28/2011 Environment and 

Energy Hua He 09-C-NEGIT-022 

Prediction of FarField Source 

Noise from EnRoute 

Commercial 

Aircraft 

Georgia 

Institute of 

Technology 

$30,000 

6/27/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Laurette 

Fisher 

09-C-NEPSU-006 Outreach Pennsylvania 

State University $50,000 

6/27/2011 Environment and 

Energy Bill Hua 09-C-NEPU-010 

Propagation of 

noise from enroute aircraft 

Purdue 

University $20,000 

6/27/2011 Environment and 

Energy Bill Hua 09-C-NEPSU-008 

Source Emission 

and Propagation 

Pennsylvania 

State University $30,324 

6/27/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Christopher 

Sequeira 

09-C-NEUNC-002 

Extension of 

Subgrid Scale 

Treatment of 

Aircraft 

Emissions in Air 

Quality Models to 

Include Organics 

and Volatile PM 

University of 

North Carolina $169,996 

6/27/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Laurette 

Fisher 

10-C-NEUPENN001 Noise Exposure 

Response- Sleep 

Disturbance 

University of 

Pennsylvania $75,000 

6/27/2011 Environment and 

Energy Bill Hua 09-C-NEPSU-007 

Evaluation of the 

Impact of WholeHouse 

Construction on 

Aircraft Noise 

Perception 

Pennsylvania 

State University $20,000 

 B-28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Awards in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Grant Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

6/27/2011 COE Management Mohan Gupta 09-C-NEMIT-008 

Program 

Management for 

Aircraft Noise 

and Aviation 

Emissions 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$153,840 

6/27/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Mehmet 

Marsan 

09-C-NEPU-009 

Noise Exposure 

Response -

Annoyance 

Purdue 

University $110,000 

6/27/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Laszlo 

Windhoffer 

09-C-NEGIT-021 

Assessment of 

CO2 Emission 

Metrics for 

Commercial 

Aircraft 

Certification and 

Fleet Performance 

Monitoring 

Georgia 

Institute of 

Technology 

$250,000 

6/27/2011 Environment and 

Energy Bill He 09-C-NEGIT-020 

Sound 

Transmission 

Indoors Study of 

Whole Houses 

Georgia 

Institute of 

Technology 

$50,000 

6/27/2011 Environment and 

Energy 

Laurette 

Fisher 

09-C-NEPU-011 

Human Response 

- Sleep 

Disturbance 

Purdue 

University $70,000 

6/10/2011 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emissions 

Reduction 

Rhett 

Jefferies 

09-C-NEGIT-018 

EDS Assessment 

of CLEEN 

Technology 

Georgia 

Institute of 

Technology 

$450,000 

6/10/2011 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emissions 

Reduction 

Joe DiPardo 09-C-NEGIT-017 

EDS 

Development and 

Application 

Georgia 

Institute of 

Technology 

$750,000 

6/10/2011 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emissions 

Reduction 

Thomas 

Cuddy 

09-C-NEMIT-007 

Understanding the 

Relationship 

between Aviation 

Economics and 

the Broader 

Economy 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$50,000 

4/27/2011 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emissions 

Reduction 

Laszlo 

Windhoffer 

09-C-NEGIT-016 

Assessment of 

CO2 Emission 

Metrics for 

Commercial 

Aircraft 

Certification and 

Fleet Performance 

Monitoring from 

a NAS 

Perspective 

Georgia 

Institute of 

Technology 

$163,000 

 B-29 
 

2012 NARP Appendix B 

COE Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Awards in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program FAA POC Grant Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

4/4/2011 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emissions 

Reduction 

Laszlo 

Windhoffer 

09-C-NEGIT-015 

Assessment of 

CO2 Emission 

Metrics for 

Commercial 

Aircraft 

Certification and 

Fleet Performance 

Monitoring from 

a NAS 

Perspective 

Georgia 

Institute of 

Technology 

$150,000 

4/1/2011 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emissions 

Reduction 

Pat Moran 09-C-NESU-002 

System-Level 

Implications of 

Changes in Future 

Aircraft Mission 

Specifications 

Stanford 

University $120,261 

3/2/2011 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emissions 

Reduction 

Pat Moran 09-C-NEMIT-005 

System Level 

Implications of 

Changes in Future 

Aircraft Mission 

Specifications 

Massachusetts 

Institute of 

Technology 

$99,787 

2/28/2011 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management System 

and Advanced Noise 

and Emissions 

Reduction 

Pat Moran 09-C-NEGIT-012 

System Level 

Implications of 

Changes in Future 

Aircraft Mission 

Specifications 

Georgia 

Institute of 

Technology 

$100,000 

Total awarded in FY 2011: $4,588,368 

COE for General Aviation Research 

Established in 2001, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University serves as the lead member for the 

COE for General Aviation Research (CGAR). This COE conducts safety-related R&D with 

application to non-commercial aviation in the following areas: NextGen ADS-B, weather in the 

cockpit, safety management systems, remote airport lighting systems, training standards, and 

unmanned aircraft systems. The FAA expects CGAR to become self-sufficient by 2013. 

Members include Wichita State University, University of North Dakota, and the University of 

Alaska. CGAR generated matching contributions in excess of $375K in FY 2011. For 

additional information, see http://www.cgar.org/. 

 B-30 
2012 NARP Appendix B 

Table B.12 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the COE for General Aviation Research 

COE for General Aviation Research Awards in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program 

FAA 

POC 

Grant 

Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

8/9/2011 COE Management Pete 

Sparacino 

01-CERAU-1P 

Year Eleven, Management 

and Administrative Support 

- General Aviation Center of 

Excellence 

Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical 

University 

$170,994 

4/15/2011 

NextGen - Weather 

Technology-in-theCockpit 

Ian 

Johnson 

07-C-GAUAA-012 

Weather in the Cockpit 

(WITC )- Concept of 

Operations 

University of 

Alaska $10,000 

11/29/2010 System Safety 

Management 

Michael 

Vu 

07-C-GAUND-017 

General Aviation System 

Safety Management 

Research 

University of 

North Dakota $54,296 

11/29/2010 System Safety 

Management 

Michael 

Vu 

07-C-GAUAA-011 

General Aviation System 

Safety Management 

Research 

University of 

Alaska $8,000 

11/29/2010 System Safety 

Management 

Michael 

Vu 

07-C-GAERAU031 General Aviation System 

Safety Management 

Research 

Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical 

University 

$134,542 

Total awarded in FY 2011: $377,832 

COE for Airport Technology 

In 1995, the Administrator selected the COE for Airport Pavement Research with the University 

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as the lead member. This COE initially focused on pavement 

issues. In 2005, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute joined the COE and the FAA expanded the 

scope to include R&D on wildlife hazard mitigation, lighting, and other airport safety topics, and 

changed its name to the Center of Excellence for Airport Technology (CEAT). The FAA 

expects this COE to become self-sufficient in 2012. Other university members include EmbryRiddle Aeronautical University and North Carolina A&T State University. CEAT generated 

matching contributions in excess of $2.2M during FY 2011. For further information, see 

http://www.ceat.uiuc.edu/. 

Table B.13 - Grants Awarded in FY 2011 to the COE for Airport Technology 

COE for Airport Technology Awards in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program 

FAA 

POC 

Grant 

Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

6/13/2011 

Airport 

Technology 

Research Program 

Ryan King 05-C-ATUIUC-032 

Proposal for Wildlife 

Hazard and Safety 

Technology Research 

UIUC $280,233 

6/13/2011 

Airport 

Technology 

Research Program 

Ryan King 05-C-ATUIUC-031 

Support of Avian Radar 

Performance 

Assessments at Various 

Airports 

UIUC $967,701 

6/13/2011 

Airport 

Technology 

Research Program 

Robert 

Bassey 

05-C-ATUIUC-034 

Low Cost Surveillance 

System Program 

Support 

UIUC $595,428 

6/13/2011 

Airport 

Technology 

Research Program 

James 

Patterson 

05-C-ATUIUC-033 CEAT FOD Program 

Support UIUC $299,506 

 B-31 
2012 NARP Appendix B 

COE for Airport Technology Awards in FY 2011 

Award 

Date 

FAA R&D 

Program 

FAA 

POC 

Grant 

Number Grant Title Recipient Institution 

Award 

Amount 

4/1/2011 

Airport 

Technology 

Research Program 

David 

Brill 

05-C-ATUIUC-030 

Center of Excellence 

for Airport Technology 

(CEAT) Graduate 

Student Support 

UIUC $157,000 

Total awarded in FY 2011: $2,299,868 

 B-32 
 

 

2012 NARP Appendix C 

Appendix C: Research, Engineering and Development 

Advisory Committee 

Table of Contents 

Introduction................................................................................................................................. C-1 

REDAC Guidance for the FY 2013 R&D Portfolio ................................................................... C-2 

1.1 General Observations ...................................................................................................... C-2 

1.2 Subcommittee on Airports .............................................................................................. C-4 

1.3 Subcommittee on Environment and Energy ................................................................... C-7 

1.4 Subcommittee on Human Factors................................................................................. C-10 

1.5 Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety .................................................................................. C-15 

1.6 NAS Operations Subcommittee .................................................................................... C-21 

REDAC Recommendations on the FY 2013 R&D Portfolio ................................................... C-30 

2.1 General Observations .................................................................................................... C-30 

2.2 Subcommittee on Airports ............................................................................................ C-31 

2.3 Subcommittee on Environment and Energy ................................................................. C-32 

2.4 Subcommittee on Human Factors................................................................................. C-35 

2.5 Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety .................................................................................. C-38 

2.6 NAS Operations Subcommittee .................................................................................... C-40 

C-i 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

Introduction 

The FAA values the ongoing involvement of the Research, Engineering and Development 

Advisory Committee (REDAC) in reviewing its current and planned R&D programs and has 

established a formal process for the agency to reply to Committee recommendations. 

The REDAC meets twice a year, in the fall and in the spring to review and provide advice on the 

R&D portfolio. In the fall of 2010, the Committee provided guidance for planning the fiscal year 

(FY) 2013 R&D portfolio. During the spring of 2011, the committee reviewed and provided 

recommendations on the proposed FY 2013 R&D portfolio investments. 

There are five standing subcommittees that support the REDAC by conducting detailed program 

reviews in the summer and winter for the following research areas: Aircraft Safety; NAS 

Operations; Environment and Energy; Airports; and Human Factors. The REDAC reviews the 

reports from these subcommittees and approves their detailed guidance and recommendations for 

inclusion in the REDAC reports to the Administrator. 

This appendix summarizes the REDAC recommendations made during FY 2011, including FAA 

responses to the following reports: 

1. REDAC Guidance for the FY 2013 R&D Portfolio, October 14, 2010 

2. REDAC Recommendations on the FY 2013 R&D Portfolio, June 8, 2011 

In FY 2012, FAA expects to receive the Committee’s recommendations on FAA’s planned 

research and development investments for FY 2014, including detailed recommendations from 

the standing subcommittees. 

C-1 
 

2012 NARP Appendix C 

1.0 REDAC Guidance for the FY 2013 R&D Portfolio (October 14, 2010) 

The Committee Chairman, Dr. John Hansman, submitted the REDAC’s guidance for planning 

the FY 2013 R&D portfolio to the Administrator on October 14, 2010. The FAA provided 

responses to the recommendations on February 17, 2011. 

1.1 General Observations 

Complexity of NextGen Research and Development Plans: The REDAC is concerned that there 

does not appear to be a clear high level Research and Development plan for NextGen that 

articulates the critical NextGen needs and links them to the R&D portfolio. The REDAC 

understands the challenge of defining such a plan for a complex system such as NextGen. 

However, the plans and roadmaps that have been presented to the REDAC do not articulate a 

high level vision and are so detailed and complex that they are intractable. This makes it 

difficult to evaluate if the necessary R&D is being accomplished and how R&D results will be 

used. The REDAC recommends that a high level R&D plan be developed from the existing 

more detailed plans and enterprise architecture to articulate the R&D vision and identify the 

critical path of R&D for NextGen. 

FAA Response: We agree that improvements are necessary in the way Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen)-related research is communicated to the REDAC so that we 

can convey the critical aspects of the R,E&D portfolio to the REDAC without requiring them to 

do in depth analysis. To date, the focus of the NextGen Integration and Implementation (I&I) 

Office has been on mid-term implementation. The Office of Research and Technology 

Development (AJP-6) and the NextGen I&I Office will work together to identify the best 

approach to articulate the NextGen research and development activities using the plans and 

roadmaps that have been developed. 

Concern on Level of Technical Expertise in Key Areas: As noted in prior recommendations the 

FAA has a unique need for expertise in key areas such as critical software and digital systems 

and human factors both for certification and acquisition. The REDAC reiterates its concern that 

there has been inadequate progress in developing the core competency and technical workforce 

in this and other key areas. The REDAC is further concerned that the mechanisms identified to 

address this issue which accompanied your letter of 16 September, 2010 only discuss the process 

for developing research needs and do not address any plans for attracting talent to the FAA or 

increasing the level of technical expertise of existing personnel in key technical areas. The 

REDAC recommends that a strategy be developed and executed to improve the ability of the 

FAA to compete in the market for highly desirable talent. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that we do have a unique need for expertise in key areas such 

as critical software and digital systems, and human factors both for certification and acquisition 

and environmental and energy concerns. As noted, our previous response addressed the 

processes for developing research needs and the core capabilities to address those needs. We 

regret that we did not fully address your previous recommendation. We will describe our plans 

for attracting talent to the FAA and plans for increasing the level of technical expertise of 

existing personnel in key technical areas. 

C-2 
 

2012 NARP Appendix C 

We have made some gains in attracting talent to the FAA. In the past year we have added 17 

Federal employees within the Office of Research and Technology Development. Of that number 

there were five engineers, four operations research analysts, and three human factors specialists. 

That total also includes five program management analysts who will assist in managing our 

many research programs, including NextGen programs. 

Included in the above figures are several additional staff that have added needed expertise to the 

human factors area. Two personnel in the area of program management, one Federal employee 

and one contractor, were added. Three human factors research specialists were also added, one 

being a senior person with over a decade of experience working human factors issues in 

certification and a second has a Ph.D. in psychology and is PMI certified, with extensive 

experience with the Department of Homeland Security. 

The Human Factors Research and Engineering Group (AJP-61) has been working with academia 

to leverage new NextGen research projects in order to expand the number of graduate students 

being trained and educated in human factors. These students after graduation will have the 

necessary skills to fill positions at FAA and National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) as well as in industry. AJP-61 is working with academia to expand graduate programs 

and further develop the human factors workforce. 

We have also made substantial gains in the environment and energy area. Over the last year, ten 

highly qualified individuals have joined the Office of Environment and Energy to support our 

environment and energy efforts in noise, emissions, technology, operations, and policy research. 

Of these, three have a Ph.D. in engineering or science and four have engineering degrees. 

Within the last two years we have recruited as Federal employees two excellent students we 

sponsored under the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction 

(PARTNER). 

In addition, we will also work with our Human Resources Office to investigate alternate 

approaches for hiring critical personnel in hard-to-fill areas, such as software and digital systems 

and environment and energy. We have already started developing a plan for workforce 

development and will include plans to increase the level of technical expertise of existing 

personnel in key technical areas. One option to be considered is hiring high potential junior staff 

and plan for fast track training and increasing responsibilities. Also, we will continue to work 

with universities that participate in our Centers of Excellence to recruit highly qualified staff. 

UAS Research: The REDAC applauds progress in defining a clearer path toward certification 

and routine operation of UAS in the NAS. In light of the significant community pressure on the 

FAA to accelerate the safe integration of UAS in the NAS, the REDAC questions if the research 

is sufficient to address the complexity of the operational, technical and policy changes associated 

with safe integration of UAS and whether the timeline could be accelerated if additional 

resources were available. The REDAC also notes significant related R&D efforts at other 

government agencies such as NASA and the Department of Defense, which could leverage FAA 

efforts and benefit from stronger FAA involvement. 

C-3 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

FAA Response: The FAA plans to review UAS research requirements and the research plan in 

an attempt to match the integration timeline to the integration needs of the community. The 

FAA is currently updating the notional UAS-NAS integration roadmap to reflect significant 

progress made and revised milestones. This update will be available by March 2011. Once 

finalized, the UAS-NAS integration roadmap will drive a specific, detailed research plan. 

Throughout the development of the research plan, which will help us validate current research 

requirements and drive future requirements, we will continue to coordinate research activities 

with partner agencies (e.g. NASA, Department of Defense [DoD]). We will then be able to 

jointly assess opportunities to accelerate UAS research deliverables. 

1.2 Subcommittee on Airports 

Finding (1): Research activities in the visual guidance / runway incursion reduction program 

focus on three main areas: marking materials; lighting technologies; and sign technologies. The 

project on using LED technology in improved runway approach signs is of particular interest to 

the Subcommittee. They mentioned that any effort to reduce confusion and improve the human 

factors associated with these airfield signs would be extremely valuable for aircrew at certain 

problematic airports. 

Recommendation: Research into the evaluation of GPS navigation devices for preventing 

runway incursions is complete, and the FAA indicates that they are now writing the final project 

report. Results have indicated that the devices are most effective when used as a situational 

awareness tool and not for providing directions. The Subcommittee is concerned that the 

combination of this program and a similar effort by the Air Traffic Organization (development of 

ADS-B technology) would confuse airports, since the different specifications for tracking assets 

on the ground are not fully interchangeable. The Subcommittee believes that airports would 

ultimately like to use a system that can provide all users with a shared data set (as this was the 

initial promise of the ADS-B system). If the ADS-B systems are able to work as initially 

designed, then the GPS systems in this project would be redundant. The Subcommittee 

recommends that the Branch carefully considers the context in which this project is taking place, 

and produce results that can clearly tell airports the effectiveness of equipment. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees. We will discuss this issue at the next Subcommittee meeting 

on March 29-30, 2011. The FAA’s plan for the GPS navigation devices referenced here is to 

develop a relatively low cost system (similar to a GPS for one’s car) that can provide situational 

awareness to ground vehicles operators to prevent runway incursions. The system provides 

audio and visual alerts when entering the Runway Safety Area. This system does not in any way 

replace or compete with ADS-B or any other surveillance systems under development by FAA. 

Finding (2): The Technical Center’s research into avian radar and wildlife hazard mitigation is 

progressing steadily. Airports participating in the testing with the Technical Center have been 

very supportive of the new capabilities that the project offers. Airports have been able to extend 

their wildlife observations to 24 hours/day coverage. 

C-4 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee is very pleased with the progress of the avian radar 

assessment project, and noted that the airports that participated in the testing have been highly 

supportive of the new capabilities the system offers. The Subcommittee notes that those airports 

were able to benefit by extending wildlife observations to 24 hours a day, identifying movement 

patterns/trends, educating staff, and taking appropriate action. The Subcommittee recommends 

that the next step in bird radar research should be to investigate the integration of bird radar into 

the air traffic control tower environment. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees. We are planning to investigate the integration of bird radar 

and other technologies into the air traffic control tower environment. While these technologies 

have shown great promise in aiding the wildlife biologist, the usefulness to provide real-time 

ability to prevent wildlife strikes needs to be further evaluated. 

Finding (3): The Subcommittee was presented with two projects that were deferred by the 

ACRP: one on through-the-fence security and another on aircraft airport accident data. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee was presented with two research proposals that were 

deferred to the FAA by the ACRP Oversight Committee. On a project that involved the 

collection and evaluation of aircraft accident data on airports, the Subcommittee recommends 

that the FAA integrate the elements of the proposal into the Branch’s recently formed project on 

the same topic. Regarding a project on the investigation of “through the fence” operations that 

impact airport security, the Subcommittee recommends that no further action is taken, as the 

subject matter is outside of the scope of the Branch’s current research portfolio. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees. We have plans in place for the collection and evaluation of 

aircraft accident data on airports. This Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) project 

has been included in the FAA’s project in the same topical area. We also do not intend to pursue 

a research project on “through the fence” operations as it is not appropriate for the Airport 

Technology Research Program. 

Finding (4): Research on runway roughness and real-time aircraft braking are important 

projects. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee believes that the research project on investigating runway 

roughness is an excellent idea and can produce results that have many potential applications. As 

the research progresses on the separate project to investigate aircraft braking performance, the 

Subcommittee recommends that the FAA investigate any potential correlation of that data with 

the runway roughness studies. The Subcommittee also strongly recommends that the FAA 

investigate any application of the roughness data to initial pavement construction standards. 

Airports are currently dealing with problematic construction issues that involve runway 

smoothness, and the Subcommittee believes that any revised or supplemental standard on that 

topic would be a tremendous benefit to the industry. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the recommendation and believes there is currently 

enough roughness data collected and available that a draft roughness specification can be written 

by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 for both asphalt and concrete pavements. We also concur 

C-5 
 

2012 NARP Appendix C 

that the effect of roughness on aircraft braking should be studied. We will also investigate any 

potential correlation between the airplane braking performance and runway roughness. 

Finding (5): The Subcommittee is concerned that the research effort to investigate 

sustainable/green technology in airport pavement construction, such as warm mix asphalt, is 

being delayed until 2012. 

Recommendation: Although questions about the performance of such methods exist, the 

Subcommittee recommends that the Branch accelerate the testing of sustainable/green 

technologies, using the results from other research programs (ACRP, AAPTP, IPRF, etc.) as a 

starting point. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the subcommittee recommendation that the Airport and 

Aircraft Safety Branch (AJP-63) accelerates the testing of sustainable/green technologies, and 

research effort on this critical topic has already commenced. 

Two projects were completed by the Airfield Asphalt Pavement Technology Program (AAPTP) 

and the Innovative Pavement Research Foundation (IPRF) related to the use of sustainable/green 

technology in airport pavements. Both of these projects recommended using the recycled 

materials in airport pavement construction. The Center of Excellence for Airport Technology at 

University of Illinois has completed a literature review documenting the use of warm mix asphalt 

(WMA) on airport projects. This will provide us with guidance on WMA performance on airport 

pavements. In FY 2012 the FAA has set aside funding for greener technologies which will 

include laboratory characterization of resilient modulus, rutting, and fatigue behavior of WMA 

and comparing it with conventional P-401. Laboratory test results will be verified with full-scale 

testing to characterize performance of these mixes and would be started once the Accelerated 

Pavement Testing Vehicle becomes operational. 

Finding (6): The Subcommittee held an extensive conversation on the content of the Branch 

Manager’s 10-year R&D “look-ahead” plan. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that future versions of the plan contain 

thoughts as to not only how the Branch can support the Headquarters program (including 

elements from the FAA Flight Plan, ARP Business Plan, NextGen plans) but also contain ideas 

of what could (or needs to) be done outside of the existing programmatic constraints. High-level 

goals are: reducing runway incursions; reducing excursion fatalities; pavement improvements 

(reduced costs, increased life, improved maintenance and construction, etc.); 

airport/environmental sustainability; ramp safety; and safety during construction, etc. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the recommendation and will include the Headquarters 

program and ideas of what needs to be done outside the existing program. This will include 

high-level goals as suggested by the Subcommittee. 

C-6 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

1.3 Subcommittee on Environment and Energy 

Finding (1): The subcommittee discussed research drivers, needs and gaps. Members reaffirmed 

previous priorities (solutions, with a focus on aircraft technology and alternative fuels, science, 

particularly climate impacts) but also questioned whether FAA’s research efforts are addressing 

evolving issues with general aviation leaded avgas and water quality, both driven by EPA 

regulatory activity. While these issues are addressed by the Office of Aviation Safety and the 

Office of Airports, the subcommittee had two specific requests/recommendations. 

Recommendation (1a): In conjunction with EPA, the general aviation industry, and other 

interested stakeholders, the FAA should develop an integrated aviation gasoline program to 

research and test new piston engine technology and fuels with reduced or no lead additives in 

order to find safe alternatives to leaded aviation gasoline. This program is necessary for FAA to 

provide the required technical support for anticipated EPA rulemaking activities on lead 

emissions from piston engine aircraft in light of statutory and regulatory requirements to also 

consider the impacts of safety, noise, costs, and technology in the development and adoption of 

standards. The subcommittee asked for a briefing on the status of avgas research at its next 

meeting. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that it is important to ensure we are well positioned to address 

issues associated with leaded aviation gasoline (avgas). Our efforts in this area are led by the 

FAA Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) in close collaboration with the Office of Environment and 

Energy (AEE). In FY 2011, we expect to stand up a comprehensive research effort to address 

these issues. The FAA has established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to collaborate 

with industry to plan the transition to unleaded avgas. We expect that the Unleaded Avgas 

Transition ARC will provide recommendations for collaborative industry-government initiatives 

to facilitate the development and deployment of an unleaded avgas and these recommendations 

will inform our research and development efforts. We will brief the Environment and Energy 

REDAC subcommittee on our efforts at its next meeting. We encourage interested 

subcommittee members to attend the Safety REDAC subcommittee meetings, as this is where the 

avgas research element of our program is reviewed. 

Recommendation (1b): In conjunction with Airport Council International-North America (ACINA), the FAA should assess the implications of water quality regulations on airports and identify 

any research needs. The subcommittee asked for a briefing at its next meeting. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the implication of water quality requirements on airports 

is a significant issue. However, it is unclear whether there is a requirement for additional 

research in this area. We are working with ACI-NA representatives to review regulations and 

ongoing research efforts such as those being pursued under the auspices of the Transportation 

Research Board Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) and identify any gaps. We will 

brief the subcommittee on this effort at its next meeting on March 22-23, 2011. 

Finding (2): The subcommittee noted substantial progress in the NextGen Environmental 

Management System (EMS) work. The concept is extremely complex and development requires 

input from many stakeholders. 

C-7 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: The subcommittee suggested that the Office of Environment and Energy 

conduct a Focus on NextGen EMS for all relevant stakeholders to educate the community and 

ensure their views are integrated into the development of NextGen EMS. 

FAA Response: We agree that NextGen EMS is a complex process. We are working with a 

number of stakeholders on NextGen EMS planning, pilot studies, and outreach. We are also 

planning a NextGen EMS Workshop in 2011 to engage relevant stakeholders and seek their input 

on our plans. We recommend that Environment and Energy REDAC subcommittee members 

attend this workshop to help focus our research and development efforts. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee noted that FAA’s environmental science efforts are maturing 

and that FAA needs to develop plans for using these results to inform policy. The committee felt 

that a “science readiness scale” might facilitate this transition 

Recommendation: The subcommittee should form a small task force to develop a “science 

readiness scale” in conjunction with the FAA. 

FAA Response: We agree that it is important to develop plans for using evolving research to 

inform policy. Developing a “science readiness scale” is an excellent idea – the PARTNER 

Center of Excellence recently agreed to undertake an effort to explore such a scale. We 

understand that some of the Environment and Energy REDAC subcommittee members, as well 

as members of the E&E Office, are part of the PARTNER effort. We will keep the 

subcommittee apprised of this effort as it evolves. 

Finding (4): The subcommittee was pleased with progress made by the Office of Airports and 

the Office of Environment and Energy identifying funds for noise research. This is a critical 

issue that must be addressed. While the availability of funds is encouraging, the committee was 

concerned about the ability of keeping oversight of so many funding strings. 

Recommendation: The Office of Environment and Energy should continue to work with the 

Office of Airports through the budgeting process through the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to ensure funding is available for noise research, in particular to conduct community 

noise surveys. The subcommittee also recommends that the Office of Environment and Energy 

work with funding partners to ensure the noise research program is well integrated and is given 

sufficient priority. 

FAA Response: We agree that advancing our noise research to inform policy is critical. FAA’s 

Offices of Airports and Environment and Energy are working closely to coordinate efforts and 

funding in this critical area. We are pursuing efforts to identify additional resources in FY 2012 

through the budgeting process. We are also working closely with other relevant departments and 

agencies as well as industry and community groups. There are many elements and funding 

strings associated with noise research and we are coordinating our efforts through a 

comprehensive National Noise Research Roadmap similar to our very successful Aviation 

Emissions Characterization Roadmap. 

C-8 
 

2012 NARP Appendix C 

Finding (5): The subcommittee was pleased with progress standing up the Continuous Low 

Energy Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program. Excellent projects are underway and appear on 

track to deliver substantial environment and energy efficiency and diversity gains. 

Recommendation: The FAA should continue to provide robust funding for CLEEN and explore 

ways of increasing investment in the future. 

FAA Response: We are very pleased with the CLEEN program - it is an excellent example of 

how government and industry should collaborate to address critical environmental issues. 

CLEEN is one of the top priorities of the environment and energy program and, within the 

context of various priorities, we will continue robust funding of CLEEN; we are exploring 

various avenues to augment the effort if this initial technology development pilot program proves 

successful. 

Finding (6): The environment and energy program has experienced substantial growth; however 

staff growth has been slower. The Office of Environment and Energy has added some well 

qualified staff but still has many vacancies. The subcommittee understands that hiring well 

qualified staff in aeronautics is a national issue and requires focused attention. 

Recommendation: The Office of Environment and Energy should develop a recruitment plan 

and make use of subcommittee members to help fill vacancies. 

FAA Response: Even in these hard economic times, recruiting qualified scientists and engineers 

is extremely difficult. We are working with the PARTNER Center of Excellence to enhance our 

recruitment practices. We have hired some exceptional individuals but still have gaps. We are 

developing a comprehensive staffing plan, including identifying approaches to make the FAA 

Office of Environment and Energy an employer of choice and we welcome the help of the 

subcommittee in our recruitment efforts. 

Finding (7): The subcommittee noted progress developing the NextGen environmental policy 

and standing up an effort to assess and quantify goal targets. The subcommittee noted that these 

efforts require refinement and continued attention. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee urged the Office of Environment and Energy to continue 

advancing the computational capabilities to quantify the contribution of various strategies toward 

environmental goals. This information should inform refinements of the NextGen environmental 

policies, but should not hold up release of the policy document. The subcommittee asked for 

updates at the next meeting. 

FAA Response: We understand that thorough analyses of potential growth scenarios and 

penetration of mitigation solutions are needed to develop interim targets towards meeting 

NextGen environmental goals and to inform policies. We are advancing our analytical 

capabilities and we will provide status updates to the subcommittee. 

C-9 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

1.4 Subcommittee on Human Factors 

Finding (1): FAA mechanisms for guiding NextGen developments across organizations within 

the FAA require significant workforce time and effort, yet are insufficient or inappropriate for 

the range of activities required to develop NextGen. Of particular concern are, first, safety 

assessment activities that drive research units to make estimates of failure mechanisms and error 

rates to calculate quantitative reliability estimates at an inappropriate level of detail early in the 

design process, rather than guiding developments that promote safety. This is of particular 

concern for safety-risk-assessments which are demanding detailed estimates of human error rates 

given fairly notional concepts of operation while not considering safety-enhancing behaviors, as 

noted in many prior studies, including RTCA Task Force 4. Second, significant effort is required 

to maintain and compare ‘roadmaps,’ yet it is unclear from these roadmaps what major goals or 

capabilities their entries represent, whether redundancies or gaps exist, and what are the critical 

decision paths and system dependencies. While the roadmaps may provide some valuable 

functions, they should only be viewed as one of several representations required to drive design; 

for example, immediate human factors research requires greater specificity of scenarios 

(including degraded modes) and of roles and responsibilities. 

Recommendation (1a): The Subcommittee recommends the FAA examine methods of 

examining safety throughout the development of NextGen, including the human contribution to 

safety and human error, at an appropriate level of detail and in a manner that guides development 

to improve safety. 

FAA Response (1a): The FAA agrees that the human contribution to safety is an important 

aspect of NextGen development. The Human Factors Research and Engineering Group is 

working with the ATO’s Safety Service Unit (ATO-S) to enhance the human component to 

safety risk management. We are participating in the development of their safety risk 

management process and hazard tracking system to ensure that human factors risks are 

proactively identified, tracked, and managed as NextGen concepts and systems mature. We have 

been gratified by the positive response by the safety community to our suggestion that human 

performance is an important aspect of safety. They have responded by embracing the human 

performance aspects of safety analyses and pledged to continue to strengthen that aspect of the 

FAA’s Safety Management System. The range of activities includes maintenance functions as 

well as the air traffic control functions in the NextGen environment. One area of increased 

attention is that of automation used by controllers in both nominal and off-nominal conditions. 

We are collaborating with research partners at EUROCONTROL in the development and 

application of human system integration safety tools and methods. Through our human factors 

working groups we are working with the service units to develop human system integration 

requirements that include an emphasis on safety to ensure that NextGen changes take a 

systematic view of the impact of safety on workstation design, training, and personnel selection. 

Additionally, safety is an area of intense collaboration between the NextGen air traffic human 

factors program and the NextGen flight deck human factors program within the Human Factors 

Research and Engineering Group. Many NextGen changes will have a profound impact on flight 

deck procedures and the relationship between the ground and air elements of the National 

Airspace System (NAS). Our flight deck human factors program maintains a close relationship 

with the Aviation Safety offices in the FAA to address potential safety issues that arise. 

C-10 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation (1b): Likewise, the Subcommittee recommends the FAA examine the 

roadmaps for their ability to clearly articulate the critical paths, system dependencies and critical 

decision points; the standard by which they should be examined is not just whether these effects 

are captured in theory, but also whether they are clearly documented in a manner sufficient for 

the range of domains and stakeholders involved in NextGen development. These roadmaps 

should be able to address the other immediate research needs to achieve NextGen; for example, 

greater definition is needed for scenarios and role definitions to enable effective research on 

critical human factors concerns. Where the roadmaps are not a sufficient representation, the 

FAA should clarify other mechanisms to guide NextGen development. Likewise, the FAA 

should evaluate the appropriate resources for maintaining these NextGen development 

mechanisms to ensure that they are used only where there is a clear need without requiring 

excessive personnel time. 

FAA Response (1b): The NAS Enterprise Architecture (EA) roadmaps represent a complete 

collection of all existing and planned investments needed to support the evolution towards 

NextGen. The research depicted in the supporting activities of each NAS EA roadmap 

represents active R&D efforts, both internal and external to the FAA, that have the potential to 

influence decision points and reduce risk for the implementation of major NextGen investments. 

Finding (2): We agree with the conclusions of the GAO report that much has been done to 

coordinate FAA and NASA Human Factors NextGen Research, but that these activities could be 

enhanced through “a cross-agency plan developed [by the FAA] in cooperation with NASA to 

identify, prioritize, and coordinate NextGen human factors issues.” Such a plan should 

additionally include other entities as appropriate, and should recognize the disparate approaches 

taken by each entity, such as the orientation of FAA NextGen research towards the Enterprise 

Architecture and FAA NextGen Concepts of Operation whereas the orientation of NASA 

NextGen research is towards the JPDO visions of NextGen and Concepts of Operation. 

Recommendation: We recommend to the Director of Research and Technology Development 

that a small high-level ‘human factors coordinating committee,’ comprised of individuals with 

appropriate authority for the development of agency NextGen plan development at both the FAA 

and NASA, meet and come to an agreement on a vision for the ‘initial focus areas’ as 

recommended by the GAO report. Within the FAA, this coordinating committee must extend 

beyond the Human Factors Research and Engineering Group (HFREG) to other research groups 

that are conducting human factors research or whose activities require human factors research. 

For this activity to have the greatest utility, this committee should also include other NextGen 

stakeholders, such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the 

JPDO, as well as Federally Funded Research and Development Centers supporting research such 

as MITRE/CAASD. 

FAA Response: The FAA’s use of the NAS Enterprise Architecture and the Mid-term Concept 

do not in any way indicate a difference in orientation between the FAA and NASA with respect 

to human factors and NextGen. The FAA’s enterprise architecture and concept are fully 

consistent with the JPDO Concept and reflect the requirements of an implementing organization 

to flesh out its portion of the concept as part of its implementation. The FAA has as part of its 

C-11 
 

2012 NARP Appendix C 

due diligence reached out to the other agency partners with respect to the mid-term and is now 

taking the lead for the JPDO in establishing a combined research plan in support of JPDO’s role 

as sponsor of cross-agency activities. The FAA also has a liaison with the Air Force Research 

Lab to better coordinate activities of mutual interest with DoD. Internally, the FAA has 

established the role of Human Factors’ Integrator within the System Engineering and Integration 

group to ensure better cross-program Human Factors coordination as well as sponsoring semiannual meeting of FAA human factors practitioners to improve coordination and cooperation. 

Finding (3): The Subcommittee was heartened to hear that two senior leadership positions – the 

head of the Human Factors Research and Engineering Group and the Integration Lead for 

Human Factors in NextGen – have been either filled or are actively being solicited. However, 

the committee was concerned to see that these positions have been effectively downgraded from 

their original conception; in particular, the head of the HFREG was created as a Senior Executive 

Service (SES)-rank job. This suggests a de-emphasis of human factors and a diminished 

visibility and priority to ensure that human performance considerations are factored agency-wide 

into programmatic decisions across the system life cycle. Likewise, it remains unclear what 

resources and authority the Integration Lead will have, and, thus, whether it will be situated to 

identify and resolve particularly cross-cutting human factors concerns that may require, for 

example, changes in technology, operational procedures, and concepts of operation on both air 

and ground sides. Finally, the HFREG remains short-staffed with research program management 

staff. 

Recommendation: We recommend that the FAA senior leadership responsible for defining these 

positions and for allocating SES and research program management staff positions review the 

positions currently being hired and clarify their roles, ensure that the HFREG has sufficient 

research program management staff, without establishing excessive supervisory chain and 

management overhead, clarify the mechanisms by which the Human Factors Integration Lead 

can identify human factors issues in NextGen and guide effective cross-cutting resolutions, and 

ensure that the position has the appropriate resources and staff to do so. 

FAA Response: For the first position mentioned, the Manager of the Human Factors Research 

and Engineering Group (HFREG), the FAA feels that the HFREG position is appropriately 

defined and that the correct staffing resources have been allocated for the Group. Since the last 

quarter of FY 2010, four additional employees (three Federal and one contractor) have been 

added to the Group. Two of the positions were filled with research project management staff. 

The other position mentioned (Integration Lead for Human Factors in NextGen) is in the newly 

created Systems Engineering Integration Group in the Office of Systems Engineering and Safety. 

The Group was specifically created to identify and resolve cross-cutting issues that may hinder 

or impede NextGen integration. Being in this Group, the Integration Lead for Human Factors in 

NextGen is uniquely situated to identify and resolve cross-cutting human factors concerns that 

could require changes in technology, operational procedures, and concepts of operation. 

Finding (4): The Subcommittee was pleased to see the extent to which the high-level plan to 

validate NextGen Con Ops accounts for human factors concerns, to the degree that they were 

covered in the high level briefing provided. The committee also appreciates the mechanisms at 

C-12 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

both the researcher and management level to coordinate human factors research where possible 

between this effort and the HFREG. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends to the Manager of the ATS Concept 

Development and Validation Group to continue coordination between this effort and the 

HFREG. The subcommittee requests some deep-dives into the human factors component of 

validating NextGen con ops. This should include the strategy for identifying relevant human 

factors issues and examining them in tests of fidelity relevant to the concept maturity level, from 

early-on methods such as cognitive walk through to detailed human-in-the-loop simulations, 

through the data analysis and conclusions based on these research activities. The Subcommittee 

also notes the need to carefully consider off-nominal and degraded operations and recommends 

further development (or elaboration) of the strategy for addressing this. 

FAA Response: The Air Traffic Systems Concept Development and Validation Group (CD&V) 

will continue to coordinate with the Human Factors Research and Engineering Group (HFREG). 

From the very first steps in concept validation, development of the Enterprise Architecture 

Operational Scenarios (OV-6c), we are looking at the humans in NextGen mid-term operations 

in terms of tasking and information flows. We will begin to develop off-nominal and degraded 

condition scenarios in FY 2011, and the HFREG is getting involved in scenario development as 

well. We will collaborate with the HFREG on this effort. The CD&V manager would be happy 

to brief the subcommittee on the process for identifying and assessing human factors issues as 

part of NextGen concept development and validation. Staffed NextGen Towers might be a good 

example to walk through. 

Finding (5): The Human Factors Subcommittee has not been briefed on the Weather Technology 

in the Cockpit (WTIC) program and understands that it is in the process of re-planning in 

response to earlier recommendations made by other sub-committees. However, the presentation 

and repeated questions did not present a clear, consistent vision for this project, and identified 

several proposed objectives of this research where government research does not appear to be 

justified. It is unclear what the research will provide beyond developments already taking place 

in industry, and how specifically it will support NextGen and/or AVS activities. Human factors 

efforts appeared to be vague and disparate, without clear, technically sound approaches; the 

presentation and use of weather information in the flightdeck should be better coordinated with, 

or actually conducted by, specialists in this area associated with the FAA Human Factors 

Research and Engineering Group (HFREG). 

Recommendation: As in earlier recommendations, the Human Factors Subcommittee strongly 

recommends to the Director of Research and Technology Development that the vision, intended 

deliverables and anticipated customers of the WTIC program be clearly articulated. The role of 

government research in this area needs to be carefully examined, as should whether an isolated 

project in weather in the cockpit is more appropriate than broader inclusion of weather concerns 

in other NextGen programs and by the HFREG. An expert review of the project is warranted. 

Following that, the project should be resourced and staffed appropriately to its goals and 

intended impact relative to other NextGen research areas. 

C-13 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the support of the REDAC in our efforts to present a 

clear, consistent vision for the WTIC project. FAA has conducted an industry survey of current 

weather cockpit technologies and technologies that are planned to be implemented within the 

next three years. The results of the survey identified WTIC research activities to support 

aviation safety and efficiency during adverse weather. In addition, FAA has conducted a 

NextGen documentation survey to identify NextGen Operational Improvements that the WTIC 

Program Research may support. The FAA is willing to articulate the research vision for the 

WTIC program and to provide the Human Factors Subcommittee a briefing of the results of the 

surveys and accomplishments to date. 

Finding (6): The Subcommittee applauds the FAA for attempting to develop a Human Systems 

Integration (HSI) Roadmap that encompasses all human system integration aspects of NextGen 

and is developed in accordance with Operational Improvements (OIs) as they are represented in 

the NAS Enterprise Architecture (EA). While the Subcommittee recognizes the limitations of 

roadmaps as an agency mechanism for guiding NextGen development, the committee applauds 

their use by the HFREG. The Subcommittee also respects the careful consideration given to 

balancing the workload of maintaining the HSI roadmap with the benefits it provides for withinagency coordination. However, the Subcommittee also recognizes the limits of the roadmaps 

and the need for human factors research to also use other representations of NextGen as input to 

their research activities, such as scenarios (including degraded modes) and storyboards. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends to the Director of Research and Technology 

Development a coordinated approach across FAA R & D efforts where the HFREG and, as 

appropriate, the new HF NextGen Integration Lead and other programs examining human factors 

concerns use the insights of the road map to create other representations that serve other 

important purposes. This would include fleshing out the job requirements of all important 

personnel sufficiently to identify key research needs, to ‘storyboard’ their future positions 

sufficiently to provide a common vision within HF research and to highlight concerns with 

assumptions about human roles in a sensible way to the community, and to identify 

programmatic and technical risks, redundancies, and gaps that require near-term action. To the 

maximum extent possible this effort should build on any NextGen descriptions developed 

elsewhere within the FAA, both for efficiency and to foster coordination with, and transition of 

human factors results to, other NextGen research and development efforts. 

FAA Response: The NAS EA roadmaps, including the Human Systems Integration (HIS) 

Roadmap, represent a complete collection of all existing and planned investments needed to 

support the evolution towards NextGen. The research depicted in the supporting activities of 

each NAS EA roadmap represents active R&D efforts, both internal and external to the FAA, 

that have the potential to influence decision points and reduce risk for the implementation of 

major NextGen investments. 

The FAA will continue to evolve in how it communicates the R&D activities. For example, to 

supplement the roadmaps, views of the NAS (As Is, Mid-Term, and To Be) that capture various 

perspectives of the NAS including system context, interfaces and interoperability, operational 

scenarios and activities, functions, communications, data, and standards were developed. These 

views are being used to inform the operational scenarios, define roles and responsibilities, and 

C-14 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

address key human factors issues. To supplement the mid-term scenario work already 

completed, the FAA is working to complete the scenarios with representation of off-nominal 

conditions and to address the full implications of new automation/technologies on the operator’s 

(e.g., controller, pilot, dispatcher, etc.) performance. 

1.5 Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

Finding (1): Aeromedical Research program (CAMI) is conducting research on the subject of 

human fatigue both from the human factors and aero-medical perspectives. The expertise at 

CAMI and the output from their research is an essential technical resource available to the FAA 

in support of recent and future rulemaking activities on pilot fatigue. The SAS understands that 

the Human Factors expertise at CAMI has been well integrated into this rule making activity. 

However there may be a gap in the coordination and integration with aero-medical expertise at 

CAMI with regard to their input to new rulemaking activities on fatigue. While this may be a 

unique case, it was not clear to the SAS that a sufficient process is in place to ensure that the 

in-house FAA science community is integrated into the rulemaking process, in particular for 

future rulemaking to address human fatigue. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee should receive a review on how FAA integrates its 

in-house technical expertise into the rule making process to ensure new rules are based upon and 

influenced by publicly available scientific findings. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the Subcommittee recommendation and will review how 

FAA research is integrated with the rule making process at a future SAS meeting as determined 

by the SAS Chairman. The remainder of this response seeks to provide clarity regarding the 

relationship of both the Aerospace Human Factors Division (AAM-500) and Aerospace Medical 

Research Division (AAM-600) fatigue research to fatigue rulemaking. 

The FAA agrees with the finding that AAM-500 expertise has been well integrated into rule 

making activity associated with fatigue countermeasures. The Associate Administrator for 

Aviation Safety has effectively delegated responsibility for coordination of research expertise 

into rulemaking to the Air Transportation Division of the Flight Standards Organization 

(AFS-200). Accordingly, AFS-200 has effectively engaged in defining requirements, serving as 

research sponsors, and reviewing research findings as research projects led to development of 

recommendations. As research knowledge and Executive and Legislative direction have led 

towards regulation, AFS-200 has effectively engaged AAM-500 researchers in advising 

regulatory progress, and more broadly has engaged agency and outside expertise in a scientific 

steering committee to support both the recent “Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements” 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) and efforts on establishing requirements for ultra-long 

range flight operations. Likewise, the Air Traffic Organization has actively sought AAM-500 

research support for revisions to Air Traffic Control Specialist scheduling through the Article 55 

Working Group, called for in the recent working agreement with the National Air Traffic 

Controllers Association. 

Regarding aerospace medicine, AAM-600 continues to communicate with AAM-500 human 

factors scientists regarding functional genomics research and other aeromedical concerns relative 

C-15 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

to the subject of fatigue. However, functional genomics research is in the early stages of 

development; further studies and validation of research findings are required for these efforts to 

reach the stage of maturity that would warrant their transition to the rule making process. The 

aviation applications of genomics research are at the forefront of scientific exploration having 

the greatest potential for making leaps in human safety and performance. AAM-600 aeromedical 

research personnel do participate in the rule making process addressing laser eye-protection 

guidelines, biodynamics certification requirements, cabin safety procedures, radiological 

protection measures, fire safety standards, and other aeromedical safety issues. This 

collaboration is accomplished by providing expertise and advisory language for the formulation 

of FAA advisory circulars (AC), regulatory documents, and international safety standards. 

Examples of publicly available scientific findings and recommendations proceeding from CAMI 

are found at http://www.aafs.org/, http://www.asma.org/journal/index.php, 

http://www.asma.org/Organization/ashfa/, 

http://www.faa.gov/library/online_libraries/aerospace_medicine/, and 

http://www.hfes.org/web/Default.aspx. 

Finding (2): AFS recently issued the first significant revision to pilot flight and duty time 

regulations in over 30 years. This regulation is science based and will require carriers to manage 

risk using SMS principles. It also permits compliance using a Fatigue Risk Management System 

(FRMS) for all or part of a carrier’s operation. There are gaps in some of the scientific 

knowledge that must be filled in order to improve the effectiveness of the regulation. CAMI is 

currently providing oversight on industry funded research and data collection. CAMI, in 

conjunction with FAA, industry and labor has the expertise to either conduct this scientific 

research or provide oversight to fill the necessary scientific gaps. It is clear to the SAS that this 

new regulation will require research and data collection and that, to date there has been none 

requested by FAA to support this regulation for FY 10 and beyond. 

Recommendation: AFS and CAMI meet with AVS as soon as possible to sponsor needed 

research to support the new pilot flight and duty time regulation. 

FAA Response: AFS is in the NPRM phase with this rule. The NPRM is based on existing 

science and Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommendations. At this phase AFS does 

not believe additional research is warranted. 

Finding (3): The Weather Research Program continues to deliver useful products. The 

subcommittee is impressed with the quality and relevance of the work and found the program to 

be tightly integrated with the research efforts of NCAR, NOAA (various laboratories) and 

MIT/LL. The program is also connected to the real world through partnerships with UAL, Delta 

and SWA. The Subcommittee supports the weather research program's focus on improving 

general aviation safety through enhancing forecast accuracy. However, the subcommittee notes 

the importance of balancing enhanced weather forecast information with developing tools and 

resources for improved pilot decision making to address the root-causes of GA weather 

accidents. 

C-16 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

The Subcommittee noted the absence of a volcanic ash research effort. Following the meeting 

the Subcommittee received a copy of the FAA letter responding to a previous Subcommittee 

recommendation on this subject. The letter states in part (“.......With respect to ash plume 

detection and reporting to flight planners and flight crews for hazard avoidance, FAA has 

suspended research into those and other aspects of volcanic ash hazards pending a full review of 

the need for further research.”). 

Recommendation: Due to the significant disruption caused by the recent Icelandic volcanic 

eruption and the resulting activities led by ICAO to establish international guidance for 

operations in the vicinity of volcanic ash, the Subcommittee recommends that FAA identify and 

aggressively pursue any research needed to support these international discussions. This 

research may include the prediction or modeling of the movement and intensity of volcanic ash 

following an eruption, the provision of tactical information to flight planners and crews so they 

can effectively avoid hazardous areas with minimum impact on flight schedules, and 

identification of ash tolerance levels for aircraft, engines, and passengers. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the recommendation to establish a volcanic ash research 

effort. The Agency has taken several steps in response to recent volcanic eruptions and the need 

to establish a research approach that will lead to a defined path to operations for the aviation 

community. The FAA hosted a public meeting November 5, 2010, inviting the public to assist 

the FAA in better defining the operational requirements for the reporting and forecasting of 

volcanic eruptions. Information from this meeting will be also used to help direct R&D efforts 

for improved services in support of NextGen and global harmonization with the international 

community in terms of guidance and operational performance for volcanic ash. 

Finding (4): The Subcommittee received an excellent briefing on the emerging details of a UAS 

Research Plan intended to support the milestones of the current FAA notional roadmap for UAS 

NAS integration and noted significant progress has been made in defining a clearer path towards 

certification and routine operation of UAS in the NAS. In light of the significant community 

pressure on the FAA to accelerate the safe integration of UAS into the NAS, the SAS questions 

whether the envisioned timeline would be acceptable. The SAS questions whether the resources 

currently devoted to research, engineering, and development is sufficient to address the 

complexity of the operational, technical, and policy challenges associated with the safe 

integration of UAS and whether the timeline could be accelerated if additional resources were 

available. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends the following: 

1) The FAA should review UAS research requirements and the research plan in an 

attempt to match the integration timeline to the integration needs of the community. 

2) The FAA should reassess staffing and funding requirements for research, engineering, 

and development. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that we should review UAS research requirements and the 

research plan in an attempt to match the integration timeline to the integration needs of the 

community. The FAA is currently updating the notional UAS-NAS integration roadmap to 

C-17 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

reflect significant progress made and revised milestones. This update will be available by March 

2011. Once finalized, the UAS-NAS integration roadmap will drive a specific, detailed research 

plan. 

Throughout the development of the research plan, which will help us validate current research 

requirements and drive future requirements, we will continue to coordinate research activities 

with partner agencies (e.g. NASA, DoD). We will then be able to jointly assess opportunities to 

accelerate UAS research deliverables. 

Background: The Subcommittee noted in March 2009 that Software/Digital/ Systems R&D be 

given additional emphasis, increased staffing and funding. In August 2009 the Subcommittee 

noted the lack of a comprehensive and integrated Software/Digital Systems Project Plan and also 

noted that little progress had been made in acquiring the specialized expertise required to support 

this critical research program. In March 2010 the Subcommittee was pleased to note the 

development of an SDS comprehensive research plan which would provide a solid context 

against which research initiatives could be assessed. 

Finding (5): Although the Subcommittee was pleased to see that the SDS Research projects 

were organized to address four significant research requirements, time did not allow for a 

comprehensive assessment to be accomplished. The SAS again noted that the level of 

specialized expertise to support this critical program is not yet in place. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee would like to do a “Deep Dive” review of the FAA 

integrated SDS R&D portfolio and recommends that this be accomplished in a one day 

workshop. The Subcommittee recommends that the one day workshop be convened prior to the 

next SAS meeting. 

FAA Response: We agree that it would be beneficial to provide the REDAC SAS with a 

comprehensive review of software and digital systems (SDS) research. Thus, we will conduct a 

comprehensive deep dive review of the SDS research program at the regularly scheduled March 

2011 REDAC SAS meeting. This review will provide details on the research being conducted, 

clearly linked to the aircraft certification requirements being addressed. Additionally, any new 

research efforts that have been started prior to the SAS meeting will also be briefed along with 

the associated gaps in aircraft certification each research effort will address. Recent 

accomplishments and the requirements they addressed will also be covered. 

Finding (6): The descriptions and discussions under the four areas – Performance Based 

Navigation (PBN), Aircraft Performance in Terminal Area Operations, Simulation Model for 

Advanced Maneuvers, and Laser Safety – were relatively general. The briefing on PBN 

indicated that a primary focus of this research is to understand issues associated with operations 

in a mixed equipage environment. It was unclear exactly what information was needed from this 

research to allow it to move forward with the implementation of PBN in terminal airspace. What 

may be valid and focused needs were difficult to ascertain from the generalized briefings. 

C-18 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee would find it helpful if at the next review, the research 

efforts could be described specifically in a way that reflects actual needs of system implementers 

or regulation developers. 

FAA Response: We agree that the descriptions were relatively general. In the next review, the 

research efforts will be described in a way that reflects the actual needs of system implementers 

or regulation developers. 

Finding (7): A stated objective of the Aircraft Performance in Terminal Area Operations 

research is to determine “what can be done to prevent unsafe landings and runway excursions.” 

The Subcommittee noted that work to date has been focused on analysis of operational landings 

and modeling aircraft performance. The Subcommittee also noted that most of the focus of this 

research dealt with runway excursions due to contaminants (ice, snow, etc.). Since many runway 

excursions result from unstable approaches (high, fast, long, etc.) on dry as well as contaminated 

surfaces, the Subcommittee believes that the research needs to cover all causes, not just slippery 

runways. While program funding runs out in FY 10, deliverables that would result in solutions 

for reducing runway excursions are not at hand. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends this project be refocused and funded to 

identify solutions to improve the safety of landing operations and reduce runway excursions 

from all causes. 

FAA Response: We agree that the project should be refocused and funded to identify solutions 

to improve the safety of landing operations and reduce runway excursions from all causes. To 

accomplish that, an additional request to restart the examinations of runway excursions from 

unstable approaches, regardless of runway surface condition, will be made for the 2011-2012 

timeframe. 

Finding (8): The Subcommittee again emphasizes the need to support funding for FAA research 

facilities which serve not only FAA but are also resources for the world. It is important to ensure 

adequate funding and support not only for the modernization and operation of existing facilities 

but funding must also be provided to ensure that laboratories with required capabilities to support 

future research are available when needed. The subcommittee recognizes the difficulties in 

providing needed significant funding out of a limited Aircraft Safety R&D budget. The massive 

building program that transformed NAFEC into the FAA Technical Center in the mid-1970s is 

an example of what can be accomplished when all elements of the FAA pull together and think 

“out of the box”. The Pavement Test Facility is another example on a lesser scale of what can be 

accomplished with good planning and a commitment. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA undertake a R&D Facilities Needs 

Review to answer the following questions: 

1) What facilities need to be upgraded? 

2) What facilities need to be replaced? 

3) What facilities are no longer required? 

C-19 
 

2012 NARP Appendix C 

4) What capabilities are required to address future requirements and when will they be 

required? 

5) Where should they be located? 

6) Costs and schedules 

7) Capital Investment funding Options 

8) Operation and maintenance options, private versus public 

FAA Response: We agree with the Subcommittee that an assessment of the FAA R&D facilities 

would be beneficial. This will be a complex undertaking, involving multiple lines of business, 

and some of the information the Subcommittee suggested be included will not be easy to define 

or obtain. However, we do believe that all those elements do need to be addressed by the FAA. 

We will develop a plan for conducting the assessment. The plan will identify pertinent 

stakeholders and their responsibilities and include a timeline for completing the assessment. We 

will present the plan to the Subcommittee at the March 2011 meeting for your feedback. 

Finding (9): The Subcommittee remains concerned that several research programs lack a 

sufficient level of technical expertise to ensure success. Within the Aircraft Safety Program, the 

Software/Digital Systems Program, the Icing Program and Unmanned Aircraft Systems are 

examples of where there are needs for increased core competency. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that developing an R&D core competency 

and high quality R&D technical workforce continue to be a high FAA priority. 

FAA Response: To address your concern related to developing the core competency and 

technical workforce in key areas, we will be focusing our attention on using several existing 

mechanisms that provide some guidance for near- and mid-term planning. These include the 

FAA Flight Plan, the National Aviation Research Plan (NARP), and the AVS annual R&D 

strategic guidance (SG). The AVS R&D SG is typically released 28 months in advance of the 

year of execution and describes the primary areas of AVS R&D interest. Furthermore, Aviation 

Safety R&D requirements are finalized at least 18 months in advance of project start dates. 

These provide data to define needed core capabilities. 

As briefed to the Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety, AVS is taking steps to implement a life-cycle 

planning system for R&D. In its fully implemented state, requirements will be described through 

all phases of the program life-cycle: problem definition, research stages, implementation of the 

solution, and post implementation evaluation. In this system, research requirements will be 

programmed for all research phases and provide an even longer view for planning purposes. 

Lastly, AVS Chief Scientists and Technical Advisors will begin developing annual reports that 

provide a long-view assessment of aviation safety and technology areas for which R&D support 

may be required. First reports are expected this month. 

The majority of these ongoing activities address the aviation research demand areas that will be 

needed by the FAA. To ensure that the FAA is capable of responding in those demand areas, 

AJP-6 will be assessing the data from these ongoing efforts to translate that information into 

C-20 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

what core research capabilities and facilities are needed to support current and projected research 

needs, along with developing a plan for securing the appropriate resources. AJP-6 will also 

begin investigating internal approaches for workforce development in key areas including hiring 

high potential junior staff with “fast track” training and responsibility paths. In addition, the 

Airport and Aircraft Safety Group has realigned its organizational structure to better meet future 

demands in aviation research. 

Finding (10): The Subcommittee believes it would be helpful for FAA and the industry to draw 

a clear distinction between two areas of R,E&D activity under its purview. Both are vitally 

important. The first areas are those in which FAA or its partners do the lead work in developing 

new knowledge – such as in icing, fire safety research, wake vortex issues, fatigue 

measurements, - and many others. 

The other areas, equally important, are work efforts in which the basic work may have been 

done, or is being done in industry, but where FAA’s efforts are needed to synthesize research of 

others to inform FAA of needed regulatory and processes, and where, this FAA expertise is 

essential. Some of this work may point to specific needed efforts of research. 

Recommendation: The SAS believes it would be worthwhile for FAA to draw a clear distinction 

between the two areas of work so that both can be better understood and supported by the 

responsible and interested parties. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that it is important to clearly identify the purpose of each 

requirement within the Aviation Safety Research Program, ensuring that it is clearly understood 

and supported by responsible and interested parties. All aviation safety research and 

development addresses needs identified by the FAA. For example, each AVS research 

requirement identifies the basic problem that needs to be solved and the steps the FAA will use 

to implement the research results to successfully address the problem. Requirements also define 

the responsible performers and sponsors to ensure that all parties understand and support the 

research requirements. Thus, we do not feel that there is additional benefit in segregating our 

research as suggested by the Subcommittee. 

1.6 NAS Operations Subcommittee 

Finding (1): Reviewing the FAA’s NextGen research portfolio continues to be very difficult, 

particularly with regard to demonstrable connections between the research elements being 

briefed and the development of required NextGen attributes while eliminating existing gaps in 

technology and policy. First, the linkages of the research to a needed NextGen requirement, the 

basis for that requirement, and the costs, anticipated benefits and priority of the research activity, 

are rarely evident in the briefings. New concepts for NextGen should be linked to the needs of 

the key customers and stakeholders outside of the FAA, and explicitly incorporate the interests 

and capabilities of each; this linkage is also rarely evident in the briefings. Several of the 

specific findings and recommendations from this briefing stem from the difficulty of finding 

these linkages. 

C-21 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: The Solution Set taxonomy the FAA has adopted may be a useful construct 

in which to define the NextGen R&D program and to brief its research activities, and NASOPS 

recommends trying this approach. The R&D program should articulate clearly the intended roles 

and responsibilities of the customers and stakeholders as a basis for performing needs 

assessments, defining resulting NextGen system design requirements, and conducting 

operational demonstrations to achieve system performance metrics. The costs and anticipated 

benefits of projects or research elements that make up the program should be explained, and their 

prioritization to develop the system should be defined. NASOPS recommends that the I&I 

Coordinator should be included in briefings to REDAC, and address the issues of (1) 

stakeholder/customer involvement across the portfolio, (2) connection of the ongoing research to 

specific NextGen needs, and (3), the extent to which research concepts will be validated in 

operational demonstrations to demonstrate system performance improvements. The individuals 

performing the work should, in the briefings, link the individual research activities that comprise 

the solution set back to these considerations. This connectivity will assure the REDAC of the 

strategic alignment needed and ensures the same internally within the FAA. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the targets for research activities (i.e., goals, timelines, 

etc.), the anticipated value, and anticipated transition into the F&E development portfolio should 

be more clearly articulated. NextGen related components of the R,E&D portfolio target longer 

term needs and are intended to explore concepts. Consequently, by its very nature, research 

work does not lend itself well to the development of detailed assessments, such as capability cost 

and benefits. The requested details expand beyond the maturity level of most research activities. 

However, the FAA recognizes the need to more carefully construct briefings of NextGen related 

research contained in the R,E&D portfolio. 

Finding (2): The subcommittee was appreciative of the presentations discussing CAASD’s work 

in Collaborative ATM, which included IDRP, Probabilistic TFM, Flow Contingency 

Management, and High Density Area Departure/Arrival Management. While all of the work 

presented had demonstrable value, it was clearly limited to an internal ANSP focus. The 

subcommittee was not presented with any research on advanced collaboration capabilities to 

enable increased user/operator roles in addressing capacity constraints and limitations. 

Recommendation: It is essential that user engagement in true collaboration be emphasized fully 

in the research. The subcommittee recommends that the FAA research focus, including the work 

program at CAASD, have a more balanced approach that gives greater weight to the 

participation and leverage of the NAS operator’s role in collaborative ATM. Specific example 

emphases might include: 

1) Greater emphasis on enabling the operators to provide a first response to the 

adjustment, clarification, and balancing of demand to meet and alleviate constraints 

and limitations. 

2) Greater emphasis on negotiations of constraints, slots, trajectories and throughput 

between ANSP and operators to allow fleet-wide optimization, with less focus on 

reactive and/or unilateral actions by the ANSP. 

C-22 
	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix C 

3) Mapping specific linkages between the NextGen CATM solution set and the research, 

including that in the CAASD work program 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the comments of the committee and assures the 

committee that these elements are part of the considerations in the FAA’s interactions with the 

community on TFM development. This work is funded either directly as part of the programs 

developmental baseline or as part of the pre-implementation development work supported in the 

solutions sets. The CAASD work was presented to the committee as information taking 

advantage of the opportunity afforded by the meeting being held at MITRE facilities. The 

CAASD efforts do not represent the totality of the FAA’s developmental work in Collaborative 

ATM nor does it indicate the level of engagement with the CDM community. The FAA 

continues to plan and coordinate all changes to traffic flow management with the community 

through the CDM working group. 

Finding (3): The briefing on incremental, probabilistic, congestion resolution was well received 

by the subcommittee. The work provides a very useful framework for conceptualizing next 

generation traffic flow management during severe weather conditions. The subcommittee is 

aware that the FAA has agreed to develop CATM capabilities in their response to the RTCA TF5 

report, but has not been briefed on the progress or the scope of this effort. The subcommittee did 

express an interest in moving the concepts forward more rapidly with an aim towards 

prototyping, high fidelity simulation and, eventually, operational evaluation. 

Recommendation: The FAA should: 

1) Develop a detailed research and implementation roadmap within the NextGen CATM 

program and solidify necessary multiyear funding resources. Broaden the research 

team to include outside expertise in areas such as ensemble weather forecasting, 

airline operations decision making and terminal and en route capacity impact 

modeling. 

2)	 Refine and validate methods for probabilistic weather forecasting as applied to this 

concept. The aviation weather forecasting community is currently experimenting 

with various ensemble techniques for characterizing forecast uncertainty. The 

efficacy of these methods relative to this concept of use should be rigorously 

assessed. 

3)	 Refine and validate methods for "weather impact translation" as applied to capacity 

forecasting for en route sectors (e.g. dynamic MAP values), individual flows, 

terminal airspace and airports. This is a big job and will require participation from 

multiple research organizations as well as the operational community, working in an 

integrated, cross-research manner, from fundamental research in weather, to means of 

translation to ATM tactical and strategic decision aids. 

4)	 Articulate and validate the concepts for Traffic Management Initiatives (TMI) that 

would be used to incrementally adjust demand relative to constrained resources. It is 

not clear that today's TMIs (e.g. ground delay or ground stops, airspace flow 

programs, miles or minutes in trail) would support this incremental congestion 

resolution concept effectively. 

C-23 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

Incorporate, as a key element of the concept, the impact of airline operators in modulating 

demand in response to forecasts of reduced capacity. As with several of the briefings, the 

subcommittee felt that the work did not adequately consider the essential role of the operator in 

developing solutions to the capacity-demand imbalance. Operational demonstration with airline 

operators will be key to entrain users in concept validation. 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the recommendations from the subcommittee and will 

take those related to additional research requirements into consideration as it formulates its 

RE&D weather portfolio. The Reduced Weather Impact Solution Set has initiated work to 

incorporate existing weather translation research products into services for FAA Decision 

Support Tools. The implementation of weather products into the NAS is included in the 

NextGen Segment Implementation Plan which provides a detailed view of the allocation of ATM 

functions including weather products to NAS systems. 

Finding (4): As examples of areas in which the user/operator community is supportive of 

expediting the implementation of FAA research, the subcommittee heard two briefings of 

specific interest. Although not covered in the weather briefing, operators are currently using 

their own wind estimates for TOD computations, which could lead to a variety of “optimal” 

descent profiles. In a different area, the subcommittee was pleased with the presentations of the 

research on Relative Position Indicator (RPI) and Automation for Monitoring RNP/RNAV 

Operations (AMRO) tools. These tools will assist Air Traffic Control in utilizing these 

procedures and delivering the benefits of the RNP/RNAV procedures. Since RNP/RNAV 

procedures are currently being developed, expediting these automation tools would accelerate 

benefits in environment and fuel consumption to appropriately equipped users. 

Recommendation: FAA, in conjunction with the NWS who generates the core wind data, should 

work with the user/operator community to ensure that consistent, certified wind information is 

provided to equipped operators for use in developing descent profiles. FAA and CAASD should 

expedite the development and implementation of the Relative Position Indicator (RPI) and the 

Automation for Monitoring RNP/RNAV Operations (AMRO) tools to enable full use of these 

procedures. 

FAA Response: The FAA has within its FY 2011 budget request funding to move forward with 

RPI and other controller aids to support more extensive development and use of RNAV and RNP 

procedures. The FAA has ongoing research on trajectory prediction and performance especially 

sensitivity to wind information as well as on the availability of information in-flight to the flight 

deck for improved planning including Top of Descent. These activities are being funded through 

the CLEEN initiatives and the New ATM Requirements research. The FAA is collaborating 

with the National Weather Service (NWS) on improved winds aloft predictions with NWS 

responsible for the core wind data and requirements being developed by the FAA. 

Finding (5): TCAS has been a significant safety element in the National Airspace System since 

first deployed in 1993. Its design was carefully coordinated with existing ATM procedures to 

minimize false alarms while reducing the risk of midair collisions. As NextGen introduces new 

procedures, it is appropriate to consider whether TCAS will continue to operate effectively while 

maintaining an acceptably low false alarm rate. The NASOPS Subcommittee was briefed on a 

C-24 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

new IRAD CAASD program to explore changes to TCAS surveillance, communications and 

threat logic to achieve compatibility with proposed NextGen flight procedures while preserving 

its collision avoidance capability. For example, a 2008 CAASD study concluded that of twelve 

proposed NextGen procedures in Oceanic/Non-Radar, Enroute and Terminal airspace, six would 

probably not increase the chances of unwanted TCAS Resolution Advisories, four might increase 

them and two would likely increase them. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee applauds the CAASD NextCAS IRAD effort, but 

modifying TCAS or creating a new collision avoidance system to achieve compatibility with 

NextGen would be a particularly complex problem, and that work would need to be based on a 

clear understanding of changed requirements and be a mainstream activity within CAASD’s 

FAA-funded work program, to be done in concert with existing TCAS experts at FAA, MIT/LL 

and other organizations. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that any potential changes to TCAS need to be coordinated 

with all of the current TCAS experts. Through ASIAS, the FAA has identified several areas 

where the current NAS operations are already incompatible with TCAS algorithms; the number 

of such areas may increase with NextGen operations. As such, the FAA requested that RTCA 

convene a committee to develop recommendations on future collision-avoidance system(s) that 

would be compatible with TCAS II, be more compatible with operations in congested airspace, 

and integrate ADS-B data effectively. This work is underway in Special Committee 147 and is 

supported by FAA, MITRE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Labs and other 

organizations. 

Finding (6): The CAASD analysis to determine how many sectors might lend themselves to 

generic airspace operations did not consider a mix of aircraft that is different from today’s mix 

and did not consider the possible introduction of trajectory based operation (TBO). The 

Subcommittee believes that in the timeframe when generic airspace might be implemented, there 

will be a greater diversity of aircraft flying at high altitudes (RJs for example). This mix of 

aircraft might well change the eligibility of a sector for generic airspace operation. The analysis 

assumed the current sector layout, but it is likely that the current sector layout could well change 

because of TBO. 

Recommendation: To get a more realistic assessment of how many sectors lend themselves to 

generic airspace operation, the analysis should be repeated, taking into account the fleet mix that 

might be expected at high altitude and possible changes, such as new sector boundaries, resulting 

from TBO. 

FAA Response: We concur with the Subcommittee and anticipate a much greater diversity in 

traffic mix in the midterm timeframe than is evident in today’s NAS. This dynamic variable 

most certainly holds important implications in the modeling and implementation of NextGen. 

One objective of the initial MITRE evaluation was to investigate opportunities for early rollout 

of some aspects of the NextGen generic airspace concept. As such, the traffic modeled did 

reflect current NAS characteristics. Future activities will consider the transition in NAS traffic 

diversity, volume, and other important characteristics. The FAA has additional analyses planned 

along the lines recommended by the NAS Ops Subcommittee. We will continue to evaluate 

C-25 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

these and other research considerations through mini-human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulations, 

cognitive walk-throughs, fast-time modeling, and other techniques. The specific conditions and 

traffic models used in this and other research efforts will be determined based on products of the 

NextGen Project office, ongoing research efforts, and other relevant activities. When the 

NextGen high altitude concept is finalized, the FAA will conduct a high-fidelity, fully-integrated 

HITL simulation to validate its viability. This evaluation will take into consideration the impact 

of aircraft mix, TBO, NextGen tools, and other factors on air traffic controller performance in 

generic and non-generic sectors. 

Finding (7): As briefed, it appeared that CAASD’s System-Wide Model is perhaps two 

generations beyond the NASPAC tool currently in use by the FAA. The subcommittee would 

like to understand the FAA plans for adopting the System-Wide Model as a NASPAC update, if 

doing so is, in fact, the case. 

Related Finding: In existing modeling and simulation tools (e.g., NASPAC, System-Wide 

Model, ACES), there is a gap in the ability to account for the effects of dynamically changing 4D 

trajectories on NAS performance. Such ability is required to assess the impacts of weather 

avoidance field dynamics, traffic flow dynamics, and airspace dynamics, for example, on NAS 

capacity and safety. Additionally, the modeling of NAS demand and operations with tools such 

as FATE, NASPAC, System-Wide Model, ACES, and others focuses on IFR traffic between a 

limited number of U.S. airports. Specifically, the modeling has limited accounting for the effects 

of VFR and VFR-Flight-Following operations predominantly by Part 135/91 operations, on total 

system capacity, workloads, and safety. The ability to model these effects and operations is 

important to the future implementation of trajectory-based operations of the NAS. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee requests the FAA to provide it with a strategic view of the 

modeling and simulation needs for NextGen, contrasted with the tools currently available. The 

FAA should begin to develop modeling and simulation capabilities and related requirements for 

analyzing the effects of dynamically changing 4D trajectories on NAS performance, in 

accounting for the VFR operations and UAS operations, and in accounting for operations at 

airports not currently included in NAS modeling tools. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that a sophisticated fast-time modeling capability is critical for 

making the right decisions regarding NextGen investments. CAASD’s System-Wide Modeler is 

a state-of-the-art fast-time NAS model, and is used by CAASD to support the FAA in various 

activities. However, System-Wide Modeler is a proprietary tool of the MITRE Corporation. It is 

the FAA’s policy to use public domain, open source models for decision-making whenever 

possible. This policy is aligned with President Obama’s goal of a more transparent Government. 

For this reason the FAA has been investing considerable resources over the last few years to 

modernize its NASPAC model. In 2009 the FAA’s NAS Modeling Group briefed the NAS 

Operations Subcommittee on their strategy for upgrading this model. Every component of the 

legacy NASPAC model has now been replaced. The FAA is therefore unveiling the new 

System-Wide Analysis Capability (SWAC). SWAC is open source software, developed with 

modern languages and design principles, that runs extremely fast on a single personal computer. 

SWAC incorporates several features not available in CAASD’s System-Wide Modeler. While 

SWAC is now operational, additional development is planned in order to add a number of 

C-26 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

features not found in other system-wide models, such as Monte Carlo capability. The FAA looks 

forward to the opportunity to brief the NAS Operations Subcommittee on the status of and plans 

for this model. 

The NAS Operations Subcommittee is concerned about the extent of IFR, VFR, and UAS traffic 

modeled by the FAA. The FAA modeling process accounts for all IFR traffic that departs, 

arrives, or transits U.S. airspace, including oceanic airspace. Additionally, the FAA model 

includes all VFR traffic at the “capacitated” airports. The SWAC model currently represents 110 

airports with finite capacities, though it can accommodate an unlimited number of capacitated 

airports. Based on the REDAC recommendation, the FAA will make plans to increase the 

number of such airports. VFR flight following could easily be represented in the model, but no 

data is available indicating the quantity and disposition of this traffic. Similarly, UASs can be 

accommodated within the SWAC model. However, there is tremendous uncertainty on how 

these vehicles will operate in the NAS, in what numbers, and when. As soon as a reliable 

forecast of UAS operations is produced, these vehicles will be represented in the FAA’s model. 

The FAA agrees with the REDAC observation that 4D trajectory management is a limitation of 

all current system-wide models, making it difficult to analyze the impact of this fundamental 

aspect of the NextGen concept of operations. The FAA will investigate means to account for 4D 

trajectory management in its model, and use other models if necessary. 

Finding (8): The subcommittee is encouraged that the FAA has developed an initial WeatherATM integration plan. To initiate the implementation of integrated weather-ATM capabilities, 

however, the FAA needs to develop a detailed implementation plan that ensures needed activities 

are in place to support investment decisions. The subcommittee was pleased to see that FAA and 

NWS have made substantial progress in defining clear roles and responsibilities, as illustrated in 

the FAA briefing figure which identifies the four key functions: 1) developing and maintaining 

the NWS 4D weather cube, 2) determining potential weather constraints on NAS resources, 3) 

assessing ATM impacts, and 4), developing proposed mitigations. This framework is a positive 

step forward in defining roles and responsibilities between the NWS and FAA meteorological 

communities, and ATM stakeholders. The committee notes, however, that weather research in 

the FAA and NWS should not be firewalled from Wx-ATM integration research, which would 

be directly counter to the integrated research processes emphasized in the Weather – Air Traffic 

Management (ATM) Integration Working Group (WAIWG) Report of the National Airspace 

System (NAS) Operations Subcommittee of the FAA’s Research, Engineering and Development 

Advisory Committee (REDAC). 

Recommendation: The FAA should develop a detailed weather-ATM integration 

implementation plan, consistent with the JPDO strategy for NextGen weather improvements, that 

ensures requirements are established, develops needed operational concepts, and establishes a 

clear business case for weather-ATM integration investments. This detailed plan should address 

needed activities across FAA lines of business and identify needed external stakeholder actions. 

Specific suggestions include: 

C-27 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

2012 NARP	 Appendix C 

1)	 Improve coordination between NWS, AJP, AJW and NextGen I&I office in 

developing foundational NextGen weather capabilities (forecasts, processing, 

distribution) 

2)	 Improve the process for coordinating weather-ATM concept development and 

demonstration projects across AJP and AJR. RAPT/IDRP is a successful example. 

Analogous projects dealing with weather impacts on strategic traffic flow 

management, time-based metering, en route conflict-probe and high-density arrival 

management are needed 

3)	 Empower traffic flow management researchers to exploit experimental strategic 

forecast products like Consolidated Storm Prediction for Aviation (CoSPA) for the 

development and demonstration of advanced concepts, in conjunction with weather 

researchers 

4)	 Articulate commitments to all of the user community by demonstrations for near and 

mid-term advances in operational weather capability 

FAA Response: The FAA has moved to improve its integration of weather into decisions 

making by more carefully defining roles, responsibilities, and leadership for each of the four 

functions. The assignment of leadership is not intended to be a barrier to cooperation and 

participation of either NWS or any part of the FAA’s weather and decision support community. 

In fact the FAA welcomes and expects participation in the three phases for which it has primary 

responsibility and welcomes the opportunity to participate with NWS on the function that they 

lead. The FAA is using this construct to better allocate functionality to its systems and improve 

the efficiency of implementation as well as the long term maintenance. 

The FAA continues to use well defined demonstrations with respect to performance and duration 

to evaluate advanced capabilities. We conducted two this summer including CoSPA and are 

currently evaluating the results. Any demonstration tool can have both an F&E and operational 

cost if the experiment is not well defined and the criteria for performance clearly set. The basis 

for the demonstration, the parties to the demonstration, and the goals for the demonstration need 

to be well understood by all participants before commencing. 

Finding (9): The Subcommittee received an interesting briefing on the development of 

Metroplex study teams in preparation for NextGen. While the studies are, appropriately, focused 

on areas recommended by the RTCA, some early work on these complex airspaces has been 

accomplished by NASA, and the FAA has not utilized that work. Doing so might permit a more 

aggressive approach to addressing some of the more complex situations than those currently 

under consideration. Additionally, the committee was struck by the FAA's desire to examine 

situations in which they would not need to comply with NEPA requirements to perform an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for new airspace 

usage because of the time associated with such a requirement. As the committee has noted 

before, the FAA needs to find a way to streamline compliance with NEPA requirements for new 

routings, as well as to give credit for offsetting savings. Similarly, in the Metroplex 

environment, it is clear that separation standards will need to be addressed from the same 

perspective of developing approaches to tackle complex challenges. 

C-28 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: The FAA should not shy away from addressing these long-pole issues in the 

Metroplex studies, as solving them now will enable much faster implementation of possible 

NextGen improvements and savings. 

FAA Response: Part of the Metroplex Study Team process involves surveying each Metroplex 

area to determine ongoing research and planned improvements. As an example, the Prototype 

North Texas Metroplex Team has been coordinating with the NextGen demonstration efforts at 

the NASA Texas Test Bed to identify opportunities to leverage new technologies and align 

enhancement opportunities and proposals. Any other specifically applicable research will be 

considered in a similar vein. In addition, the Metroplex Airspace and Procedures Optimization 

effort is focused on first identifying problems, and then examining a range of solutions for 

addressing those issues. A full range of problems and solutions are evaluated by the Study 

Teams, including options that may require more comprehensive environmental reviews such as 

an EIS. Nevertheless, the focus of the Metroplex Airspace and Procedures Optimization work is 

on near-term improvements that can be implemented in two to three years, a focus of the RTCA 

recommendations. FAA intends to focus on quality over quantity, but also wants to implement 

PBN solutions in a timely manner. As a result, the Metroplex Optimization Design and 

Implementation Teams will be focusing on solutions that can be implemented with an 

Environmental Assessment (i.e., no significant environmental impacts), and FAA expects that 

streamlined environmental reviews of these proposals could be completed within 12-18 months. 

Solutions that may require longer environmental reviews or that may require longer time for 

evaluation, testing, and certification are still being considered; they are just not included as part 

of the near-term design and implementation effort. Solutions that require an EIS will likely be 

considered within a separate large-scale, clean-sheet redesign effort. Moreover, it is anticipated 

that each Metroplex will be examined on a recurring basis, so as solution options mature 

(including new separation standards), they can be incorporated into the next round of Metroplex 

Optimization improvements. 

C-29 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

2.0 REDAC Recommendations on the FY 2013 R&D Portfolio (June 8, 2011) 

The Committee Chairman, Dr. John Hansman, submitted REDAC’s recommendations on the FY 

2013 R&D portfolio to the Administrator on June, 8, 2011. The agency provided the following 

response to the recommendations on September 21, 2011. 

2.1 General Observations 

Prioritization Within the Research & Development Portfolio: It is anticipated that the difficult 

federal budget environment will create pressure to reduce the funding of research and 

development within the agency. In this environment it will be important to take a strategic 

approach to evaluating research and development activities in order to prioritize those activities 

which are most critical to the agencies mission or to the staged implementation of NextGen. The 

RED AC offers its assistance if it can be helpful in this process. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the RED AC that we need to use a strategic approach to 

define our R&D portfolio, particularly in the current environment of shrinking budgets. The 

FAA Research and Development Executive Board (REB) provides strategic oversight to the 

formulation of the FAA's R&D portfolio. 

The R&D portfolio includes research funded by four appropriation accounts: Research, 

Engineering and Development R,E&D; Facilities and Equipment (F&E); Grants-In-Aid for 

Airports (AIP); and Operations (Ops). The REB members represent the senior executives of 

each line of business that sponsors research in each of the four appropriations. The REB ensures 

that the various iterations of the portfolio are reviewed and approved by FAA senior leaders in 

each sponsoring line of business, as well as by the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) Integration and Implementation Office, Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Executive 

Council, NextGen Review and Management Boards, and the FAA Joint Resources Council 

(JRC). This ensures a strategic, well-balanced portfolio that addresses the agency's needs. 

However, there is always room for improvement and under our "Foundation for Success" 

initiative, the FAA is reviewing the processes we use to make strategic budget decisions. Lastly, 

following the FAA internal review, each of the RED AC Subcommittees also reviews the 

portfolio within their subject area. That provides an opportunity for their input on criticality to 

the agency mission and implementation of NextGen. 

Complexity of NextGen Research and Development Plans: The need to identify the high priority 

(critical path) research and development activities within NextGen highlights the need for a clear 

high level Research and Development plan that articulates the critical NextGen needs and links 

them to the R&D portfolio. The RED AC understands the challenge of defining such a plan for a 

complex system such as NextGen but has previously noted that the FAA plans and roadmaps do 

not articulate a high level vision and are so detailed and complex that they are intractable. This 

makes it difficult to evaluate if the necessary R&D is being accomplished, how R&D results will 

be used and which elements could be deferred to accommodate budget constraints. The RED 

AC reiterates its recommendation that a high level R&D plan be developed from the existing 

more detailed plans and enterprise architecture to articulate the R&D vision and identify the 

critical path of R&D for NextGen. 

C-30 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

FAA Response: In response to the previous RED AC recommendation on this topic (RED AC 

Letter Fall 2010), the Office of Research and Technology Development (AJP-6) and the 

NextGen Integration and Implementation (I&I) Office developed a presentation to convey the 

critical aspects of the R&D portfolio to the RED AC without requiring an in-depth analysis. We 

described the NextGen research and development activities using existing plans and roadmaps 

linked to the FAA acquisition management system. This was combined with a presentation from 

the I&I Office on their portfolio management approach. This was presented to the NAS 

Operations (Ops) Subcommittee at their Spring 2011 meeting. Based on the feedback from the 

NAS Ops Subcommittee, additional presentations are being planned for future meetings to 

address this recommendation. 

Concern on Level of Technical Expertise in Key Areas: As noted in prior recommendations the 

FAA has a unique need for expertise in key areas such as critical software and digital systems 

and human factors both for certification and acquisition and it has been difficult to build and 

maintain the technical capabilities of the agency in these and other critical areas. The RED AC 

notes some limited progress (e.g. the reported hiring a chief scientific and technical advisor for 

software after a 5-year search) but reiterates its now standing concern that there has been 

inadequate progress in developing the core competency and technical workforce in this and other 

key areas. The RED AC recommends that a strategy be developed and executed to improve the 

ability of the FAA to compete in the market for highly desirable talent. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that we have an important need for expertise in key areas such 

as critical software and digital systems and human factors both for certification and acquisition. 

Although we have made gains in some areas, as you noted, there are still remaining gaps. 

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that we will be able to hire any new employees in the near future 

with the current and foreseeable budget outlook and staffing ceilings. We will continue with our 

efforts in workforce development that will include plans to increase the level of technical 

expertise of existing personnel in key technical areas. In the interim, and as resources permit, we 

will continue to supplement our in-house expertise with contractor support in targeted technical 

areas. In this way, the salaries would be competitive with industry so that we could attract the 

right level of expertise. This would also allow us to maintain contractor staff with state-of-theart knowledge in fields with rapid technological advancements, such as software and digital 

systems. 

2.2 Subcommittee on Airports 

Finding (1): The Subcommittee is very concerned over potential actions to move the Airport 

Technology Research Program and the Airport Cooperative Research Program from the AIP 

appropriation into the R, E and D appropriation. Both programs have grown and matured with 

the resources and attention provided by the Office of Airports (ARP) and the AIP appropriation. 

It would be a setback to put these programs back into annual competition for R, E and D funding 

with the other Lines of Business. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee believes it is critical to maintain this successful 

management and funding approach and recommends that FAA continue to support these 

C-31 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

programs in the AIP appropriation. Should, however, that prove unsuccessful, the committee 

recommends that FAA take administrative action to assure that the Office of Airports is 

designated to provide primary management control of these two important airport research 

programs. 

FAA Response: We fully concur with the RED AC recommendation that funding support for the 

Airport Technology Research Program and the Airport Cooperative Research Program should 

continue to come from the AIP appropriation. If these programs are moved from the AIP to 

Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D) appropriation as proposed by the House FAA 

reauthorization bill, it will not be possible to fully fund the current ARP requirements because 

there are equally high priorities for research from the other lines of business already being 

funded in the RE&D appropriation. The ARP research requirements would have to compete for 

a share of total RE&D research dollars. With the RE&D funding facing reductions, it will be 

impossible to maintain the current level of the ARP research programs if they are moved to the 

RE&D appropriation. Once a total amount is determined for the AIP research, the Associate 

Administrator for Airports would retain management responsibility for oversight of the ARP 

research programs. 

Finding (2): The Subcommittee would like to see more detailed milestone charts for projects 

instead of the standard "quad" funding charts. 

Recommendation: The FAA should develop an example of an improved project tracking 

approach with milestones that will enable the Subcommittee to better understand the deliverables 

and project schedules. This should be briefed at the next Subcommittee meeting. 

FAA Response: We concur with the RED AC recommendation. A project tracking schedule 

with deliverable milestones was presented to the Subcommittee at the August 10-11 meeting. 

2.3 Subcommittee on Environment and Energy 

Finding (1): One of the most promising areas of environmental research continues to be in the 

area of the development and certification of alternative aviation fuels. Such research will lead to 

reductions in emissions of C02 and air quality pollutants, and will promote energy security by 

reducing dependence on sources of foreign oil. 

Recommendation: The ongoing CAAFI support and alternative fuels research effort must 

continue to be funded. At the present time, much of the alternative fuels research funding is 

included in the Agency's NextGen Research Engineering and Development (RE&D) account, an 

account that is in jeopardy under current budget scenarios. Faced with this situation, the 

Subcommittee recommends continuing CAAFI support through the "Core Research and 

Development" fund category to ensure at least a measure of funding in this area in the event of 

any future budget cuts. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that alternative fuels research is a critical activity to meet 

environmental and energy sustainability goals. It is one of the highest priorities for the 

Environment and Energy portfolio. Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) 

C-32 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

has made significant progress toward deploying alternative jet fuels for commercial aviation, and 

the FAA will make every effort to continue supporting this effort. 

Finding (2): Continued Operational Research is necessary to support the implementation of 

NextGen initiatives. 

Recommendation: In order to be able to implement NextGen initiatives, continued funding must 

be available for continued Operational Research. Such research leads to both increased 

efficiency and improvements in environmental performance. A recent example of the 

importance of this research is the so-called "N Control" surface movement research at Boston's 

Logan Airport in which aircraft were selectively held at the gates to reduce time idling on 

taxiways as well as reduction in fuel burn and emissions. This initiative was hailed by everyone 

from airlines to air traffic controllers and may be ready for more general use in the near future. 

The Subcommittee recommends that such research activities, which lead to early implementation 

possibilities, be given a high priority in any necessary budget reductions. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that advances in operational procedure research have potential 

for near-term implementation for efficiency and environmental benefits. This has been 

demonstrated through our Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) research program and now 

through N-Control surface movement research. In fact, due to its simplicity and the 

demonstrated significant environmental benefits of the N-Control concept at Boston Logan 

International Airport, a research paper on this concept was recognized as the 'best of the best' 

paper and presented with the Kevin Corker Award at the recently held joint FAA-Eurocontrol 

ATM-2011 seminar. The Office of Environment and Energy is working actively with the 

NextGen Implementation and Integration Office on the next phase of this project to develop the 

transition plan for its implementation. Given its strong potential for environmental benefits, 

estimated to be similar to benefits from CDA operational procedures, the FAA will give it a high 

priority in prioritizing our work program under reduced budget situations. 

Finding (3): In the area of technology research, the ongoing CLEEN program to develop new 

aircraft and engine types with better environmental profiles shows great promise. However, 

since this program is dependent on funding appropriated after 2008, the entire program would be 

in jeopardy if Congress cuts funding to 2008 levels. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recognizes the funding threat to the CLEEN program, but 

recommends, even in a worst case scenario, that the CLEEN office within the Office of 

Environment and Energy be maintained to work with NASA on possible continuing projects and 

to be available should future increased funding return. While the implementation of CLEEN 

projects is relatively far off, completely abandoning the program will push technology-based 

environmental initiatives too far into the future. 

FAA Response: Traditionally technological improvements have led to reduction in aircraft 

noise, emissions and fuel burn. Continuous Lower Energy Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) 

program is following the same direction and has a greater near-term potential to deliver 

environmental benefits because of its focus on accelerated maturation of system and subsystem 

level technologies. The FAA will continue assessing the budget situation and prioritize the 

C-33 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

CLEEN work program accordingly to maximize the return on our investment. Under the 

extreme budget reduction situation, we will strive to maintain the base CLEEN office so that we 

can maintain our communication and links with the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) aircraft technology programs, and revitalize the CLEEN program as 

funding opportunities improve. 

Finding (4): United States leadership in the international community continues to be an 

important environmental priority, especially as the International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) debates the setting of a worldwide aircraft C02 emissions standard. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee strongly recommends that funding necessary to support 

ICAO activities continue. More specifically, the Agency's modeling activity (AEDT and 

APMT) should be supported to enable informed judgments to be made on all possible ICAO 

scenarios. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the subcommittee recommendation. Development and 

release of the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) is certainly one of our top priorities. 

It enables more efficient and accurate modeling of all aviation environmental effects in an 

integrated manner. Besides supporting International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

activities, AEDT helps to streamline processes to meet domestic aviation environmental 

regulatory requirements. Likewise, the Aviation environmental Portfolio Management Tool 

(APMT) provides us the ability to perform cost-benefit analyses to inform domestic and 

international decision-making. The FAA will continue to closely monitor the budget situation 

and support development and application of both AEDT and APMT on a priority basis. 

Finding (5): A few ongoing Environment and Energy projects should be given a relatively low 

priority and scaled back to permit continued activity in higher priority areas. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that work in the Aviation Climate Change 

Research Initiative (ACCRI), which concentrates on non-C02 climate effects, be deferred until a 

more robust funding stream becomes available. Similarly, research initiatives related to leaded 

AvGas should be scaled back and noise research should focus on policy issues, with field 

surveys to determine annoyance levels deferred until more funding becomes available. 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the subcommittee's efforts to help us prioritize our 

environment and energy research. The projects you identify as high priority will be protected as 

much as possible. The FAA agrees that if funding resources are significantly reduced, climate 

research under ACCRI can be deferred. Although the FAA did reduce funding for leaded AvGas 

research in Fiscal Year 2011, the FAA remains committed to support this important work, which 

is under the purview of the Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety. The FAA also agrees that given 

the costs associated with noise research field surveys, this work will need to be deferred. 

Finding (6): Current versions of the FAA Reauthorization Act provide that projects in the 

Airport Cooperative Research Project (ACRP) cannot be funded using AIP funds. If enacted, 

these provisions would require ACRP projects to be funded out of the core R&D pool of funds, 

thereby competing for funding with other, higher priority, items. 

C-34 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recognized the problem of having ACRP projects compete 

with other funding priorities in the core RE&D pool. There was, however, no unanimity on what 

action could be taken to address the issue. The Subcommittee did agree, however, that it is 

important for the FAA to be aware of this problem. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the RED AC recognition that the Airport Cooperative 

Research Program will have a problem competing for funding if it is moved to the RE&D 

appropriation. With the RE&D funding facing reductions, it will be impossible to maintain the 

current level of the ACRP research programs. Once a total amount is determined for the ACRP 

research, the Associate Administrator for Airports would retain management responsibility for its 

oversight. 

2.4 Subcommittee on Human Factors 

Finding (1): The Human Factors Subcommittee was briefed on the Flight Deck and ATO Core 

and NextGen Human Factors programs. We found that their FY 2013 research portfolios and 

their underlying structure were appropriate to FAA's mission and covered the area of need as 

understood by the subcommittee, with the exception listed in the subsequent Finding. In 

particular, the Subcommittee was impressed that other entities within the FAA are actively 

coordinating with, or seeking human factors input from, specialists in human factors including 

the FAA Human Factors Research and Engineering Group (HFREG, AJP-61), especially related 

to NextGen activities. We were also pleased that technically-knowledgeable personnel have 

been recruited to support these efforts. 

Recommendation: We recommend that the human factors community within FAA continue their 

work in the areas presented, and that the funding continue at (at least) current levels in both 

programs. 

FAA Response: AJP-61 will continue to coordinate actively with other entities across the FAA 

to facilitate the integration of human factors in support of its mission to generate and apply new 

knowledge about human capabilities for effective performance. We will continue in hiring high 

caliber professionals and leverage the best expertise and resources in the human factors 

community for executing the Flight Deck and ATO Core and NextGen programs to best apply 

the funding available. 

Finding (2): The Human Factors Subcommittee recently received a briefing on the AVS 

prioritization of research, and we applaud the efforts of AVS to provide a consistent method to 

prioritize critical R&D dollars. However, we were severely dismayed that the process results in 

a 90% reduction of FAA human factor core RE&D funding for contracts in FY13 relative to 

recent levels, far greater, for example, than the -1.5% reduction of overall AVS funds from FY12 

to FY13, and does not allow for the continuation of on-going research areas. This level of 

funding will effectively end research in critical areas that cannot leverage NextGen funding and 

research (e.g., research into human factors in maintenance, including fatigue risk management), 

and may have long-term effects on the maintenance of facilities such as those at the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI). 

C-35 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

We are extremely concerned with the results of this prioritization effort and the negative trend of 

human factor R&D funding. Human factors remain a significant factor in the majority of aircraft 

accidents and incidents and is a priority in the FAA Flight Plan. In addition, external reviews of 

FAA Programs consistently support increased funding for human factors. Thus, this reduction is 

inconsistent with FAA's documented research priorities. 

Recommendation (2a): This subcommittee strongly recommends the FAA Associate 

Administrator for Aviation Safety (AVS-1) conduct a thorough review of the recent prioritization 

results relative to pressing safety concerns and strategic goals. The subcommittee also strongly 

recommends that the FAA reverse the negative trend in contract funding of core human factors 

R&D to instead establish a funding level that is appropriately balanced with the core funding 

needs for human factors R&D, particularly in areas that cannot leverage off NextGen research. 

To not do this, we believe, will jeopardize the safety of both current operations and future 

operations involving new technologies and operations with foreseeable human factors concerns. 

FAA Response (2a): AVS thanks the Human Factors (HF) Subcommittee for the opportunity to 

brief the AVS R&D Prioritization Process at your March 2011 meeting. As briefed to the HF 

Subcommittee, the portfolio is subjected to a series of iterative reviews, concluding with a 

review by the AVS Senior Management Team. AVS believes the current process correctly 

prioritized research funding relative to the requirements submitted for prioritization. 

Nonetheless, AVS is concerned with the current trend in HF research. In support of the FY 2014 

R&D portfolio development, AVS has committed additional resources to identifying and 

developing HF requirements. We believe this additional attention will ensure that potential 

safety critical HF topics will be appropriately represented in the final AVS portfolio. AVS is 

committed to conducting research focused upon and responsive to the highest priority aviation 

safety needs. We are confident that the AVS R&D Prioritization Process will continue to 

effectively support this goal. 

Recommendation (2b): Two changes should be made within the administration of the AVS 

prioritization process. (1) Increased transparency is recommended for how the research 

requirements initially established by all the TCRGs are evaluated and selected, so that the final 

prioritization of the requirements, and the metrics assigned to each research requirement, are 

clear and not perceived as arbitrary. Specifically, at a minimum the initial and final AVP ratings 

used to select amongst the research requirements recommended by the TCRGs should be 

provided, with additional feedback as to the basis for the ratings. This information should be 

provided for funded and unfunded requirements. (2) There have been wide swings in the 

prioritization of requirements compared to allocations of contract funding to some of the BLIs. 

Of note here, the funding level for flight deck human factors varies dramatically across Fiscal 

Years 2011, 2012 and 2013. The AVS prioritization process needs to ensure the stability in 

funding between fiscal years required to foster quality research, to prevent the unnecessary 

application of short-term research methods where longer-term evaluations are required, and to 

prevent unnecessarily complication of research planning and execution, and to examine the 

effect of between-year changes in upcoming research funding in terms of the impact on planned 

human factors research. 

C-36 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

FAA Response (2b): Regarding recommended change (1), the evaluation scores for each FY 

2013 requirement have been posted to the AVS R&D Requirements Portfolio Web site, which is 

accessible by the HF research sponsors and performers. Evaluation feedback has been provided 

to the sponsor and the Technical Community Representative Group (TCRG) at their request. 

Line-by-line feedback on two of the HF requirements was provided to the HF TCRG, feedback 

that is generally applicable to the wider set of HF requirements. 

Regarding recommended change (2), the funding levels in each fiscal year are in line with the 

relative shift in priorities of AVS R&D requirements. Funding levels in FY 2014 will be 

established using the AVS prioritization process. We agree that stable funding is helpful and as 

briefed to the HF subcommittee at the March 2011 meeting, the AVS process contains provisions 

for multi-year programming of funds for research requirements that meet defined prerequisites. 

In fact, a third of the requirements in the FY 2013 AVS portfolio were funded for multiple years. 

Finding (3): The Human Factors subcommittee was first briefed on the NextGen Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit in August 2010 at which point it was is in the process of re-planning 

in response to earlier recommendations made by other subcommittees. Since the August 

briefing, significant changes have additionally been made in senior personnel. Although the 

briefing provided in this cycle (March 2011) provided more detail about specific human factors 

research activities and interaction with the community, the overall recommendation made in Fall 

2010 was not fully addressed: i.e., the vision, intended deliverables and anticipated customers are 

not consistently and clearly articulated, including the appropriate role of government in this area, 

and the project should be evaluated as to whether it has the appropriate level of resources and 

staffing. 

Recommendation: The previous recommendation provided Fall 2010 remains open. As in 

earlier recommendations, the Human Factors Subcommittee continues to strongly recommend to 

the Director of Research and Technology Development that the vision, intended deliverables and 

anticipated customers be clearly articulated. The role of government research in this area needs 

to be carefully examined, as should whether an isolated program called Weather Technology in 

the Cockpit is more appropriate than broader inclusion of weather concerns in other NextGen 

programs including the HFREG flight deck program. An expert review of the project is 

warranted. Following that, the project should be resourced and staffed appropriately to its 

goals and intended impact, as judged relative to budget cuts in other NextGen research areas. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the Human Factors subcommittee recommendation that 

the vision, intended deliverables, and anticipated customers for the Weather Technology in the 

Cockpit (WTIC) program be more clearly articulated, and that the role of Government research 

in the WTIC areas be closely examined. In response to these recommendations, the FAA has 

begun to review the WTIC program and has engaged key NextGen program stakeholders and 

sponsors to ensure program initiatives support specific Operational Improvements (OIs) and their 

implementation roadmaps. To identify specific customers for WTIC research, the program has 

engaged roadmap architects and program management from various NextGen solution sets to 

ensure that WTIC research supports their initiatives. To more clearly articulate the vision of the 

program, detailed reviews of WTIC projects have commenced to ensure that each project is 

focused on a specific goal with tangible success criteria. Detailed project plans and schedules 

C-37 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

are being developed as part of this review and process improvement to address the 

subcommittee's recommendations. In response to the recommendation that the program more 

clearly define its deliverables, this documentation identifies the intended deliverables and 

delivery schedule for each WTIC project and will be available for a review by the RED AC 

committee at the next committee meeting. 

Finding (4): We were very pleased and impressed with the presentation given by Kathy Abbott 

regarding the recent multi-year study completed by the Performance Based Operation Advisory 

Rulemaking Committee/Commercial Aviation Safety Team (PARC/CAST) Flight Deck 

Automation Working Group. Many of the study findings discussed appear to have great 

importance and significant implications for several activities, including the design and 

functioning of flight deck automation and its use, pilot training, air carrier policies and 

operations, and system certification. Thus, we are concerned that this long promised report and 

its findings have not yet been distributed or made available to the larger aviation community. 

Recommendation: We strongly recommend that the FAA compel the completion of the review 

process for the final report of this work and its findings, and disseminate the report to the 

international aviation community as quickly as possible to allow for timely response to its safety 

implications. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the recommendation to complete the PARC/CAST 

Flight Deck Automation Working Group (WG) report as quickly as possible. The PARC/CAST 

WG members have completed an initial draft of the report and are working with the FAA and 

industry team to finalize the report. WG members reviewed an updated draft on August 31. 

2.5 Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

Finding (1): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee recognizes that as the nation's air transportation 

system moves to NextGen, the demands for digital systems will continue to grow. The 

comprehensive deep dive presentation in Software and Digital Systems Safety (SDSS) found 

FAA to be responsive to previous subcommittee recommendations. While it is evident that FAA 

is pursuing and executing the needed R&D in this rapidly evolving area, the subcommittee 

remains concerned that FAA in-house capability lags behind the needs. Further, it remains 

unclear to SAS how the knowledge gained from this work will be applied to improve FAA's 

ability to support policy, regulation, and certification of new digital system designs. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that at the next meeting (August 23-25) the 

FAA present its plan to further build and maintain a capability to manage the breadth of SDSS 

R&D activities, beginning with the investments in R&D and moving the various R&D products 

into support of certification. This plan should include a review of the technical and project 

management skills resident in FAA research personnel, the approach to leveraging outside 

capability to obtain missing skills, and FAA management's plan to maintain those skills. Second, 

it should include an overview of past and current SDSS research efforts, their requirements, 

relevant milestones, level of performance, results, and an outline of how the results will be used 

to support policy and certification. Third, the plan should lay out a roadmap for the management 

of potential R&D to support future needs in complex, digital systems. 

C-38 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

FAA Response: The FAA presented its plan to manage the Software and Digital Systems (SDS) 

program at the August 2011 meeting of the Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety (SAS). The plan 

includes a review of FAA's current technical and program management skills, recent efforts to 

improve in-house expertise, and research partnerships that bridge current skill gaps. Past and 

current SDS requirements, research results, and current activities will be mapped to regulatory 

policy and certification actions. Lastly, the presentation addressed the management challenges 

and FAA plans to support SDS needs in complex digital systems. 

Finding (2): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee supports the research being performed in the 

area of Terminal Area Safety and finds it is well structured and relevant. The stall recovery 

training research is progressing well with clear recognition of the degree of difficulty in 

accurately simulating this little explored and data lean flight regime. The subcommittee would 

like to see action taken to assure very close coordination between this research and that of the 

Flight Control Mechanical Systems area as synergy opportunities exist. The runway friction 

research aimed at reducing runway excursions needs to be complemented with continued 

research into how to prevent other causes of excursions such as unstable approaches. 

Performance Based Navigation (PBN) research is progressing well in a critical area with more to 

be done. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that future PBN research include analysis of 

the performance improvements of NextGen satellite-based navigation solutions (e.g., RNP, 

SBAS, GBAS) over classic navigation sensors (e.g., ILS). This analysis, which should include 

RNP to GBAS approach and landing operations, should result in data that can be applied to 

regulatory criteria that establish operational advantages (e.g., lower landing minima) for these 

NextGen capabilities. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the future PBN research should include analysis of the 

performance improvements of NextGen satellite-based navigation solutions over classic 

navigation sensors. Current PBN evaluation of radius-to-fix terminator during RNP departure 

will be completed in FY 2012. The PBN analyses of satellite-based navigation solutions will be 

addressed outside of the TAS RE&D program after FY 2012. 

Finding (3): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee is pleased to note that FAA has taken steps to 

establish a Volcanic Ash research approach to better define the operational requirements for the 

reporting and forecasting of volcanic eruptions which in turn would support the establishment of 

international guidance for operations in the vicinity of volcanic ash. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee again recommends that the Volcanic Ash Research 

Program be expanded to include the identification of ash tolerance levels for aircraft, engines, 

and passengers. 

FAA Response: The FAA remains vigilant over potential aviation safety hazards from volcanic 

ash. As recent events have demonstrated, volcanic activity can be highly disruptive to air travel. 

Current policies that rely on the avoidance of volcanic ash exposure have resulted in safe and 

accident free air travel. The international community continues to carefully study this issue 

C-39 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

through groups such as the ICAO Volcanic Ash Task Force (IVATF), in which the FAA 

participates. It is expected that the activities and discussions will lead to a consolidated 

definition of the issue(s) and perhaps potential steps to establish ash tolerance thresholds. The 

FAA will continue to work with the international community and will appropriately support 

research that is determined necessary to support agreed upon safety objectives. Meanwhile, the 

FAA will continue our policy of avoidance. 

Finding (4): The Subcommittee agrees that the two tasks proposed to address Loss of Control 

(LoC) accidents are of high priority and should be pursued. The Subcommittee is also aware that 

requirements are still being defined outside of the FAA within joint government/industry 

activities such as the Low Speed Alerting Advisory Rulemaking Committee. Consequently, the 

Subcommittee is concerned that the current proposed funding may not be at levels to effectively 

address requirements forthcoming from the government/industry subject matter experts who are 

currently studying the issue of LoC. In addition the Subcommittee feels that better collaboration 

with the aircraft manufactures will be needed as the FAA studies methods to address stall 

departure identification, recognition, and recovery technologies. 

Recommendation: The FAA AVS sponsors for the Flight Control Mechanical Systems should 

work to ensure close coordination with other ongoing activities such as the Low Speed Alerting 

ARC to ensure their findings and recommendations are factored into the next fiscal year funding 

cycle. 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the recommendation. Currently we are coordinating 

directly with the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) on the subject of low speed 

alerting through linking members from the Flight Control Mechanical Systems (FCMS) 

Technical Community Representative Group (TCRG) who serve on the ARAC Avionics 

Systems Harmonization Working Group, which is responsible for supporting the FAA tasking on 

low speed alerting. Through linking members from the FCMS TCRG, we are coordinating with 

work currently underway by the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) on airplane state 

awareness and with advanced simulation initiatives such as the International Committee for 

Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) and Simulation of Upset Recovery in 

Aviation (SUPRA). 

Through our partnership with NASA, we will access their advanced simulation model and 

participate in validation research already underway in the NASA Aviation Safety Program. We 

believe such coordination will reduce the direct cost of the research to both the FAA and NASA. 

We will also actively coordinate industry partners to share their expertise and resources in 

developing this technology. 

2.6 NAS Operations Subcommittee 

Finding (1): After the September meeting, the RED AC observed that there does not appear to 

be a clear high-level R&D plan for NextGen, and NASOPS specifically recommended the FAA 

clarify research priorities for the REDAC briefings using a framework based on the FAA's 

Solution Set taxonomy. The FAA's response letter indicated that "the Office of Research and 

Technology Development (AJP-6) and the NextGen I&I Office will work together to identify the 

C-40 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

best approach to articulate the NextGen research and development activities using the plans and 

roadmaps that have been developed." This NASOPS meeting was a good first step in this 

direction. The subcommittee received a briefing from Paul Fontaine on the Acquisition 

Management System (AMS) and the role of RE&D in the Concept and Requirements Definition 

stage. We were pleased, also, to receive a briefing from Michele Merkle stating that the updated 

mid-term NextGen ConOps was to be issued this spring, and that concept development and 

validation guidelines have been developed for AMS that will be used to assess each service as to 

its maturity and readiness to move toward a final investment decision within AMS. Since the 

FAA will be using these guidelines to perform its own assessment as part of AMS, presenting the 

results to the subcommittee should impose a minimal burden. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA continue to emphasize and 

effect internal coordination between AJP-6 and I&I in order to provide an information exchange 

with NASOPS of all R&D in selected focus areas up to at least the Initial Investment Decision in 

the AMS. Additionally, NASOPS will review the updated NextGen ConOps when it becomes 

available, and recommends that the FAA present its assessment of the status of NextGen RE&D 

in the selected focus areas relative to the concept development and validation guidelines that it 

has developed for the AMS. This will enable the subcommittee to assist the FAA with 

advancing its RE&D portfolio by making specific recommendations. 

FAA Response: AJP-6 will continue to work with the I&I office and the Concept Steering 

Group (CSG) to assess Concept Maturity. As a starting point, new research being proposed has 

been going to the CSG to validate the need. The plan is that ultimately all NextGen efforts will 

be assessed for maturity and readiness for technical transfer. Moreover, as part of the FAA's 

Foundation For Success Initiative, the overall FAA governance model is being revamped, and it 

is likely to impact lower level committees such as the CSG. A NextGen Functional Design 

Consideration Team (FDCT) is establishing a new paradigm for NAS-wide management that 

will begin with a NAS ConOps that includes all services (both sustainment and NextGen), and 

provides a single point of entry and common set of criteria for inclusion in the NAS ConOps. 

The FDCT is taking a broad perspective of the concept through implementation lifecycle as it 

considers improvements to current processes. Areas of confusion and procedural gaps in the 

process are being considered from the time a capability enters the lifecycle through to its 

implementation in the field. At the beginning of the process, the team has recognized the need to 

establish a comprehensive ConOps whereby all capabilities that make their way into the NAS 

pass through a ConOps filter. The team is building on the work of AJP-66 with the CSG and the 

Concept Development and Validation Guidelines. Operational Improvements (OIs) as well as 

Operational Sustainments, or changes to current capabilities and programs, need to be considered 

together so that we operate from a comprehensive perspective in evolving the NAS. A similar 

mechanism is being considered to address allocation of capabilities to portfolios. Once this new 

process is defined, the FAA would be happy to brief it to the NASOPS Subcommittee. 

Finding (2): Michele Merkle again provided excellent presentations on NextGen Solution Set 

Ops Concept Development and Validation. The members once again found the presentations 

and the work itself to be exemplary of the research and development so essential to the success 

of the FAA NextGen effort. Michele's Separation Management presentation for High Altitude 

included the following critical attributes: a clear focus on the potential benefits of the research, a 

C-41 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

willingness to face the difficult but necessary effect of the research on both pilot and controller 

roles, and avoidance of overinvestment in a full SRMD for a concept when a preliminary safety 

analysis was all that was required at an early stage. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee continues to see the Ops Concept research as exemplary 

in nature and the work itself as critically important, and quite possibly underfunded. We 

recommend that the FAA continue to ensure funding for these activities. 

FAA Response: Developing operational concepts is an Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) recommended first step in developing an Enterprise Architecture. The two Operational 

Concept Program budget lines (NextGen and Core) develop and validate operational concepts 

that are key to Air Traffic Organization's (ATO) modernization programs and NextGen. Many 

of the Solution Set budget lines fund concept development and validation work as part of preimplementation risk reduction. If the FAA budget is reduced, all budget lines will be assessed 

for the impact and it will be important for the FAA to focus their research towards those 

concepts that are critical to the technical transfer of key NextGen capabilities. Additionally the 

breadth of research will be reduced to focus on those capabilities most likely to be successfully 

implemented in the near-midterm. 

Finding (3): The Subcommittee has recommended in the past that the FAA work to define the 

role of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in accelerating NextGen deployment. The history of 

successful PPPs in accelerating the maturation and deployment of innovations in the marketplace 

is rich with examples of relevance to the challenge the nation faces in NextGen. The FAA has 

made sporadic use of one-on-one government-industry partnerships, for example, the JetBlue, 

US AIR, and related projects. However, these projects do not represent the opportunity for 

industry-wide acceleration of NextGen capabilities through PPPs. The SE2020 contracts may 

offer a first opportunity in this regard. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee strongly encourages the FAA to conduct a rigorous 

evaluation of the opportunity for NextGen acceleration through PPPs. The Subcommittee 

volunteers to form a working group in support of the FAA's exploration of these opportunities 

and to provide the FAA with lessons learned in the design and operation of PPPs. 

FAA Response: The FAA thanks you for your recommendation and we are aware of successful 

uses of public-private partnerships. And, as you noted, we have been extensively using 

partnerships with private industry, not-for-profit organizations, and academia for many of our 

efforts. We appreciate your offer to form a working group to help us further explore PPPs, but 

we do not feel that is it necessary to establish a new working group. 

Finding (4): Programs in the FAA NextGen implementation portfolio that are reviewed by 

NASOPS frequently contain transformational goals that may face resistance or opposition from 

FAA employees, including but not limited to controllers. A specific example from this meeting 

is the Staffed NextGen Tower - Small and Medium Airport (SNT-SMA) phase. It appears to the 

committee that the inhibited dialogue between the controller workforce and the NextGen 

program leaders significantly limits the valid exploration of such advanced concepts for 

improvements in operational efficiencies, safety, and cost. 

C-42 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

Recommendation: In situations where the research goals have confronted employee 

organizations' concerns, these concerns should be included in the Subcommittee review process. 

Recommendations to the Administrator and the Congress on NextGen implementation by RED 

AC should account for such concerns. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that such concerns should be highlighted to the Subcommittee 

who might help influence the research. We will continue to address such issues at Subcommittee 

meetings. Moreover, as the FAA continues to strengthen its collaboration with the labor unions, 

research issues once seen as contentious may be more readily accepted in the spirit of research 

which is to prove or disprove the benefits (including operational and workforce) of various new 

operational concepts. 

Finding (5): NextGen capabilities, and the benefits associated with them, will not be realizable if 

strategies to implement them do not address transition and mixed equipage considerations. Few 

capabilities requiring flight operator equipage or other investment can provide a solid economic 

justification for the creation of exclusionary airspace. Transition and adoption periods span 

multiple years, resulting in a mixed equipage environment that must be dealt with both from the 

ANSP and the flight operator perspective. Flight operators are not willing to serve as "early 

adopters" of capabilities requiring avionics or other investments if there is a significant delay in 

achieving benefits until achieving a high-level of equipage. FAA concept exploration has begun 

to address this issue through the re-examination of assumptions for equipage in validating 

operational suitability and through the consideration of "best-equipped, best served" policies for 

some NextGen capabilities. 

Recommendation (5a): FAA should evaluate current NextGen concept and procedure definition 

and validation efforts to ensure that extended, multi-year mixed equipage scenarios are both 

operationally feasible as well as attractive to flight operators that make investments in advanced 

NextGen capabilities. In particular, concepts need to ensure that benefits to operators with 

higher levels of equipage are proportionally higher than those accrued to operators with less 

capability. Concepts and procedures should not unintentionally disadvantage equipped flights or 

operators due to greater difficulty in managing lesser-equipped traffic. 

FAA Response (5a): The FAA agrees with your recommendation and we have been including 

such evaluations in our current work. 

Recommendation (5b): As part of the concept validation of capabilities requiring avionics not 

currently available, FAA should work with its customers to better reflect customer perspectives 

on the business case, quantify the differential benefits of equipage, and assess whether these 

benefits are sufficient to justify operator investments. 

FAA Response 5(b): The FAA will continue to work with industry as appropriate to reflect their 

perspectives on the business case and assess the benefits. 

Finding (6): The briefing by Joe Post on the FAA's System-Wide Airspace Concepts (SWAC) 

model was very good. The progress by the FAA in implementing the modeling capability 

C-43 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

needed to evaluate mid-term NextGen capabilities appears quite good. However, it is not clear 

that FAA decision-makers use SWAC broadly in an a priori fashion to inform their investment 

decisions by performing relatively rapid cost-benefit tradeoff analyses of new technologies or 

capabilities, as opposed to a posteriori studies to justify assumptions, and could be scaled up to 

make better use of this important quantitative tool. 

Recommendation: The FAA should embrace the use of SWAC and its continuing improvements 

for informing prioritization of investments within NextGen implementation plans. The FAA 

should increase its use of SWAC as part of the suite of tools that it uses to generate a quantitative 

underpinning for the NextGen benefits story. 

FAA Response: Thank you for your positive comments on the System-Wide Airspace Concepts 

(SWAC) model. We plan to make use of this model as appropriate to support the quantification 

of NextGen benefits. 

Finding (7): The NextGen Weather Operations briefing was the best aviation weather briefing 

the committee has received. The connection between source weather data associated with the 

National Weather Service 4 Dimensional Cube, and FAA systems NWP, NNEW, and the 

provision of source data for CoSPA from the Cube were evidence of the excellent connection 

between research and the NextGen operations concept. The primary graphic showing 

connections from base forecasting and observational data, through the cube, to FAA distribution 

systems, and to FAA and AOC operators was also excellent. Finally, the committee found that 

the part of the briefing associated with CoSPA (the new NextGen Storm Forecasting Product) 

was excellent. Member John McCarthy felt that this product was the best produced by FAA 

research-to-applications effort since the days of the microburst warning system. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends carrying on the excellent progress of this 

program as currently constituted. The FAA should ensure that the NOAA and NWS observation 

and forecast community remain fully involved in FAA atmospheric forecast and modeling efforts 

and that where appropriate, these be operationally implemented at the National Weather Service, 

and have the results provided on the NWS 4 D-Cube. 

FAA Response: FAA concurs with the recommendation. FAA and NWS are actively and 

continuously working together to define weather products and data sets that will be exchanged 

through the 4-D Weather Data Cube. FAA-sponsored research activities will follow a welldefined research-to-operations process involving, as appropriate, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Weather Service (NWS) partners to reduce 

the risk of implementation in the NAS. 

Finding (8): The briefing on the Weather-Technology-in-the-Cockpit (WTIC) activity was the 

third in two years to NASOPS. Earlier briefings of WTIC did not articulate a clear set of 

objectives or a connection to NextGen requirements and the Subcommittee recommended that 

the FAA correct this shortfall. A critical part of NextGen is the establishment of a Common 

Operating Picture (COP), which is shared by pilots, controllers, AT managers, and AOC 

dispatchers. Weather information is clearly part of this COP and the FAA has the objective to 

ensure that pilots have access to weather information in the cockpit to achieve NextGen safety 

C-44 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

and efficiency objectives. The most recent presentation demonstrated a greater understanding of 

issues that need to be addressed with respect to WTIC and a Common Operating Picture (COP) 

among controllers, TFM personnel, dispatchers, and pilots. 

Recommendation (8a): For WTIC to evolve in a credible manner, the project needs to clarify 

just what the NextGen objectives are that it is attempting to meet. Specifically, if the objective 

of WTIC is to establish the essential cockpit weather information required to achieve NextGen 

Operational Improvements, the Subcommittee recommends that the FAA show that a costeffective methodology is being undertaken to identify them. On this basis, the developing WTIC 

effort should be evaluated to see whether it is cost effective to continue with this program 

relative to other key needs for NextGen research. 

FAA Response (8a): The FAA agrees with the NASOPS recommendation that the WTIC 

program needs to clarify the NextGen objectives that it is attempting to meet. In response to this 

recommendation, the WTIC program has engaged key NextGen program stakeholders and 

sponsors to ensure program initiatives support specific Operational Improvements (OIs) and their 

implementation roadmaps. Specifically, the program has engaged roadmap architects and 

program management from various NextGen solution sets to ensure that WTIC research supports 

their initiatives and specific OIs. In addition, an independent review of all WTIC proposals will 

be done to ensure that WTIC objectives align with NextGen objectives and are not redundant to 

other NextGen research efforts. 

Recommendation (8b): As part of the evaluation process, the Subcommittee recommends that 

the FAA consider any specific cockpit weather information requirements to support NextGen 

Trajectory Based Operations. Additionally, the Subcommittee recommends that the WTIC 

consider the impact of weather in the cockpit on pilot training requirements, particularly in the 

General Aviation environment. 

FAA Response (8b): The FAA agrees with both recommendations. The WTIC program has 

engaged with roadmap architects from the Aircraft Roadmap with the goal of identifying weather 

information requirements to support TBO. This collaboration is intended to identify specific 

TBO OIs that can be assigned to the WTIC program as the source of the required research and 

deliverables. In response to the recommendation that WTIC program consider the impact of 

weather in the cockpit on pilot training requirements, particularly in the General Aviation 

environment, the WTIC program is engaged in research to identify the proper training 

requirements and will develop recommendations for a training module or template to support 

NextGen concepts. Based on results of this research, which was due by the end of July 2011, 

follow-on efforts may be initiated. The results of this research and the plans for follow-on 

efforts, including stakeholder engagement strategies, will be available for review at the next 

RED AC subcommittee meeting in the spring of 2012. 

Findings (9): FAA and NOAA are evaluating MPAR as a possible future replacement for 

primary surveillance and weather radars. FAA's interest is relative to airport surveillance radars 

(ASR-8, 9 and 11) and Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR), while NOAA is evaluating 

MPAR as a potential replacement for the WSR-88D (NEXRAD). MPAR offers the possibility 

of reduced cost-of-ownership for future US national primary radar networks. In addition MPAR 

C-45 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

may result in enhanced mission performance capabilities for multiple US Government agencies. 

Capability enhancements include non-cooperative aircraft height measurement, wind turbine 

clutter mitigation and more rapid volumetric scanning of severe weather. To fully realize these 

benefits, FAA, NOAA, DoD and DHS must coordinate the development of MPAR technical 

requirements and must develop joint concepts of operation and synchronized investment 

decisions. There appears to be good coordination between FAA and NOAA. DoD and DHS, 

however, have not been effectively engaged in MPAR research. 

Recommendation (9a): The FAA should establish a coordinated MPAR research program with 

other agencies including NOAA, DoD and DHS. This activity should develop integrated 

technical requirements, complementary research investments and a synchronized schedule for 

investment decisions. The Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) would appear to be 

an appropriate entity to lead this coordination process, but other governances are possible. 

FAA Response (9a): FAA concurs with this recommendation. FAA, NOAA, DoD, and DHS all 

participate in regular MPAR Working Group meetings under the auspices of the Office of the 

Federal Coordinator for Meteorology (OFCM) to coordinate research efforts, identify 

opportunities to leverage research in related fields, and to recommend a unified research and 

development plan. 

Recommendation (9b): The FAA should continue its MPAR research in order to clearly 

substantiate technical viability and a positive cost-benefit prior to its 2016 Initial Investment 

Decision milestone. The objectives and expected outcomes of the FAA's MPAR research 

program should be clearly articulated and the agency should identify key issues that are not 

being addressed owing to resource limitations. In particular, the FAA should show how its 

research plan meshes with that of partner agencies (currently NOAA) to address the full 

spectrum of MPAR implementation issues including technology, concept of operations and 

system level architecture. 

FAA Response (9b): FAA concurs with this recommendation. FAA has initiated several 

concept maturity and technology development activities to further determine technology viability 

and affordability. Under the auspices of OFCM, FAA is coordinating program objectives and 

outcomes and identifying key issues and resource limitations. FAA is currently leading several 

bilateral coordination efforts with NOAA to address technology issues, concept of operations, 

and system level architecture. 

Finding (10): The NAS Operations Subcommittee was pleased to see the extent to which FAA is 

funding research into Human Factors, as evidenced by the FAA's thorough overview of Human 

Factors work sponsored through the RE&D budget line item. This work appears to cover a wide 

range of activities. The NAS Ops subcommittee was not able to determine from the briefings the 

relative importance of the tasks presented, nor how these specific tasks were tied to key NextGen 

needs. 

Recommendation: FAA should integrate human factors research with overall concept validation 

efforts, rather than planning these as separate activities. In addition, FAA should better articulate 

C-46 
2012 NARP Appendix C 

and provide relative criticality information regarding the underlying shortfalls or risks associated 

with specific human factors research tasks. 

FAA Response: The Operational Concept Development and Validation Group, AJP-66, 

participates in the FAA Human Factors Coordinating Committee, and briefs the human factors 

community on on-going and planned concept development work. AJP-66 and AJP-61 work 

together to further integrate tasks when appropriate, such as with aligning resources for NextGen 

human in the loop simulations. 

Relative criticality information regarding underlying risks and shortfalls is developed as part of 

the requirements generation process used by AJP-61. This requirements process relies on 

Technical Community Requirements Groups comprised of stakeholders in the Air Traffic 

Organization. The process is specified in the "Air Traffic Control / Technical Operations Human 

Factors Research Program Process" document available on our Web site at 

https://www2.hf.faa.gov/ATAF. We will add the shortfall information to the project descriptions 

on that Web site for greater transparency. 

Finding (11): The briefing on the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) status left the 

Subcommittee concerned about its current role and future contribution to NextGen. Because of 

the new alignment of the office, it appears that an assessment of scope, strategic approach, and 

connection to the FAA should be conducted. 

Recommendation: NASOPS requests a briefing from the JPDO Director and/or Deputy Director 

at the next meeting addressing JPDO future objectives, plans and priorities, and how the office 

connects to the FAA, other government agencies such as NASA and industry stakeholders, 

especially in the research arena. 

FAA Response: Dr. Karlin Toner will be presenting this briefing at the REDAC meeting on 

September 21, 2011. 

C-47 
This Page Is Intentionally Blank 
 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

Appendix D: NARP Milestone Status 

The 2012 NARP presents an established research plan that describes how the FAA R&D 

programs are progressing toward achieving the R&D targets through 2016. The plan maintains 

continuity with the previous R&D goals and the milestones supporting those goals. This 

appendix enhances the visibility of this continuity. 

Appendix D summarizes the status of the milestones in Chapter 2. Any changes from the 2011 

NARP are highlighted in bold, and the Notes column provides an explanation for these changes. 

The tables below list the milestones under each R&D Goal in chronological order by scheduled 

year of completion. Only milestones from 2008 and later appear in the 2012 NARP. 

Appendix D is intended to help the reader see how the program milestones change from year to 

year and to understand the rationale for all changes. We expect occasional changes, given the 

nature of research and the reality of government budget processes. 

R&D Goal 1 – Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

A system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that the modernized system can handle anticipated growth in traffic demand and reduce gate-to-gate 

transit time. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

1A07A 

NextGen 

Demonstrations 

and Infrastructure 

Development 

2008 

Demonstrate improved 

trajectory-based operations in 

mixed-equipage, oceanic 

airspace with actual aircraft 

and procedures 

Completed 

This program 

transitioned out of R&D 

in FY 2010; Budget 

Line Item number 

added for completeness 

A12.b NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence 2008 

Modify procedures to allow 

use of closely spaced parallel 

runways for arrival operations 

during non-visual conditions 

Completed 

AIP 

Airport 

Cooperative 

Research 

Program -

Capacity 

2008 Increase airport capacity Completed 

1A07A 

NextGen 

Demonstrations 

and Infrastructure 

Development 

2009 

Develop and simulate 

separation procedures that 

vary according to aircraft 

capability and pilot training 

Completed 

This program 

transitioned out of R&D 

in FY 2010; Budget 

Line Item number 

added for completeness 

1A07A 

NextGen 

Demonstrations 

and Infrastructure 

Development 

2009 

Demonstrate the addition of 

convective weather (current 

and forecast) into Traffic 

Management Advisor routing 

to increase throughput and 

efficiency for large, super 

density airports 

Completed 

This program 

transitioned out of R&D 

in FY 2010; Budget 

Line Item number 

added for completeness 

 D-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 1 – Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

A system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that the modernized system can handle anticipated growth in traffic demand and reduce gate-to-gate 

transit time. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

1A07A 

NextGen 

Demonstrations 

and Infrastructure 

Development 

2009 

Demonstrate via simulation 

standard separation in a fullequipage, fully automated 

environment with no voice 

communication 

Completed 

This program 

transitioned out of R&D 

in FY 2010; Budget 

Line Item number 

added for completeness 

A11.k Weather Program 2010 Develop 0-8 hour advanced 

storm prediction algorithm Completed 

A11.k Weather Program 2010 

Transition Rapid Refresh 

Weather Forecast Model for 

implementation at National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration National 

Centers for Environmental 

Prediction 

Completed 

A12.b NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence 2010 

Determine Air Navigation 

Service Provider (and pilot as 

needed) situational aircraft 

separation display concepts 

required for implementation 

of the NextGen TrajectoryBased Operation and High 

Density concepts 

Completed 

1A08F 

NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence - Recategorization 2011 

Determine initial set of 

optimal aircraft flight 

characteristics and weather 

parameters for use in setting 

wake separation minimums 

Completed 

A set of parameters 

have been defined as 

part of the RTCA 

workgroup activities. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

 D-2 
 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 1 – Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

A system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that the modernized system can handle anticipated growth in traffic demand and reduce gate-to-gate 

transit time. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

1A08F 

NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence - Recategorization 2011 

Refine the boundaries of the 

current six weight categories 

for the NAS fleet mix and 

define automation 

requirements to support those 

modifications 

Completed 

A Joint 

FAA/EUROCONTROL 

RECAT proposal for 6 

new categories was 

submitted to the 

International Civil 

Aviation Organization. 

The Automated 

Terminal Proximity 

Alert Phase I Air Traffic 

Control decision 

support tool will aid 

FAA controllers in 

using the new 

separation standards. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.k Weather Program 2011 

Demonstrate 0-8 hour 

advanced storm prediction 

algorithm 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

AIP 

Airport 

Cooperative 

Research 

Program -

Capacity 

2011 

Develop guidebook to assist 

airport planners with airfield 

and airspace capacity 

evaluation 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A12.b NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence 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 

On schedule 

NEXTOR II will build 

upon the work done in 

NEXTOR I in the 

exploration of 

Trajectory-Based 

Operations and High 

Density NextGen 

concepts for issues 

associated with wake 

vortex hazards. 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2012 

Establish and justify 

quantitative requirements 

for terminal-area wind 

diagnosis and forecast 

capabilities to improve 

benefits from fourdimensional Trajectory 

Based Operations 

On schedule New milestone 

 D-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 1 – Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

A system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that the modernized system can handle anticipated growth in traffic demand and reduce gate-to-gate 

transit time. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

AIP 

Airport 

Technology 

Research 

Program -

Capacity 

2012 

Develop new standards and 

guidelines for runway 

pavement design 

On schedule 

1A08F 

NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence - Recategorization 2013 

Determine how best to 

incorporate the 

leader/follower based wake 

separation standards into the 

en route and terminal 

automation platforms 

On schedule 

A11.k Weather Program 2013 

Transition 0-8 hour advanced 

storm prediction algorithm for 

implementation 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A12.b NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence 2013 

Modify procedures as 

requested to allow use of 

closely spaced parallel 

runways for arrival operations 

during non-visual conditions 

(two to three airports per year 

On schedule 

This project is currently 

working with San 

Francisco International 

Airport and Newark 

Liberty International 

Airport in adapting their 

operations to better use 

per Task Force 5 

recommendations and for 

requests from airports) 

their closely spaced 

parallel runways during 

use of instrument 

operations. 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2013 

Expand wind studies to 

more comprehensive 

environments and 

procedures, and more 

comprehensive assessment 

of benefits versus wind 

modeling error and evaluate 

weather prediction 

technology relative to wind 

modeling accuracy 

On schedule New milestone 

A11.k Weather Program 2014 

Transition in-flight icing 

Alaska forecast and analysis 

capability for implementation 

On schedule 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2013 to 

2014 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2015 

Provide accurate and timely 

wind information to the 

Flight Management System 

and Air Traffic Control 

systems, and demonstrate 

Trajectory-Based Operation 

benefits 

On schedule New milestone 

 D-4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 1 – Fast, Flexible, and Efficient 

A system that safely and quickly moves anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that meet customer needs 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that the modernized system can handle anticipated growth in traffic demand and reduce gate-to-gate 

transit time. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

1A08F 

NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence -

Recategorization 

2015 

Together with the European 

Organisation for the Safety 

of Air Navigation, deliver a 

more capacity-efficient set 

of wake separation 

standards to the 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (LeaderFollower Pair-Wise Static) 

On schedule New milestone 

1A08F 

NextGen - Wake 

Turbulence - Recategorization 2016 

Develop the algorithms that 

will be used in the Air 

Navigation Service Provider 

(and flight deck as needed) 

automation systems for setting 

dynamic wake separation 

minimum for each pair of 

aircraft 

On schedule 

 D-5 
 

 

A13.a 

AIP 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that significant aviation noise and emissions impacts can be reduced in absolute terms (despite growth) 

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

uncertainties in particulate matter and non-carbon dioxide (CO2) climate impacts to levels that enable appropriate action. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 2008 

Develop and distribute the 

first generation of integrated 

noise and emission prediction 

and modeling tools, including 

an environmental cost module 

Completed 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 2008 

Enable implementation of a 

new continuous-descent 

approach noise abatement and 

fuel burn (emissions) 

reduction procedure at lowtraffic airports during 

nighttime operations and 

optimize aircraft routing to 

reduce fuel usage 

Completed 

Environment and 

Energy 

Develop methodologies to 

Airport 

Cooperative 

2009 quantify and assess the impact 

of Particulate Matter and Completed 

Research Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Program – 

Environment 

1A08E 

NextGen – 

Environment 

and Energy – 

Environmental 

Management 

System and 

Advanced Noise 

and Emission 

Reduction 

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 

Completed 

The program name for 

this milestone was 

changed to correctly 

align with Chapter 2. 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 2010 

Assess the impacts of aviation 

on regional air quality, 

including the effects of 

nitrogen oxide (NOx) 

emissions from aircraft climb 

and cruise 

Completed 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 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 

Completed 

 D-6 
 

A13.a 

AIP 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that significant aviation noise and emissions impacts can be reduced in absolute terms (despite growth) 

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

uncertainties in particulate matter and non-carbon dioxide (CO2) climate impacts to levels that enable appropriate action. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

Environment and 

Energy 

Develop new standards and 

Airport 

Cooperative 

2010 methodologies to quantify and 

assess the impact of aircraft Completed 

Research noise and aviation emissions 

Program – 

Environment 

A13.b 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research -

Aircraft 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

2010 

Complete detailed feasibility 

study, including economic 

feasibility, measure 

environmental impacts, and 

demonstrate drop-in potential 

for alternative fuels 

Completed 

1A08H 

NextGen -

Operational 

Assessments 

2011 

Enhance regional analysis 

capability in aviation 

environmental analysis tools 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 2011 

Develop a new metric to 

quantify the environmental 

impacts of new aircraft types 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 2011 

Investigate feasibility of 

metrics for new aircraft 

standards for CO2 

emissions 

Completed 

The milestone wording 

was revised to reflect 

proper context. Old 

Wording: Investigate 

feasibility of new 

standards for aircraft 

noise and emissions 

certification 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 2011 

Assess the level of certainty 

of aviation’s impact on 

climate change, with special 

emphasis on the effects of 

contrails 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 2011 

Complete development of 

first-generation ground plume 

model for aircraft engine 

exhaust 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

 D-7 
 

A13.a 

A13.b 

AIP 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that significant aviation noise and emissions impacts can be reduced in absolute terms (despite growth) 

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

uncertainties in particulate matter and non-carbon dioxide (CO2) climate impacts to levels that enable appropriate action. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

Environment and 

Energy 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research -

Aircraft 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

2011 

Determine how aviationgenerated particulate matter 

and hazardous air pollutants 

impact local health, visibility, 

and global climate 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

Airport 

Cooperative 

Research 

Program – 

Environment 

A13.b 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research -

Aircraft 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

2011 

Complete tests and data 

collection to determine if the 

right metrics are being used to 

assess the impact of aircraft 

noise 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A13.b 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research -

Aircraft 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

2011 

Establish the relationship 

between aviation engine 

exhaust and the gases and 

particulate matter that are 

deposited in the atmosphere 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A13.b 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research -

Aircraft 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

2011 

Complete detailed feasibility 

study, including economic and 

environmental impacts and an 

assessment of the potential of 

renewable alternative fuels for 

gas turbine engines 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 2012 

Expand noise data collection 

to very light jets and 

supersonic aircraft 

On schedule 

AIP 

Airport 

Technology 

Research 

Program – 

Environment 

2012 

Initiate a project to study 

aircraft noise annoyance data 

and sleep disturbance around 

airports 

On schedule 

 D-8 
 

1A08E 

AIP 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that significant aviation noise and emissions impacts can be reduced in absolute terms (despite growth) 

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

uncertainties in particulate matter and non-carbon dioxide (CO2) climate impacts to levels that enable appropriate action. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management 

System and 

Advanced Noise 

and Emission 

Reduction 

Airport 

Cooperative 

Research 

Program – 

Environment 

2013 

Demonstrate optimized airport 

and terminal area operations 

that reduce or mitigate 

aviation impacts on noise, air 

quality, or water quality in the 

vicinity of the airport 

On schedule 

1A08E 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management 

System and 

Advanced Noise 

and Emission 

Reduction 

2013 

Evaluate, refine, and apply 

Environmental Management 

System decision support tools 

to the aviation system 

On schedule 

1A08E 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management 

System and 

Advanced Noise 

and Emission 

Reduction 

2013 

Identify and pursue the 

development of a Flight 

Management System and 

other system technologies that 

will be the most effective at 

producing environmental 

benefits 

On schedule 

A13.a Environment 

and Energy 2013 

Examine the suitability of 

aircraft noise and emissions 

metrics to establish 

environmental standards 

On schedule New milestone 

 D-9 
 

A13.a 

A13.b 

A13.a 

A13.b 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that significant aviation noise and emissions impacts can be reduced in absolute terms (despite growth) 

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

uncertainties in particulate matter and non-carbon dioxide (CO2) climate impacts to levels that enable appropriate action. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

Environment 

and Energy 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research - 

Aircraft 

2013 

Refine the estimates of 

aircraft contribution to 

climate change 

On schedule New milestone 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

Environment 

and Energy 

NextGen - Refine estimates of aircraft 

Environmental 

Research - 

2013 emitted particulate matter 

on climate, air quality and On schedule New milestone 

Aircraft human health 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 2013 

Obtain direct measurements 

of hazardous air pollutants 

and particulate matter data to 

update modeling tools 

On schedule 

A13.a Environment and 

Energy 2013 

Update environmental 

assessment models to 

incorporate new noise metrics 

On schedule 

A13.b 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research -

Aircraft 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

2013 

Complete significant 

demonstration of “drop-in” 

alternative turbine engine 

fuels 

On schedule 

A13.b 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research -

Aircraft 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

2013 

Demonstrate airframe and 

engine technologies to reduce 

noise and emissions 

On schedule 

 D-10 
 

A13.a 

AIP 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that significant aviation noise and emissions impacts can be reduced in absolute terms (despite growth) 

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

uncertainties in particulate matter and non-carbon dioxide (CO2) climate impacts to levels that enable appropriate action. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A13.b 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research -

Aircraft 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

2013 

Identify and pursue the 

development of engine and 

airframe technologies that will 

be the most effective at 

producing environmental 

benefits 

On schedule 

1A08E 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management 

System and 

Advanced Noise 

and Emission 

Reduction 

2014 

Assess NAS-wide benefits of 

environmental mitigation 

solutions comprised of new 

technologies, alternative fuels, 

advanced operational 

procedures, market measures, 

and options for policy and 

noise/emissions standards 

On schedule 

1A08E 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management 

System and 

Advanced Noise 

2014 

Demonstrate optimized en 

route operations that enhance 

fuel efficiency and reduce 

emissions 

Deleted 

This milestone was 

deleted because initial 

analyses indicated 

relatively lower benefits 

than previously thought. 

The project has been 

discontinued in 

consultation with the 

NextGen Integration & 

and Emission 

Reduction 

Implementation Office. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

Environment and 

Energy 

Airport 

Cooperative 

Research 

Program – 

Environment 

2014 

Complete development and 

field a fully validated suite of 

tools, including the Aviation 

Environmental Design Tool 

and the Aviation 

Environmental Portfolio 

Management Tool 

On schedule 

A13.b 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research -

Aircraft 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

2014 

Complete assessment of 

renewable alternative turbine 

engine fuels 

On schedule 

 D-11 
 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 2 – Clean and Quiet 

A reduction of significant aerospace environmental impacts in absolute terms 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate that significant aviation noise and emissions impacts can be reduced in absolute terms (despite growth) 

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

uncertainties in particulate matter and non-carbon dioxide (CO2) climate impacts to levels that enable appropriate action. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

1A08E 

NextGen – 

Environment and 

Energy – 

Environmental 

Management 

System and 

Advanced Noise 

and Emission 

Reduction 

2015 

Refine and update approaches 

for Environmental 

Management System 

performance tracking 

On schedule 

A13.b 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research -

Aircraft 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

2015 

Assess the environmental 

benefits of the first round of 

Continuous Lower Energy, 

Emissions and Noise airframe 

and engine technologies 

through integrated flight 

demonstration 

On schedule 

A13.b 

NextGen -

Environmental 

Research -

Aircraft 

Technologies, 

Fuels, and 

Metrics 

2015 Complete transition plans for 

renewable alternative fuels On schedule 

 D-12 
 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 3 – High Quality Teams and Individuals 

The best qualified and trained workforce in the world 

R&D Target 

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

of safety metrics) through automation and standardization of operations, procedures, and information. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.i 

Air Traffic 

Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

2008 

Conduct initial simulation to 

determine what weather 

information is required by en 

route and tower controllers to 

improve efficiency 

Completed 

A11.i 

Air Traffic 

Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

2008 

Demonstrate efficiency 

improvements when 

controllers receive 

information on aircraft 

equipage, performance 

capabilities, and applicable 

procedures in a mixed 

equipage environment 

Completed 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller 

Efficiency and 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

2010 

Define anticipated controller 

workload reductions due to 

implementation of data 

communications 

Completed 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller 

Efficiency and 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

2010 

Define initial requirements 

and anticipated efficiency 

benefits for merging and 

spacing decision support tools 

to support continuous descent 

approach in the terminal area 

Completed 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller 

Efficiency and 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

2012 

Apply program-generated 

human factors knowledge to 

improve aviation system 

personnel selection and 

training 

On schedule 

A11.i 

Air Traffic 

Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

2012 

Improve computer-human 

interface design to reduce 

information overload and 

resulting errors 

On schedule 2011 NARP Status: 

New milestone 

 D-13 
 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 3 – High Quality Teams and Individuals 

The best qualified and trained workforce in the world 

R&D Target 

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

of safety metrics) through automation and standardization of operations, procedures, and information. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller 

Efficiency and 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

2013 

Analyze controller roles in a 

strategic air traffic 

environment for the impact on 

personnel selection and 

training 

On schedule 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller 

Efficiency and 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

2013 

Demonstrate collaborative air 

traffic management 

efficiencies enabled by 

common situation awareness 

between flight operators and 

Air Navigation Service 

Providers 

On schedule 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller 

Efficiency and 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

2013 

Demonstrate increased Air 

Navigation Service Provider 

(ANSP) efficiencies through 

new procedures that allow 

ANSP personnel to manage 

and introduce routing, 

airspace, and equipage mix 

changes in the dynamic air 

traffic environment 

On schedule 

A11.i 

Air Traffic 

Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

2013 

Assess the Front Line 

Manager Quick Reference 

Guide for effectiveness in 

aiding Air Traffic Control 

safety 

On schedule 2011 NARP Status: 

New milestone 

A11.i 

Air Traffic 

Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

2014 

Provide a draft of a revised 

Human Factors Design 

Standard for human factors 

application to Air Traffic 

Control system acquisition 

On schedule 2011 NARP Status: 

New milestone 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller 

Efficiency and 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

2015 

Develop selection procedures 

to transform the workforce 

into a new generation of 

service providers that can 

manage traffic flows in a 

highly automated system 

On schedule 

 D-14 
 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 3 – High Quality Teams and Individuals 

The best qualified and trained workforce in the world 

R&D Target 

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

of safety metrics) through automation and standardization of operations, procedures, and information. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

1A08A 

NextGen - Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller 

Efficiency and 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

2016 

Perform an analysis of 

controller roles in terms of the 

services they provide during a 

given phase of flight as the 

differences between en route 

and terminal begin to blur 

On schedule 

 D-15 
 

 

A12.c 

1A08A 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 4 – 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. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A12.c 

NextGen - Air 

Ground 

Integration 

Human Factors 

2010 

Initiate research to identify 

equipment categories for 

legacy flight deck avionics to 

support human factors 

evaluations of use of these 

systems in NextGen flight 

procedures 

Completed 

NextGen - Air 

Ground 

Integration 

Human Factors 

NextGen Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller 

Efficiency and 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

2011 

Develop initial mid-term 

analysis describing the 

relationship between human 

pilots and controllers with 

associated automated systems 

Completed 

1A08A NextGen Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground 

Integration) was added 

to this milestone to 

correctly align with 

Chapter 2. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

AIP 

Airport 

Cooperative 

Research 

Program -

Capacity 

2011 

Document ramp operational 

and safety techniques and how 

airport operators implement 

pavement maintenance 

programs 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.g 

Flightdeck/ 

Maintenance/ 

System 

Integration 

Human Factors 

2012 

Develop human factors 

guidance for Automatic 

Dependent Surveillance – 

Broadcast enabled Cockpit 

Display of Traffic Information 

certification and operational 

approval 

On schedule 

A11.g 

Flightdeck/ 

Maintenance/ 

System 

Integration 

Human Factors 

2012 

Provide human factors 

guidance for the design of 

instrument procedures 

On schedule 

 D-16 
 

A12.c 

1A08A 

 

 

A12.c 

1A08A 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 4 – 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. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

NextGen - Air 

Ground 

Integration 1A08A NextGen Air 

Human Factors Traffic Control/ 

NextGen Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

2012 

Complete initial research to 

evaluate and recommend 

procedures for negotiations 

and shared decision-making 

between pilots and controllers 

On schedule 

Technical Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground 

Integration) was added 

to this milestone to 

(Controller correctly align with 

Efficiency and Chapter 2. 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

NextGen - Air 

Ground 

Integration 1A08A NextGen Air 

Human Factors Traffic Control/ 

Technical Operations 

NextGen Air Complete research to develop Human Factors 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

2012 methods to mitigate mode 

errors in use of NextGen On schedule (Controller Efficiency and Air Ground 

Operations equipment Integration) was added 

Human Factors to this milestone to 

(Controller correctly align with 

Efficiency and Chapter 2. 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

A12.c 

NextGen - Air 

Ground 

Integration 

Human Factors 

2012 

Initiate research to assess pilot 

performance in normal and 

non-normal NextGen 

procedures, including single 

pilot operations 

On schedule 

A12.c 

NextGen - Air 

Ground 

Integration 

Human Factors 

2013 

Complete research to identify 

human factors issues and 

potential mitigation strategies 

for the use of legacy avionics 

in NextGen procedures 

On schedule 

 D-17 
 

A12.c 

1A08A 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 4 – 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. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

NextGen - Air 

Ground 

Integration 1A08A NextGen Air 

Human Factors Traffic Control/ 

NextGen Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

2014 

Develop initial guidance on 

training methods to support 

detection and correction of 

human errors in near- to midterm NextGen procedures 

On schedule 

Technical Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground 

Integration) was added 

to this milestone to 

(Controller correctly align with 

Efficiency and Chapter 2. 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2015 

Demonstrations completed 

and data available to 

support the development of 

human factors standards, 

guidance, and procedures 

for the presentation and use 

of meteorological 

information in the cockpit. 

Specific measurable 

performance objectives 

verified for human factors 

design elements. 

On schedule New milestone 

A12.c 

NextGen - Air 

Ground 

Integration 

Human Factors 

2016 

Complete research to assess 

procedures, training, display, 

and alerting requirements to 

support development and 

evaluation of planned and 

unplanned transitions between 

NextGen and legacy airspace 

procedures 

On schedule 

 D-18 
 

A12.c 

1A08A 

 

 

A12.c 

1A08A 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 4 – 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. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

NextGen - Air 

Ground 

Integration 1A08A NextGen Air 

Human Factors Traffic Control/ 

NextGen Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

2016 

Complete initial research to 

enable safe and effective 

changes to controller roles and 

responsibilities for NextGen 

procedures 

On schedule 

Technical Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground 

Integration) was added 

to this milestone to 

(Controller correctly align with 

Efficiency and Chapter 2. 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

NextGen - Air 

Ground 

Integration 1A08A NextGen Air 

Human Factors Traffic Control/ 

NextGen Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

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 

On schedule 

Technical Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground 

Integration) was added 

to this milestone to 

(Controller correctly align with 

Efficiency and Chapter 2. 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

 D-19 
 

A12.c 

1A08A 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 4 – 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. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

NextGen - Air 

Ground 

Integration 

Human Factors 

This milestone wording 

was revised to 

accurately reflect the 

objective of the 

program. Old Wording: 

Functional 

demonstration – 

demonstrate integrated 

pilot and controller 

functional capabilities 

A14.b William J. 

Hughes Technical 

Center Laboratory 

Facility was removed 

NextGen Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical 

Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller 

Efficiency and 

Air Ground 

Integration) 

2017 

Functional simulation – 

simulate integrated pilot 

and controller functional 

capabilities 

On schedule 

from having any 

responsibility for this 

milestone. This 

program provides 

laboratory support for 

multiple R&D Goals 

but has no responsibility 

for the completion of 

any milestones. 

1A08A NextGen Air 

Traffic Control/ 

Technical Operations 

Human Factors 

(Controller Efficiency 

and Air Ground 

Integration) was added 

to this milestone to 

correctly align with 

Chapter 2. 

 D-20 
 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 5 – Human Protection 

A reduction in fatalities, injuries, and adverse health impacts due to aerospace operations 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

Ops 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

2008 

Conduct a study to provide a 

basic understanding of what is 

necessary in an Informed 

Consent form for commercial 

space flight participants 

Completed 

A11.j Aeromedical 

Research 2010 

Validate computational 

models of chemical air 

contaminants, such as volatile 

organic compounds, to 

evaluate health and safety 

impacts on passengers and 

crew 

Completed 

AIP 

Airport 

Technology 

Research 

Program - Safety 

2011 

Complete evaluation of new 

airport runway pavement 

groove shape to reduce risk of 

overrun due to hydroplaning 

Completed 

The results of the 

evaluation will be 

published in an FAA 

Technical Note 

scheduled for 

publication in early 

2012. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.a Fire Research and 

Safety 2012 Define composite fuselage 

fire safety design criteria On schedule 

A11.j Aeromedical 

Research 2012 

Develop and validate 

chemical kinetic models for 

bleed air systems for health 

and safety effects on 

passengers and crew 

On schedule 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2012 

Identify specific and 

recurring weather-related 

causes in reported safety 

incidents/accidents that 

identify weather as a 

primary cause. 

On schedule New milestone 

AIP 

Airport 

Cooperative 

Research 

Program - Safety 

2012 

Assess role of airports and 

airlines in the spread of 

vector-borne diseases 

Completed 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2011 to 

2012 

AIP 

Airport 

Technology 

Research 

Program - Safety 

2012 

Develop aircraft rescue and 

fire-fighting procedures and 

equipment standards to 

address double-decked large 

aircraft 

On schedule 

 D-21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 5 – Human Protection 

A reduction in fatalities, injuries, and adverse health impacts due to aerospace operations 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.k Weather Program 2013 

Transition mountain-wave 

turbulence forecast capability 

for implementation 

Delayed 

This milestone is 

delayed from 2012 to 

2013 due to changing 

Weather Program 

priorities. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2013 

Develop and implement 

resolutions to prevent 

recurrence of reported 

weather-related safety 

incidents/accidents that 

were researched in FY 2012. 

On schedule New milestone 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2013 

Assess and quantify the 

safety benefits to the NAS of 

providing Graphical 

Turbulence Guidance, Eddy 

Dissipation Rate, and icing 

to the cockpit. 

On schedule New milestone 

A11.d 

Aircraft Icing/ 

Digital System 

Safety 

2014 

Develop data and methods for 

guidance material for the 

airworthiness acceptance 

criteria and test methods for 

engines in simulated high ice 

water content environments 

On schedule 

The program name was 

changed from “Aircraft 

Icing-Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System 

Safety” to Aircraft 

Icing/ Digital System 

Safety”. 

A11.j Aeromedical 

Research 2014 

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 

Delayed 

This milestone is 

delayed from 2012 to 

2014 due to a change in 

sponsor priorities. 

A11.j Aeromedical 

Research 2014 

Develop and analyze methods 

to detect and analyze aircraft 

cabin contamination including 

chemical-biological hazards 

and other airborne irritants 

On schedule 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2010 to 

2014 

A11.j Aeromedical 

Research 2014 

Apply and validate advanced 

air sensing technology for 

volatile organic compounds in 

the aircraft cabin environment 

On schedule 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2011 to 

2014 

 D-22 
 

A11.j 

A11.c 

 

 

 

A11.j Aeromedical 

Research 2015 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 5 – Human Protection 

A reduction in fatalities, injuries, and adverse health impacts due to aerospace operations 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

Aeromedical 

Research 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural 

Safety 

2014 

Establish design criteria for 

restraint systems that protect 

occupants at the highest 

impact levels that the aircraft 

structure can sustain 

On schedule 

A11.c Advanced 

Materials/Structural 

Safety was added to this 

milestone to correctly 

align with Chapter 2. 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2010 to 

2014 

A11.j Aeromedical 

Research 2015 

Develop bleed air 

contamination models of 

engine compressors and high 

temperature air system for 

effects on the health and 

safety of passengers and crew 

On schedule 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2011 to 

2014 

Establish validation 

parameters for mathematical 

models that can evaluate 

whether aircraft type designs 

meet requirements for 

evacuation and emergency 

response capability, in lieu of 

actual tests 

On schedule 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2012 to 

2015 

A11.j Aeromedical 

Research 2015 

Develop a system (Aerospace 

Accident Injury and Autopsy 

Data System) capable of 

compiling, classifying, 

assessing, and determining 

causal factors of aviationrelated injuries. The system 

will link aviation-related 

injuries to autopsy findings, 

medical certification data, 

aircraft cabin configurations, 

and biodynamic test results 

On schedule 

A11.j Aeromedical 

Research 2015 

Develop advanced methods to 

extract aeromedical 

information for prognostic 

identification of human safety 

risks 

On schedule 

 D-23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 5 – Human Protection 

A reduction in fatalities, injuries, and adverse health impacts due to aerospace operations 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.j Aeromedical 

Research 2015 

Incorporate aerospace medical 

issues in the development of 

safety strategies concerning 

pilot impairment, 

incapacitation, spatial 

disorientation, and other 

aeromedical-related factors 

that contribute to loss of 

aircraft control 

On schedule 

A11.k Weather Program 2015 

Transition turbulence forecast 

capability for all flight levels 

for implementation 

On schedule 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2012 to 

2015 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2015 

Safety reporting systems 

indicate success of 

corrective actions and 

enhanced meteorological 

information (turbulence and 

icing) to reduce weatherrelated accidents/incidents. 

On schedule New milestone 

A11.j Aeromedical 

Research 2016 

Apply and develop advances 

in gene expression, 

toxicology, and 

bioinformatics technology and 

methods to define human 

response to aerospace 

stressors 

On schedule 

2011 NARP Status: 

Reverted to the original 

completion date of 2016 

A11.k Weather Program 2016 

Transition global turbulence 

forecast capability for 

implementation 

On schedule 

A11.k Weather Program 2017 

Transition convectivelyinduced turbulence forecast 

capability for implementation 

On schedule 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2013 to 

2017 

 D-24 
 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 6 – Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

A reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle design, structure, or subsystems 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate damage and fault tolerant vehicles and systems. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.c 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural Safety 

2010 

Develop certification methods 

for damage tolerance and 

fatigue of composite airframes 

Completed 

Ops 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

2010 

Conduct a study to examine 

the operational environment, 

determine the number of 

sensors needed, define the 

data recovery process, and 

provide black box 

survivability criteria for use in 

developing requirements for a 

black box system to be used in 

Completed 

commercial space 

transportation systems 

(expendable launch vehicles 

and reusable launch vehicles) 

A11.a Fire Research and 

Safety 2011 

Provide comprehensive 

guidance on lithium battery 

fire safety 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.e Continued 

Airworthiness 2011 

Apply damage-detection 

technologies for inspecting 

remote and inaccessible areas 

of in-service aircraft with 

metal structures 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.e Continued 

Airworthiness 2011 

Complete the study in usage, 

design, and training issues for 

rudder control systems in 

transport aircraft 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

Conduct a study to provide 

guidance to the FAA and 

industry on the use of 

operational limitations and 

inspection requirements for 

Ops 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

2011 

suborbital reusable launch 

vehicles comprised of 

composite materials. The 

results of this study will help 

to develop effective rules for 

Completed 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2010 to 

2011 

operations and maintenance 

for use of composite 

materials, as they apply to 

commercial space 

transportation 

 D-25 
 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 6 – Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

A reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle design, structure, or subsystems 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate damage and fault tolerant vehicles and systems. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.l 

Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems 

Research 

2012 

Determine a set of 

performance characteristics 

and operational requirements 

for sense and avoid 

technologies 

On schedule 

Ops 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

2012 

Conduct a study to identify 

means of preventing hazards 

(such as fires and explosions) 

involving nontraditional 

monopropellants and 

oxidizers (specifically 

hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, and 

nitrous oxide, N2O) used in 

propulsion systems in 

commercial space applications 

Delayed 

This milestone is 

delayed from 2011 to 

2012 due to changing 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

research program 

priorities. 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2010 to 

2011 

Ops 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

2012 

Conduct a study to provide 

information on the capability, 

limitations, and considerations 

for global positioning system 

(GPS) implementation in 

space launch and reentry 

environments, such as Space 

and Air Traffic Control, 

which will be used to help 

determine requirements for 

GPS usage and future 

technologies 

Delayed 

This milestone is 

delayed from 2011 to 

2012 due to unforeseen 

complexities in the 

acquisition process. 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2010 to 

2011 

A11.1 

Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems 

Research 

2013 

Identify the current 

technologies for small 

unmanned aircraft systems 

to establish a central 

repository of historical data 

used to track continuous 

airworthiness of life limited 

components. 

On schedule New milestone 

A11.c 

Advanced 

Materials/ 

Structural Safety 

2013 

Establish required skills and 

develop training materials for 

all second level composite 

structures knowledge areas 

(maintenance, inspection, 

structural engineering, and 

manufacturing) for 

operational safety 

On schedule 2011 NARP Status: 

New milestone 

 D-26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 6 – Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

A reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle design, structure, or subsystems 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate damage and fault tolerant vehicles and systems. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.d 

Aircraft Icing/ 

Digital System 

Safety 

2013 

Identify safety issues and 

propose mitigation approaches 

when software development 

techniques and tools are used 

in airborne systems 

On schedule 

The program name was 

changed from “Aircraft 

Icing-Atmospheric 

Hazards/Digital System 

Safety” to Aircraft 

Icing/ Digital System 

Safety”. 

A11.e Continued 

Airworthiness 2013 

Develop technical data on 

rotorcraft that provide 

guidance for certification of 

Health and Usage Monitoring 

Systems for usage credits 

On schedule 

Analyze data and identify 

Unmanned potential safety implications 2011 NARP Status: 

A11.l Aircraft Systems 2013 of system performance On schedule Delayed from 2012 to 

Research impediments of 

communications latency 

2013 

A11.d 

Aircraft Icing/ 

Digital System 

Safety 

2014 

Develop data and methods for 

guidance material for the 

airworthiness acceptance 

criteria and test methods for 

engines in simulated high ice 

water content environments 

Deleted 

This milestone was 

deleted here because it 

is duplicated in R&D 

Goal 5 – Human 

Protection, where it still 

appears. 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2013 to 

2014 

A11.e Continued 

Airworthiness 2014 

Develop technical data to 

assess the application of 

advanced aluminum-lithium 

metallic alloys for primary 

fuselage structure in 

transport category airplanes 

On schedule New milestone 

A11.f 

Aircraft 

Catastrophic 

Failure 

Prevention 

Research 

2014 

Develop and verify a 

generalized damage and 

failure model with 

regularization for aluminum 

and titanium materials 

impacted during engine 

failure events 

Delayed 

This milestone is 

delayed from 2013 to 

2014 due to initial test 

results indicating that 

additional tests at 

varying thicknesses are 

required to properly 

populate the material 

model. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

 D-27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 6 – Safe Aerospace Vehicles 

A reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle design, structure, or subsystems 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate damage and fault tolerant vehicles and systems. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.1 

Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems 

Research 

2015 

Identify recommended 

strategies for unmanned 

aircraft systems to 

compensate for missing 

sensory information at the 

control station and a method 

to assess performance 

requirements and methods 

of compliance for control 

stations 

On schedule New milestone 

A11.b Propulsion and 

Fuel Systems 2015 

Complete a certification tool 

that will predict the risk of 

failure of turbine engine rotor 

disks that may contain 

undetected material and 

manufacturing anomalies 

Delayed 

This milestone is 

delayed from 2014 to 

2015 because of delays 

receiving a contractor 

proposal for 

supplemental research. 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2012 to 

2014 

A11.e Continued 

Airworthiness 2016 

Develop technical data to 

assess the fatigue and 

environmental durability of 

bonded repairs to metallic 

structure 

On schedule New milestone 

A11.l 

Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems 

Research 

2016 

Conduct field evaluations of 

unmanned aircraft system 

technologies in an operational 

environment, including sense 

and avoid, control and 

communications, and 

contingency management 

technologies. The 

documented results will be 

used to develop certification 

and airworthiness standards 

On schedule 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2015 to 

2016 

A11.m 

NextGen – 

Alternative Fuels 

for General 

Aviation 

2016 

Develop engine and fuel test 

methods to evaluate the 

performance, safety, 

durability, and operability of 

unleaded aviation gasoline 

On schedule 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2015 to 

2016 

 D-28 
 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 7 – Separation Assurance 

A reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle operations in the air and on the ground 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A12.d 

NextGen - SelfSeparation 

Human Factors 

2012 

Complete initial research to 

evaluate and recommend 

procedures, equipage, and 

training to safely conduct 

oceanic and en route pair-wise 

delegated separation 

Delayed 

This milestone is 

delayed from 2011 to 

2012 due to changing 

research program 

priorities. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A12.d 

NextGen - SelfSeparation 

Human Factors 

2012 

Complete initial research to 

evaluate the impact and 

potential risks associated with 

use of the Traffic Alert and 

Collision Avoidance System 

in NextGen procedures 

Delayed 

This milestone is 

delayed from 2011 to 

2012 due to simulator 

technical issues at the 

Georgia Institute of 

Technology. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A12.d 

NextGen - SelfSeparation 

Human Factors 

2012 

Complete initial research to 

evaluate and recommend 

minimum display standards 

for use of enhanced and 

synthetic vision systems, as 

well as airport markings and 

signage, to conduct surface 

movements across a range of 

visibility conditions 

On schedule 

A12.d 

NextGen - SelfSeparation 

Human Factors 

2014 

Complete research to identify 

likely human error modes and 

recommend mitigation 

strategies in closely spaced 

arrival/departure routings 

On schedule 

A12.d 

NextGen - SelfSeparation 

Human Factors 

2014 

Evaluate and recommend 

minimum display standards 

and operational procedures for 

use of Cockpit Display of 

Traffic Information to support 

pilot awareness of potential 

ground conflicts and to 

support transition between 

taxi, takeoff, departure and 

arrival phases of flight 

On schedule 

A12.d 

NextGen - SelfSeparation 

Human Factors 

2015 

Complete research and 

provide human factors 

guidance to reduce arrival and 

departure spacing including 

variable separation in a mixed 

equipage environment 

On schedule 

 D-29 
 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 7 – Separation Assurance 

A reduction in accidents and incidents due to aerospace vehicle operations in the air and on the ground 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A12.d 

NextGen - SelfSeparation 

Human Factors 

2015 

Enable reduced and delegated 

separation in oceanic airspace 

and en route corridors 

On schedule 

A12.d 

NextGen - SelfSeparation 

Human Factors 

2015 

Complete research to enable 

enhanced aircraft spacing for 

surface movements in lowvisibility conditions guided by 

enhanced and synthetic vision 

systems, as well as cockpit 

displays of aircraft and ground 

vehicles and associated 

procedures 

Accelerated 

This milestone is 

accelerated from 2016 

to 2015 due to changing 

sponsor priorities. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

 D-30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 8 – Situational Awareness 

Common, accurate, and real-time information of aerospace operations, events, crises, obstacles, and weather 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate common, real-time awareness of ongoing air operations, events, crises, and weather in all phases of 

flight and at all types of airports by pilots and controllers. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

Ops 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

2009 

Conduct a study to determine 

the need to develop a 

temporal wind database to 

support the launch of windweighted, unguided, 

suborbital rockets launched 

from nonfederal launch sites 

Completed 

Ops 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

2009 

Conduct a study to survey the 

existing technologies 

available for determining 

wind conditions from the 

upper troposphere to the 

stratosphere. The study will 

address possible modifications 

of radar wind profiler to 

obtain winds to greater 

altitudes than currently 

available 

Completed 

Ops 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

2009 

Review integrated operations 

of reusable launch vehicles 

(RLV) from spaceports, joint 

use airport and spaceports, as 

well as the airspace 

surrounding those facilities 

and provide recommendations 

on how to safely integrate and 

conduct routine RLV 

operations 

Completed 

1A01A 

Runway 

Incursion 

Reduction 

Program 

2010 

Develop system 

enhancements for runway 

status lights 

Completed 

A11.k Weather Program 2010 

Develop Continental U.S. 

ceiling, visibility, and flight 

category forecast capability 

Completed 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2010 

Assess bandwidth demand of 

graphical icing products 

(Current Icing Product and 

Forecast Icing Product) and 

graphical turbulence products 

(Graphical Turbulence 

Guidance) for potential 

delivery via existing and 

planned FAA data link 

services 

Completed 

 D-31 
 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 8 – Situational Awareness 

Common, accurate, and real-time information of aerospace operations, events, crises, obstacles, and weather 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate common, real-time awareness of ongoing air operations, events, crises, and weather in all phases of 

flight and at all types of airports by pilots and controllers. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

AIP 

Airport 

Technology 

Research 

Program - Safety 

2010 

Develop advisory material to 

install new visual guidance 

systems 

Completed 

1A01A 

Runway 

Incursion 

Reduction 

Program 

2011 

Continue development of 

Runway Status Lights 

System enhancements, 

install additional Low Cost 

Ground Surveillance pilot 

sites, and assess Runway 

Incursion mitigation 

programs via simulation 

Completed 

New milestone 

This milestone was 

added for completeness 

to show its contribution 

towards meeting the 

Situational Awareness 

R&D Goal 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2011 

Identify, validate, and 

document datalink system 

attributes that may affect use 

of weather in the cockpit 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

AIP 

Airport 

Technology 

Research 

Program - Safety 

2011 

Develop performance 

standards for avian radar use 

on airports 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.k Weather Program 2012 

Demonstrate 1-3 hour 

Continental U.S. ceiling, 

visibility, and flight category 

forecast capability 

Deleted 

This milestone was 

deleted after 

collaboration with the 

National Weather 

Service on ceiling and 

visibility forecast 

capability resulted in a 

new research approach. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

 D-32 
 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 8 – Situational Awareness 

Common, accurate, and real-time information of aerospace operations, events, crises, obstacles, and weather 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate common, real-time awareness of ongoing air operations, events, crises, and weather in all phases of 

flight and at all types of airports by pilots and controllers. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.k Weather 

Program 2012 

Develop Continental U.S. 

ceiling and visibility forecast 

to merge with National 

Weather Service capability 

On schedule 

This is a new milestone 

added after 

collaboration with the 

National Weather 

Service on ceiling and 

visibility (C&V) 

forecast capability 

resulted in a new 

research approach. The 

FAA will integrate the 

results of its C&V 

forecast research with 

their forecast capability 

to provide a gridded 

forecast product. These 

grids will be part of the 

data contained in the 

NextGen 4D Data Cube. 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2012 

Simulate and evaluate the 

benefits and impacts of 

presenting impact-oriented 

meteorological information 

in the cockpit in a 

collaborative decision 

environment 

On schedule 

The wording of this 

milestone was revised 

for clarification and to 

better match research 

efforts. Old Wording: 

Simulate and evaluate 

available cockpit 

weather technologies 

AIP 

Airport 

Technology 

Research 

Program - Safety 

2012 

Develop guidance material for 

airport planning to ensure 

consistency from the 

operator’s perspective from 

airport to airport 

On schedule 

 D-33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 8 – Situational Awareness 

Common, accurate, and real-time information of aerospace operations, events, crises, obstacles, and weather 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate common, real-time awareness of ongoing air operations, events, crises, and weather in all phases of 

flight and at all types of airports by pilots and controllers. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2013 

Develop NextGen Part 121, 

135, and Part 91 concepts of 

operation and user 

requirements for the 

provision, integration, and use 

of weather information in the 

cockpit 

Delayed 

This milestone is 

delayed from 2011 to 

2013 due to changing 

program priorities. 

The wording of this 

milestone was revised 

to better align with 

other program 

documentation. Old 

Wording: Develop 

NextGen mid-term 

concepts of operation 

and user requirements 

for the provision, 

integration, and use of 

weather information in 

the cockpit 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2010 to 

2011 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2013 

Assess the impacts and 

benefits of mobile/portable 

devices for use in providing 

increased common 

meteorological situational 

awareness between the 

cockpit crew and ground 

based traffic managers. 

On schedule New milestone 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2013 Develop prototype weather 

modules for flight deck Deleted 

This milestone was 

deleted due to changing 

program priorities. 

A11.k Weather Program 2014 

Transition in-flight icing 

Alaska forecast for 

implementation 

On schedule 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2013 to 

2014 

 D-34 
 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 8 – Situational Awareness 

Common, accurate, and real-time information of aerospace operations, events, crises, obstacles, and weather 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate common, real-time awareness of ongoing air operations, events, crises, and weather in all phases of 

flight and at all types of airports by pilots and controllers. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.k Weather Program 2014 

Demonstrate 1-12 hour 

Continental U.S. ceiling, 

visibility, and flight category 

forecast capability 

Deleted 

This milestone was 

deleted after 

collaboration with the 

National Weather 

Service on ceiling and 

visibility (C&V) 

forecast capability 

resulted in a new 

research approach. The 

FAA will integrate the 

results of its C&V 

forecast research with 

their forecast capability 

to provide a gridded 

forecast product. These 

grids will be part of the 

data contained in the 

NextGen 4D Data Cube. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2014 

Simulate, test, and evaluate 

cockpit use of weather 

decision support tools, 

including probabilistic 

forecasts 

On schedule 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2014 

Simulate, test, and evaluate 

fully-integrated cockpit use of 

NextGen operational 

concepts, including Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit 

On schedule 

 D-35 
 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 8 – Situational Awareness 

Common, accurate, and real-time information of aerospace operations, events, crises, obstacles, and weather 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate common, real-time awareness of ongoing air operations, events, crises, and weather in all phases of 

flight and at all types of airports by pilots and controllers. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.k Weather 

Program 2015 

Demonstrate integrated 

FAA/National Weather 

Service ceiling and visibility 

forecast capability 

On schedule 

This is a new milestone 

added after 

collaboration with the 

National Weather 

Service on ceiling and 

visibility (C&V) 

forecast capability 

resulted in a new 

research approach. The 

FAA will integrate the 

results of its C&V 

forecast research with 

their forecast capability 

to provide a gridded 

forecast product. These 

grids will be part of the 

data contained in the 

NextGen 4D Data Cube. 

This milestone replaces 

the deleted 

“Demonstrate 1-12 hour 

CONUS ceiling, 

visibility, and flight 

category forecast 

capability” milestone 

that had a completion 

date of 2014. There 

will not be any impact 

from deletion of the 

original milestone as the 

new approach will meet 

the same need (at a 

lower cost) - to provide 

a ceiling and visibility 

forecast capability over 

the CONUS. 

A12.e 

NextGen -

Weather 

Technology in 

the Cockpit 

2015 

Demonstrate the integration of 

navigation information and 

flight information, including 

weather information, into 

cockpit decision-making and 

shared situational awareness 

among pilots, dispatchers, and 

air traffic controllers 

supported by NextGen air and 

ground capabilities 

On schedule 

 D-36 
 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 8 – Situational Awareness 

Common, accurate, and real-time information of aerospace operations, events, crises, obstacles, and weather 

R&D Target 

By 2016, demonstrate common, real-time awareness of ongoing air operations, events, crises, and weather in all phases of 

flight and at all types of airports by pilots and controllers. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.k Weather Program 2016 

Transition 1-12 hour CONUS 

ceiling, visibility, and flight 

category forecast capability 

for implementation 

Deleted 

This milestone was 

deleted after 

collaboration with the 

National Weather 

Service on ceiling and 

visibility (C&V) 

forecast capability 

resulted in a new 

research approach. The 

FAA will integrate the 

results of its C&V 

forecast research with 

their forecast capability 

to provide a gridded 

forecast product. These 

grids will be part of the 

data contained in the 

NextGen 4D Data Cube. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

 D-37 
 

1A08C 

1A01C 

1A01B 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 9 – 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 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

NextGen -

Operations 

Concept 

Validation - 

Validation The NextGen – 

Modeling Operations Concept 

Operations 

Concept 

Validation 

2008 Demonstrate capacity increase 

to 130% of baseline levels Completed 

Validation – Validation 

Modeling program was 

added to this milestone 

to correctly align with 

Chapter 2. 

System Capacity, 

Planning and 

Improvement 

1A08H 

NextGen -

Operational 

Assessments 

2009 

Develop and implement NAS 

-wide regional environmental 

analysis capability within the 

Aviation Environmental 

Design Tool 

Completed 

1A08G 

NextGen -

System Safety 

Management 

Transformation 

2009 

Evaluate current information 

protection and assurance 

models and evaluate potential 

conflicts with privacy and 

consumer advocacy groups 

Completed 

1A08H 

NextGen -

Operational 

Assessments 

2010 

Implement weather effects in 

Aviation Environmental 

Design Tool environmental 

analyses 

Completed 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2010 

Demonstrate a one-third 

reduction in the rate of 

fatalities and injuries 

Completed 

Ops 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

2010 

Conduct a study with current 

information related to the state 

of the commercial suborbital 

transportation industry with a 

focus on market demand, 

safety, operability, and 

international coordination 

Completed 

 D-38 
 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 9 – 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 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

Operations 

1A01C Concept 

Validation 

NextGen -

1A08C 

Operations 

Concept 

Validation - 

Validation 

2011 

Demonstrate an increase in 

capacity and efficiency at 

2018 forecasted traffic levels 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: No 

status provided 

Modeling 

System Capacity, 

1A01B Planning and 

Improvement 

1A08G 

NextGen -

System Safety 

Management 

Transformation 

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 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.e Continued 

Airworthiness 2011 

Complete study of risk-based 

fleet management for smallairplane continued operational 

safety 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2011 

Develop automated tools to 

monitor databases for 

potential safety issues 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

AIP 

Airport 

Cooperative 

Research 

Program -

Capacity 

2011 

Develop a guidebook for 

airport operators and air cargo 

industry stakeholders that 

provides tools and techniques 

for measuring economic 

impacts of air cargo activities 

at the national, regional, and 

local level 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

AIP 

Airport 

Cooperative 

Research 

Program - Safety 

2011 

Develop and validate a 

software tool to quantify risk 

and support engineering 

decision-making related to 

runway safety area 

requirements 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

 D-39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 9 – 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 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

Ops 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

2011 

Conduct a study to evaluate 

the adequacy of current rules 

and polices related to 

commercial space 

transportation, implement new 

rules, policy, and advisory 

materials, and identify barriers 

to industry caused by 

unnecessary or conflicting 

regulations 

Deleted 

This milestone has been 

deleted due to changing 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Safety 

Program priorities. 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2010 to 

2011 

Ops 

Commercial 

Space 

Transportation 

Safety 

2011 

Release Commercial Space 

Transportation Research Road 

Map document, v1.0 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

1A08G 

NextGen -

System Safety 

Management 

Transformation 

2012 

Using the existing Aviation 

Safety Information Analysis 

and Sharing system 

architecture, develop a 

proof-of-concept and 

prototype for the sharing of 

aviation safety information 

among Joint Planning and 

Development Office 

member agencies, 

participants, and 

stakeholders 

Completed 

The wording of this 

milestone was revised 

because the "Net 

Enabled Architecture" is 

still in development and 

is an activity outside of 

scope of Aviation 

Safety’s authority. Old 

Wording: Validate the 

Net Enabled Operations 

proof-of-concept for the 

sharing of aviation 

safety information 

among JPDO member 

agencies, participants, 

and stakeholders 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2012 

Demonstrate a working 

prototype of network-based 

integration of information 

extracted from diverse, 

distributed sources 

On schedule 

 D-40 
 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 9 – 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 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2012 

Demonstrate a one-half 

reduction in the rate of 

fatalities and injuries 

Deleted 

This milestone was 

deleted because it is no 

longer appropriate for 

this R&D Goal. The 

milestone was 

developed when the 

number of air traffic 

operations was 

projected to double by 

2012. In addition, the 

accident reduction goal 

verbiage has 

significantly changed in 

Destination 2025 from 

metrics previously used. 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2012 

Develop a quantitative and 

objective approach to 

prioritize new and evolving 

safety risks identified 

through analysis of multiple 

databases 

On schedule New milestone 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2012 

Develop a user interface and 

trend analysis capability 

that monitors NAS 

performance with respect to 

failures, risks, impact on Air 

Traffic Control and other 

off-nominal occurrences 

On schedule New milestone 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2012 

Complete a pilot-in-the-loop 

evaluation of radius-to-fix 

turns during departure 

procedures 

On schedule New milestone 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2012 

Complete representative 

stall model for upset 

recovery training 

On schedule New milestone 

 D-41 
 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 9 – 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 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

1A01C 

1A08C 

1A01B 

Operations 

Concept 

Validation 

NextGen -

Operations 

Concept 

Validation - 

Validation 

Modeling 

System Capacity, 

Planning and 

Improvement 

2013 

Demonstrate an increase in 

capacity and efficiency at 

2021 forecasted traffic levels 

On schedule 2011 NARP Status: No 

status provided 

1A08H 

NextGen -

Operational 

Assessments 

2013 

Develop and implement 

NAS-wide demand 

forecasting, economic and 

environmental analysis 

capability with Aviation 

Environmental Portfolio 

Management Tool 

Delayed 

This milestone is 

delayed from 2012 to 

2013 and wording 

revised to reflect an 

increased scope of 

work. Old Wording: 

Develop and implement 

NAS-wide cost-benefit 

environmental analysis 

capability with the 

Aviation Environmental 

Portfolio Management 

Tool 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

1A08H 

NextGen -

Operational 

Assessments 

2013 

Explore options to integrate 

environmental assessment 

capability with NextGen NAS 

models 

On schedule 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

1A08G 

NextGen -

System Safety 

Management 

Transformation 

2013 

Complete the Aviation Safety 

Information Analysis and 

Sharing system preimplementation activities, 

including concept definition, 

with other Joint Planning and 

Development Office member 

agencies, participants, and 

stakeholders 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

 D-42 
 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 9 – 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 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

1A08G 

NextGen -

System Safety 

Management 

Transformation 

2014 

Demonstrate a National Level 

System Safety Assessment 

capability that will proactively 

identify emerging risk across 

NextGen 

On schedule 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2014 

Complete the compilation of 

risk analysis data and/or 

statistical data into a format 

best suited for efficient use 

in transport airplane risk 

analysis 

Delayed 

This milestone was 

delayed from 2012 to 

2014 and wording 

revised because the 

sponsor (Transport 

Airplane Directorate -

TAD) expanded the 

scope of the initial 

requirement and 

mapped it back to SMS 

and continued 

operational safety. Old 

Wording: Develop risk 

management concepts, 

models, and tools for 

transport category 

airplanes 

2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2015 

Expand the Aviation Safety 

Information Analysis and 

Sharing system safety 

analysis to other domains 

(e.g., general aviation, 

rotorcraft, corporate, 

military) 

On schedule New milestone 

1A01C 

1A08C 

1A01B 

Operations 

Concept 

Validation 

NextGen -

Operations 

Concept 

Validation - 

Validation 

Modeling 

System Capacity, 

Planning and 

Improvement 

2016 

Demonstrate an increase in 

capacity and efficiency at 

2025 forecasted traffic levels 

On schedule 2011 NARP Status: No 

status provided 

 D-43 
 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 9 – 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 

R&D Target 

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

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

1A08H 

NextGen -

Operational 

Assessments 

2016 

Employ the Aviation 

Environmental Design Tool 

and the Aviation 

Environmental Portfolio 

Management Tool for NASwide environmental analyses 

On schedule 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2016 

Complete an evaluation of 

the reported runway 

slipperiness condition from 

all potential runway surface 

conditions and airplane 

configurations 

On schedule New milestone 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2016 

Develop test criteria by 

varying motion 

characteristics to span the 

domain of the criteria and 

compare variations against 

subjective opinions of 

motion quality 

Not started New milestone 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2016 

Demonstrate a two-thirds 

reduction in the rate of 

fatalities and injuries 

Deleted 

This milestone was 

deleted because it is no 

longer appropriate for 

this R&D Goal. The 

milestone was 

developed when the 

number of air traffic 

operations was 

projected to triple by 

2016. In addition, the 

accident reduction goal 

verbiage has 

significantly changed in 

Destination 2025 from 

metrics previously used. 

2011 NARP Status: 

Delayed from 2015 to 

2016 

A11.h System Safety 

Management 2016 

Establish safety metrics to 

align with NextGen system 

changes 

On schedule New milestone 

 D-44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 10 – World Leadership 

A globally recognized leader in aerospace technology, systems, and operations 

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. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

A14.a 

System Planning 

and Resource 

Management 

2008 

Publish the NARP, which 

documents the annual R&D 

budget portfolio, describes the 

activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and 

contains the FY 2008-2013 

FAA R&D plan 

Completed 

A14.a 

System Planning 

and Resource 

Management 

2009 

Publish the NARP, which 

documents the annual R&D 

budget portfolio, describes the 

activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and 

contains the FY 2009-2014 

FAA R&D plan 

Completed 

A14.a 

System Planning 

and Resource 

Management 

2010 

Publish the NARP, which 

documents the annual R&D 

budget portfolio, describes the 

activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and 

contains the FY 2010-2015 

FAA R&D plan 

Completed 

A14.a 

System Planning 

and Resource 

Management 

2010 

Determine criteria for 

assessing the benefits of the 

international research 

collaboration 

Completed 

A14.a 

System Planning 

and Resource 

Management 

2011 

Publish the NARP, which 

documents the annual R&D 

budget portfolio, describes the 

activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and 

contains the FY 2011-2016 

FAA R&D plan 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A14.a 

System Planning 

and Resource 

Management 

2011 

Develop a strategic mapping 

for international research 

collaboration 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A14.a 

System Planning 

and Resource 

Management 

2011 

Identify a process to measure 

quality, timeliness, and value 

of international research 

collaboration 

Completed 2011 NARP Status: On 

schedule 

A14.a 

System Planning 

and Resource 

Management 

2012 

Publish the NARP, which 

documents the annual R&D 

budget portfolio, describes 

the activities of the RE&D 

Advisory Committee, and 

contains the FY 2012-2017 

FAA R&D plan 

On schedule New milestone 

 D-45 
 

2012 NARP Appendix D 

R&D Goal 10 – World Leadership 

A globally recognized leader in aerospace technology, systems, and operations 

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. 

BLI Program Name Year Milestone Status Notes 

System Planning Measure quality, timeliness, 

A14.a and Resource 2012 and value of international On schedule New milestone 

Management research collaboration 

System Planning Conclude final value of 

A14.a and Resource 2012 international research On schedule New milestone 

Management collaboration 

System Planning Determine final value of 

A14.a and Resource 2016 international research On schedule 

Management collaboration 

 D-46 
2012 NARP Appendix E 

Appendix E: Appendices Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Acronym Definition 

0-9 

100LL 100Low Lead 

3D-PAM 3D-Path Arrival Management 

4DT Four-Dimensional Trajectory 

A 

AAI FAA Accident Investigation Division 

AAIADS Aerospace Accident Injury and Autopsy Data System 

AAPTP Airfield Asphalt Pavement Technology Program 

AC Advisory Circular 

ACCRI Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative 

ACER Airliner Cabin Environment Research 

ACES Airspace Conflict Evaluation System 

ACI-NA Airport Council International-North America 

ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program 

ADDS Aviation Digital Data Service 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

AED Army Aviation Engineering Directorate 

AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool 

AEE FAA Office of Environment and Energy 

AEH Airborne Electronic Hardware 

AGC FAA Legal Counsel 

AIA Aerospace Industries Association 

AIDL Aircraft Intent Description 

AIM Aeronautical Information 

AIP Airport Improvement Program Appropriation 

AJP-6 FAA Research and Technology Development Directorate 

AJP-61 FAA Human Factors Research and Engineering Group 

AJP-63 FAA Airport and Aircraft Safety Group 

AJP-66 FAA Concept Development and Validation Group 

AJP-68 FAA Aviation Weather Group 

ALPA Airline Pilots Association 

AMP Airspace Management Program 

AMRO Automation for Monitoring RNP/RNAV Operations 

AMS Acquisition Management System 

AMTAS Advanced Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures 

ANE Engine and Propeller Directorate 

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider 

AOC Airline/Aviation/Aircraft Operations Center 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

APMT Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool 

APT Accelerated Pavement Test 

APTV Airport Pavement Test Vehicle 

E-1 
 

2012 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

ARFF Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting 

ARP FAA Office of Airports 

ASBS Auto Brake Systems with Antiskid 

ASDE-X Airport Surface Detection Equipment 

ASE Aviation Safety Engineers 

ASIAS Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing 

ASOS Automated Surface Observing System 

ASR Alkali-Silica Reactive 

ASR Airport Surveillance Radars 

ASRS Aviation Safety Reporting System 

ASTM ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and 

Materials) 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

ATCS Air Traffic Control Specialists 

ATCSCC Air Traffic Control Systems Command Center 

ATCT Air Traffic Control Tower 

ATC/TO Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations 

ATCOV Air Traffic Color Vision 

ATD Anthropometric Test Dummy 

ATD&P Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping 

ATM Air Traffic Management 

ATO FAA Air Traffic Organization 

ATO-S ATO’s Safety Service Unit 

ATR Airport Technology Research 

Avgas Aviation Gasoline 

AVS FAA Office of Aviation Safety 

AVSI Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute 

AWOS Automated Weather Observing System 

B 

BLI Budget Line Item 

C 

C2 Control and Communications 

CAAFI Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative 

CAASD Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 

CACRC Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee 

CAEP Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

CAMI Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

CAS Collision Avoidance System 

CAST Commercial Aviation Safety Team 

CATM Collaborative Air Traffic Management 

CD&V Concept Development and Validation Group 

CDA Continuous Descent Approach 

E-2 
2012 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

CDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic Information 

CEAT COE for Airport Technology 

CECAM Center of Excellence for Composites and Advanced Materials 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CGAR COE for General Aviation Research 

CLEEN Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise 

CMTD Concept Maturity and Technology Development 

CNS Communications, Navigation and Surveillance 

CNSI Communications Navigation Surveillance Information 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

COE Center of Excellence 

COMSTAC Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 

ConOps Concept of Operations 

CONUS Continental United States 

ConUse Concepts of Use 

COP Common Operating Picture 

COS Continued Operational Safety 

CoSPA Consolidated Storm Prediction for Aviation 

COTS Commercial-Off-The-Shelf 

CRC Coordinating Research Council 

CRD Concepts and Requirements Definition 

CRDA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 

CRM Crew Resource Management 

CSG Concept Steering Group 

CSPO Closely Spaced Parallel Operations 

CSPR Closely Spaced Parallel Runways 

CST Commercial Space Transportation 

CU University of Colorado at Boulder 

C&V Ceiling and Visibility 

D 

DAH Design Approval Holder 

DARWINTM Design Assessment of Reliability With INspection 

DFW Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport 

DGAC La Direction Generale de L'Aviation Civile 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

DMA Dynamic Mechanical Analyzer 

DNL Day Night Level 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

E 

E&E Environment and Energy 

EA Enterprise Architecture 

E-3 
2012 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EDR Eddy Dissipation Rates 

EDS Environmental Design Space 

EFB Electronic Flight Bag 

EFVS Enhanced Flight Vision/Visibility Systems 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EMS Environmental Management System 

EMST Emerging Metallic Structures Technology 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ES Electrical Systems 

EUROCONTROL European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation 

EWG Environmental Working Group (formerly the Environmental Integrated 

Product Team, or E-IPT) 

EWIS Electrical Wiring Interconnect Systems 

F 

F&E Facilities and Equipment Appropriation 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FANS Future Air Navigation System 

FAROS Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal 

FCMS Flight Controls and Mechanical Systems 

FDCT Functional Design Consideration Team 

FEB FFRDC Executive Board 

FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Center 

FICAN Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise 

FICON Federal Interagency Commission on Noise 

FIT Florida Institute of Technology 

FMS Flight Management System 

FOD Foreign Object Debris 

FOS Fleet and Operations Sequence 

FRAT Facility Risk Assessment Tool 

FRMS Fatigue Risk Management System 

FSU Florida State University 

FTE Full-Time Equivalent 

FWD Falling Weight Deflectometer 

FY Fiscal Year 

G 

GA General Aviation 

GAMA General Aviation Manufacturers Association 

GAO General Accounting Office 

GBAS GPS Local Area Augmentation System 

GDP Ground Delay Program 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GPS Global Positioning Satellites/System 

GTG2 Graphical Turbulence Guidance 2 

E-4 
2012 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

GTR Global Technical Regulations 

H 

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points 

HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HEMS Helicopter Emergency Medical Services 

HF Human Factors 

HFREG FAA Human Factors Research and Engineering Group 

HITL Human-In-The-Loop 

HIWC High Ice-Water Content 

HM Health Monitoring 

HMA Hot-Mix Asphalt 

HSI Human System Integration 

HTPT High Tire Pressure Testing 

HUD Head-Up Display 

HUMS Health and Usage Monitoring System 

I 

I&I Integration and Implementation 

IA Interagency Agreement 

IARD Investment Analysis Readiness Decision 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

ICATEE International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes 

IFR Instrument Flight Rule 

ILS Instrument Landing System 

IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions 

IPRF Innovative Pavement Research Foundation 

ISS Information System Security 

IT Information Technology 

IVATF ICAO Volcanic Ash Task Force 

IWP Integrated Work Plan 

J 

JAMS Joint Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials 

JPDO Joint Planning and Development Office 

JRC FAA Joint Resources Council 

JUP Joint University Program 

L 

LAAS Local Area Augmentation System 

LCCA Life Cycle Cost Analysis 

LCGS Low Cost Ground Surveillance 

LEAF Layered Elastic Analysis - FAA 

LED Light Emitting Diode 

LoC Loss of Control 

M 

MASPS Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards 

MDERT Model Development and Enhancement Research Team 

E-5 
2012 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

MET Meteorological 

M&I Maintenance and Inspections 

MMOD Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris 

MMPDS Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOC Memorandum of Cooperation 

MOIE Mission Oriented Investigation and Experimentation 

MOPS Minimum Operational Performance Standards 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MPAR Multi-Function Phased Array Radar 

MRMS Multiple Radar Multiple Sensor 

MSAD Monitor Safety/Analyze Data 

MSP Multi Sector Planner 

N 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

NAPTF National Airport Pavement Test Facility 

NARP National Aviation Research Plan 

NAS National Airspace System 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NASPAC NAS Performance Analysis Capability 

NAWC Naval Air Warfare Center 

NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research 

NCEP National Centers for Environmental Prediction 

NDE Nondestructive Evaluation 

NDI Nondestructive Inspection 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NETE Net Enabled Test Environment 

NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System 

NEXTOR National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research 

NIEC NextGen Integration & Evaluation Capability 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NLA New Large Aircraft 

NMNH National Museum of Natural History 

NMSU New Mexico State University 

NMT New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 

NNEW NextGen Network Enabled Weather 

NOAA U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOx Nitrogen Oxide 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

NRS Navigation Reference System 

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board 

NWS National Weather Service 

O 

OFCM Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology 

E-6 
2012 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

OI Operational Improvement 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OMT Outcome Management Team 

OOOI Out, Off, On, and In time 

Ops Operations Appropriation 

ORD Chicago O’Hare International Airport 

OST Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

OTW Out-the-Window 

P 

PACOTS Pacific Organized Track System 

PARC Performance Based Operations Advisory Rulemaking Committee 

PARTNER Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction 

PBN Performance Based Navigation 

PBWP Product Based Work Plan 

PCN Pavement Classification Number 

PDARS Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System 

PDRI Probabilistic Design for Rotor Integrity 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PM Particulate Matter 

PMB Polymer Modified Bitumen 

PPPs Public-Private Partnerships 

PRA Probabilistic Risk Analysis 

PS Propulsion Systems 

R 

R&D Research and Development 

RAP Recycled Asphalt Pavement 

R,D&E Research, Development, and Evaluation 

R,E&D Research, Engineering and Development Appropriation 

REDAC Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee 

RFG Requirements Focus Group 

RFID Radio Frequency Identification 

RIL Runway Intersection Lights 

RIRP Runway Incursion Reduction Program 

RITE FAA National Air Transportation COE for Research in the Intermodal 

Transportation Environment 

RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle 

RNAV Area Navigation 

RNP Required Navigation Performance 

ROGIDS Remote Onboard Ground Ice Detection System 

RPI Relative Position Indicator 

RR Rapid Refresh 

RS Rotorcraft Systems 

RTA Required Time of Arrival 

RTCA Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics 

E-7 
2012 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

RVR Runway Visual Range 

RWI Reduce Weather Impact 

RWSL Runway Status Light 

S 

SAA Sense and Avoid 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

SAS Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

SATCOM Satellite Communications 

SBAS Satellite-Based Augmentation System 

SC Special Committee 

SDS Software and Digital Systems 

SDSS Software and Digital Systems Safety 

SES Senior Executive Service 

SESAR Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research 

SG Strategic Guidance 

SI Smithsonian Institution 

SIM Structural Integrity Metallic 

SLD Supercooled Large Droplet 

SMA Small and Medium Airport 

SMA Stone Matrix Asphalt 

SMR Surface Movement Radars 

SMS Safety Management System 

SNT Staffed NextGen Towers 

SRM Safety Risk Management 

SU Stanford University 

SUPRA Simulation of Upset Recovery in Aviation 

SVS Synthetic Vision System 

SWA Southwest Airlines 

SWAC System Wide Analysis Capability 

SWIM System-Wide Information Management 

T 

TAD RAM Transport Airplane Directorate Risk Assessment Methodology 

TAF Terminal Area Forecast 

TAIWIS Terminal Area Icing Weather Information System 

TAS Terminal Area Safety 

TBFM Time Based Flow Management 

TBO Trajectory-Based Operations 

TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 

TCRG Technical Community Representative Group 

TDWR Terminal Doppler Weather Radar 

TERPS Terminal Instrumentation Procedures 

TF Task Force 

TFM Traffic Flow Management 

TGF Target Generator Facility 

E-8 
2012 NARP Appendix E 

Acronym Definition 

THERMAKIN FAA Thermal-Kinetic Burning Model 

TMA Traffic Management Advisor 

TMI Traffic Management Initiatives 

TO Technical Operations 

TOps Trajectory Operations 

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control 

TRB Transportation Research Board 

TSO Technical Standard Order 

U 

UAS Unmanned Aerial Systems 

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System 

UAT-ARC Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

UCF University of Central Florida 

UEDDAM Uncontained Engine Debris Damage Assessment Model 

UF University of Florida 

ULDs Unit Load Devices 

U.S. United States 

USAF U.S. Air Force 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

UTMB University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston 

V 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

VLJ Very Light Jet 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

W 

WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System 

WAIWG Weather – Air Traffic Management Integration Working Group 

WG Working Group 

WJHTC William J. Hughes Technical Center 

WMA Warm Mix Asphalt 

WRF Weather Research and Forecasting 

WTIC Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

E-9