U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–227PDF 2016

TRANSFORMING AMERICA’S AIR TRAVEL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

June 11, 2015 

Serial No. 114–22 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

AMI BERA, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

June 11, 2015 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Mission Directorate, 

NASA; and Member FAA Research and Development Advisory Committee 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Mr. Dennis Filler, Director, William J. Hughes Technical Center, FAA 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 33 

Mr. William Leber, Chair, National Research Council report titled ‘‘Transformation in the Air—A Review of the FAA Research Plan;’’ and Vice 

President, Air Traffic Innovations, PASSUR Aerospace 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 47 

Dr. R. John Hansman, T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics & Astronautics; 

Director, MIT International Center for Air Transportation, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology; and Chair, FAA Research and Development Advisory Committee 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 54 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 55 

Dr. Greg Hyslop, Senior Member, American Institute for Aeronautics and 

Astronautics; Vice President and General Manager, Boeing Research & 

Technology; Chief Engineer, Engineering, Operations & Technology, the 

Boeing Company 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 59 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 61 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 68 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Mission Directorate, 

NASA; and Member FAA Research and Development Advisory Committee .. 82 

Mr. Dennis Filler, Director, William J. Hughes Technical Center, FAA ............ 98 
Page

IV 

Mr. William Leber, Chair, National Research Council report titled ‘‘Transformation in the Air—A Review of the FAA Research Plan;’’ and Vice 

President, Air Traffic Innovations, PASSUR Aerospace ................................... 128 

Dr. R. John Hansman, T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics & Astronautics; 

Director, MIT International Center for Air Transportation, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology; and Chair, FAA Research and Development Advisory Committee .................................................................................................... 132 

Dr. Greg Hyslop, Senior Member, American Institute for Aeronautics and 

Astronautics; Vice President and General Manager, Boeing Research & 

Technology; Chief Engineer, Engineering, Operations & Technology, the 

Boeing Company .................................................................................................. 137 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 148 
(1) 

TRANSFORMING AMERICA’S AIR TRAVEL 

THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:02 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Babin 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Chairman BABIN. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Space 

will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. Without objection, the Chairman of the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on 

Aviation, Mr. LoBiondo, will be allowed to participate in today’s 

hearing. 

And welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘Transforming America’s 

Air Travel.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening 

statement. 

Before we begin this morning, I want to thank Chairman Lamar 

Smith and my colleagues for the opportunity to serve as the Chairman of the Space Subcommittee. It is truly an honor and a privilege. And my district includes the Johnson Space Center and many 

of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and contractors, and they call the 

36th district of Texas home. Because of this, I am keenly aware of 

the opportunities and challenges that face NASA and our aerospace 

sector. I look forward to working with Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Johnson, Ranking Member Edwards, and this Congress. 

I also want to thank Chairman Palazzo for his leadership during 

what has been a very busy spring for the Space Subcommittee. 

Thankfully, he is moving to the Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Science, and Justice which still has jurisdiction over 

NASA spending, so I am certain that we will stay in touch. 

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the 

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, also known as 

NACA. Founded in 1915 to supervise and direct the scientific study 

of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution, 

NACA was ultimately incorporated into NASA when Congress 

passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. That same 

year, Congress also established the Federal Aviation Administration’s predecessor, the Federal Aviation Agency. NACA’s legacy of 

civilian aeronautics and aviation research and development is now 

carried out by NASA and FAA. 

The aeronautics research carried out by these agencies is vital to 

our nation’s prosperity. Aviation accounts for $1.5 trillion in economic activity and a $78.3 billion positive trade balance. Civil and 

general aviation is responsible for 11.8 million jobs in the U.S. and 

generates 5.4 percent of our gross domestic product. Put simply, 

aviation is one of the pillars of our economy. 

And while we currently enjoy the benefits of our nation’s early 

investments in aeronautics R&D, other nations are now attempting 

to challenge our leadership. This is particularly troubling when the 

largest growth sector is not here in the United States but in Asia. 

In order to maintain our leadership, we must strategically 

prioritize our government investments, provide a competitive environment for industry, and coordinate and clearly define public and 

private sector efforts to maximize efficiencies and minimize duplication that may crowd out investment. If we are successful in these 

efforts, the potential aerospace breakthroughs in the coming decades are very, very promising. 

Advances in hypersonic flight could revolutionize the aerospace 

sector. Continued research into supersonics and air traffic manage-
11 

ment could greatly reduce flight times. Structural and material research stands to improve safety and save lives. Unmanned aircraft 

systems, or UAS, research and development could benefit agriculture, search and rescue, fighting forest fires, mapping and surveying, and even package delivery. 

In order to realize these benefits, we must be ever vigilant. 

NASA and FAA will have to ensure that the research they support 

does not duplicate private sector investments. For instance, industry has a considerable incentive to develop safer, more reliable, and 

more efficient aircraft. Federal intervention and support should be 

limited to high-risk, high-reward research that the private sector 

cannot or will not do on their own. Without such prioritization, valuable resources risk being diluted among disparate tasks. This requires a great deal of coordination between NASA and the FAA. 

Many of the activities that we will be discussing today are conducted by both these agencies. In 2003, Congress established the 

Joint Planning Development Office, or JPDO, to coordinate efforts 

between NASA, FAA, and other agencies to develop the Next Generation Air Transportation System, known as NextGen. JPDO functions were recently rolled into the NextGen program office, but the 

issue highlights an overarching theme that Congress will have to 

monitor. As budgets tighten, NASA should not be used as a piggy 

bank for other agency requirements. 

As many have pointed out in the past, the first A in NASA is 

aeronautics. But we need to be clear: aeronautics is more than just 

air traffic management, aviation efficiency, and green fuels. NASA 

has a long and proud tradition of pushing the boundaries of the 

possible, a legacy that it should ensure continues into the future. 

Similarly, we need to ensure that FAA is focused on safety and efficiency. That clearly requires coordination, but hopefully will not 

cause wasteful duplication or sacrifice the cutting-edge breakthroughs we’re used to. 

Aerospace and aviation research promise many benefits, but not 

without challenges. NextGen continues to lack clearly defined cost, 

schedule, and performance parameters. Last year, the FAA Inspector General testified that the initial cost estimate of $40 billion 

split between federal and private sector investment could double or 

even triple, and that implementation could take an additional decade. This is unacceptable. Congress either needs better baselines 

and metrics to track progress, or a different plan. In the interim, 

I fear that valuable R&D funding, the very seed corn of future 

prosperity, is being used to simply maintain World War II-era systems. 

The challenges are also near term. While Congress waits for 

NextGen details, reports of potential cyber vulnerabilities to aircraft and NextGen systems proliferate in the press. While recent 

allegations may be overstated, respected and knowledgeable experts, such as the Government Accountability Office and the National Research Council, have warned that cybersecurity should 

play a more prominent role in NextGen development. 

I want to conclude by thanking our witnesses for being here 

today to discuss aeronautics and aviation research. This highly esteemed panel will certainly inform the Committee’s consideration of 
12 

the Research, Engineering, and Development activities at FAA. I 

look forward to their testimony and I appreciate their participation. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

CHAIRMAN BRIAN BABIN

Before we begin this morning, I want to thank Chairman Smith and my colleagues for the opportunity to serve as the Chairman of the Space Subcommittee. 

It is truly an honor and a privilege. My district includes the Johnson Space Center 

and many of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) astronauts, 

scientists, engineers, technicians, and contractors call the 36th district of Texas 

home. Because of this, I am keenly aware of the opportunities and challenges facing 

NASA and the aerospace sector. I look forward to working with Chairman Smith, 

Ranking Member Johnson, and Ranking Member Edwards this Congress. I also 

want to thank Chairman Palazzo for his leadership during what has been a very 

busy spring for the Space Subcommittee. Thankfully he is moving to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Science, and Justice which has jurisdiction over 

NASA spending, so I am certain we will stay in touch. 

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the National Advisory 

Committee for Aeronautics, or ‘‘NACA.’’ Founded in 1915 to ‘‘supervise and direct 

the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution,’’ 

NACA was ultimately incorporated into NASA when Congress passed the National 

Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. That same year, Congress also established the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) predecessor, the Federal Aviation Agency. 

NACA’s legacy of civilian aeronautics and aviation research and development (R&D) 

is now carried out by NASA and FAA. 

The aeronautics research carried out by these agencies is vital to our nation’s 

prosperity. Aviation accounts for $1.5 trillion in economic activity and a $78.3 billion 

positive trade balance. Civil and general aviation is responsible for 11.8 million jobs 

in the U.S. and generates 5.4 percent of our gross domestic product. Put simply, 

aviation is one of the pillars of our economy. 

While we currently enjoy the benefits of our nation’s early investments in aeronautics R&D, other nations are now attempting to challenge our leadership. This 

is particularly troubling when the largest growth sector is not here in the U.S., but 

in Asia. In order to maintain our leadership, we must strategically prioritize our 

government investments, provide a competitive environment for industry, and coordinate and clearly define public and private sector efforts to maximize efficiencies 

and minimize duplication that may crowd-out investment. 

If we are successful in these efforts, the potential aerospace breakthroughs in the 

coming decades are promising. Advances in hypersonic flight could revolutionize the 

aerospace sector. Continued research into supersonics and air traffic management 

could greatly reduce flight times. Structural and material research stands to improve safety and save lives. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) R&D could benefit 

agriculture, search and rescue, fighting forest fires, mapping and surveying, and 

even package delivery. 

In order to realize these benefits, we must be ever-vigilant. NASA and FAA will 

have to ensure that the research they support does not duplicate private sector investments. For instance, industry has a considerable incentive to develop safer, 

more reliable, and more efficient aircraft. Federal intervention and support should 

be limited to high-risk, high-reward research that the private sector cannot or will 

not do on their own. Without such prioritization, valuable resources risk being diluted among disparate tasks. This requires a great deal of coordination between 

NASA and the FAA. Many of the activities we will be discussing today are conducted by both these agencies. 

In 2003, Congress established the Joint Planning Development Office (JPDO) to 

coordinate efforts between NASA, FAA, and other agencies to develop the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). JPDO functions were recently rolled 

into the NextGen program office, but the issue highlights an overarching theme that 

Congress will have to monitor. As budgets tighten, NASA should not be used as a 

piggy-bank for other agency requirements. As many have pointed out in the past, 

the first ‘‘A’’ in NASA is ‘‘aeronautics.’’ But we need to be clear—aeronautics is more 

than just air traffic management, aviation efficiency, and green fuels. NASA has a 

long and proud tradition of pushing the boundaries of the possible, a legacy it 

should ensure continues into the future. Similarly, we need to ensure FAA is fo-
13 

cused on safety and efficiency. That clearly requires coordination, but hopefully it 

will not cause wasteful duplication or sacrifice cutting-edge breakthroughs. 

Aerospace and aviation research promise many benefits, but not without challenges. NextGen continues to lack clearly defined cost, schedule, and performance 

parameters. Last year, the FAA Inspector General testified that the initial cost estimate of $40 billion split between federal and private sector investment could double 

or triple, and that implementation could take an additional decade. This is unacceptable. Congress either needs better baselines and metrics to track progress, or 

a different plan. In the interim, I fear that valuable R&D funding, the seed corn 

of future prosperity, is being used to simply maintain World War II-era systems. 

The challenges are also near-term. While Congress waits for NextGen details, reports of potential cyber vulnerabilities to aircraft and NextGen systems proliferate 

in the press. While recent allegations may be overstated, respected and knowledgeable experts, such as the Government Accountability Office and the National Research Council, have warned that cyber security should play a more prominent role 

in NextGen development. 

I want to conclude by thanking our witnesses for being here today to discuss aeronautics and aviation research. This highly esteemed panel will certainly inform the 

Committee’s consideration of the Research, Engineering, and Development activities 

at FAA. I look forward to their testimony and appreciate their participation. 

Chairman BABIN. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Maryland, for an opening statement. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 

morning, and welcome also to our panel of witnesses. Also, welcome 

to my colleague, Mr. LoBiondo from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I appreciate your participation today. 

Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank you for calling this hearing 

to review the current state of U.S. civil aeronautics research and 

development. But before I begin, I also want to congratulate you 

on your Chairmanship of this Subcommittee. I had a wonderful, 

what started out as a working relationship with former Chairman 

Palazzo and quickly became a friendship, and I look forward to the 

same relationship as we move forward. I know that we share many 

goals, such as maintaining a robust aerospace industry, ensuring 

that our modernization of the air traffic management system is 

done safely, and sustaining the strength of NASA and our space 

program going forward. I look forward to working with you during 

what remains of this session on identifying the common ground 

that will enable us to develop policies and legislation reflective of 

this Committee’s history of bipartisanship. 

A century ago, our nation had the foresight to create the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). NACA, which 

became NASA, led many breakthroughs in research and design 

that changed the course of aeronautics and aviation. Today, U.S. 

civil aviation is a symbol of our nation’s ingenuity and ability to 

design, develop, and manufacture products that are second to none 

in the world. And as many of my colleagues know, aviation is vital 

to our economy and to our mobility, as pointed out by the Chairman. In fact, the numbers are staggering. Aviation contributes 

more than $1.5 trillion annually to the U.S. economy. It supports 

11.8 million direct and indirect jobs, and, it is one of the few U.S. 

industries that generates a positive trade balance, something we 

should consider for today, a positive contribution of $78.3 billion in 

2014. 

However, it would be unwise for us to just rest on our laurels. 

Countries with both mature and less mature capabilities are investing in aviation and aeronautics for their strategic contributions 

to technology, education, workforce development, and global com-
14 

petitiveness. And the market for air travel is changing, with 

growth in the Asia Pacific region projected to dramatically expand 

world air traffic by 2050. 

With such growth also come challenges. For example, in 2013, 

U.S. airlines burned 16 billion gallons of jet fuel, and the cost of 

delays to U.S. airlines during that same year was $8.1 billion. Increasing fuel efficiency, lessening delays, and minimizing negative 

environmental effects such as noise and carbon emissions are at 

the heart of strengthening our civil aviation system. 

To that end, experts recognized 15 years ago that the existing approach to managing air transportation was becoming operationally 

obsolete, and there was a strong concern that the National Airspace System was approaching capacity. Congress established the 

Next Generation Air Transportation System initiative—known as 

NextGen—in its 2003 Vision 100 Federal Aviation Administration 

Reauthorization to address just these concerns. But over the past 

ten years, FAA’s overall progress in developing NextGen has been 

slower than expected and the agency is now focused on implementing industry recommendations for near-term benefits. 

Mr. Chairman, research and development is providing the tools 

FAA will need to implement NextGen and improve the nation’s 

aviation system so that it can respond to changing and expanding 

transportation needs. Because of the lengthy gestation period needed to move forward from concept to deployment, industry has often 

been reluctant or unable to apply resources to high-risk, fundamental aeronautics R&D, an investment which is the precursor to 

bringing new technologies and capabilities to market. 

As a result, the federal government, primarily NASA and FAA, 

in partnership with industry and universities, plays a critical role 

in carrying out the R&D that enables advances in aviation. So it 

does concern me, as I am sure it also concerns the Chairman, that 

Congress has yet to receive FAA’s National Aviation Research Plan 

for 2015, and even for 2014, despite that fact that those plans are 

required to be submitted to Congress no later than the time of the 

President’s annual budget submission. Majority and Minority Members on this Committee need those FAA research plans to inform 

a reauthorization of FAA’s research and development activities, to 

carry out oversight, and to assess the contributions that R&D 

makes to NextGen’s implementation. 

For example, we need to know what kind of R&D activities are 

planned in cybersecurity, software assurance, human factors, and 

the certification of new technologies into the National Airspace System, all critical areas for the future viability and safety of the National Airspace System. 

So I’m looking forward to hearing from our witnesses on the status of aviation R&D activities, because, you see, Mr. Chairman, we 

need to work together to leverage the expertise and capabilities of 

government, industry, and our universities. Our reliance on aviation is indisputable, but the challenges are steep if we are to maintain our global preeminence as well as the safety of the nation’s 

aviation system. I’m confident that properly funded research by 

NASA and FAA, in collaboration with industry and university partners, will enable us to achieve that goal. 
15 

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the 

Subcommittee, and I look forward to your testimony. I thank you, 

and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

RANKING MEMBER DONNA F. EDWARDS

Good morning, and welcome to our panel of witnesses. Mr. Chairman, thank you 

for calling this hearing to review the current state of U.S. civil aeronautics research 

and development. 

But before I start, allow me to congratulate you on your Chairmanship of this 

Subcommittee. I know that we share many goals, such as maintaining a robust 

aerospace industry, ensuring that our modernization of the air traffic management 

is done safely, and sustaining the strength of NASA and our space program going 

forward. 

I look forward to working with you this session on identifying the common ground 

that will enable us to develop policies and legislation reflective of this Committee’s 

history of bipartisanship. 

A century ago, our nation had the foresight to create the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). NACA, which became NASA, led many breakthroughs in research and design that changed the course of aeronautics and aviation. 

Today, U.S. civil aviation is a symbol of our nation’s ingenuity and ability to design, develop, and manufacture products that are second to none. And, as many of 

my colleagues know, aviation is vital to our economy and mobility. 

The numbers are staggering: 

• Aviation contributes more than 1.5 trillion dollars annually to the U.S. economy. 

• It supports 11.8 million direct and indirect jobs. 

• And, it is one of the few U.S. industries that generates a positive trade balance—a positive contribution of 78.3 billion dollars in 2014. 

However, it would be unwise for us to rest on our laurels. 

Countries with both mature and less mature capabilities are investing in aviation 

and aeronautics for their strategic contributions to technology, education, workforce 

development, and global competitiveness. And, the market for air travel is changing, 

with growth in the Asia Pacific region projected to dramatically expand world air 

traffic by 2050. With such growth come challenges. 

For example, in 2013, U.S. airlines burned 16 billion gallons of jet fuel, and the 

cost of delays to U.S. airlines during that same year was 8.1 billion dollars. Increasing fuel efficiency, lessening delays, and minimizing negative environmental effects 

such as noise and carbon emissions are at the heart of strengthening our civil aviation system. 

To that end, experts recognized fifteen years ago that the existing approach to 

managing air transportation was becoming operationally obsolete, and there was 

strong concern that the National Airspace System was approaching capacity. 

Congress established the Next Generation Air Transportation System initiativenow known as NextGen—in its 2003 Vision 100 Federal Aviation Administration 

Reauthorization to address these concerns. Over the past ten years, FAA’s overall 

progress in developing NextGen has been slower than expected and the agency is 

now focused on implementing industry recommendations for near-term benefits. 

Mr. Chairman, research and development—R&D—is providing the tools FAA will 

need to implement NextGen and improve the nation’s aviation system so that it can 

respond to changing and expanding transportation needs. 

Because of the lengthy gestation period needed to move from concept to deployment, industry has often been reluctant or unable to apply resources to high risk, 

fundamental aeronautics R&D—an investment which is the precursor to bringing 

new technologies and capabilities to market. 

As a result, the federal government, primarily NASA and FAA, in partnership 

with industry and universities, plays a critical role in carrying out the R&D that 

enables advances in aviation. 

So it concerns me, as I am sure it also concerns the Chairman, that Congress has 

yet to receive FAA’s National Aviation Research Plan for 2015, and even for 2014, 
16 

despite that fact that those plans are required to be submitted to Congress no later 

than the time of the President’s annual budget submission. 

Majority and Minority Members on this Committee need those FAA research 

plans to inform a reauthorization of FAA’s research and development activities, to 

carry out oversight, and to assess the contributions that R&D makes to NextGen 

implementation. 

For example, we need to know what kind of R&D activities are planned in cybersecurity, software assurance, human factors, and the certification of new technologies into the national airspace system-all critical areas for the future viability 

and safety of the National Airspace System. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the status of aviation R&D 

activities. 

Because, Mr. Chairman, we need to work together to leverage the expertise and 

capabilities of Government, industry, and our universities. Our reliance on aviation 

is indisputable, but the challenges are steep if we are to maintain our global preeminence as well as the safety of the nation’s aviation system. I am confident that 

properly funded research by NASA and FAA, in collaboration with industry and university partners, will enable us to achieve that goal. 

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before our Subcommittee, and 

I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I appreciate that, 

and I too am looking forward to working with you. 

I’d like to introduce our witnesses at this time, and the first witness is Dr. Jaiwon Shin. He’s the NASA Associate Administrator 

for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. Dr. Shin also cochairs the National Science and Technology Council’s Aeronautics, 

Science, and Technology Committee and is also a member of the 

FAA Research and Development Advisory Committee. 

And now I’d like to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, 

Mr. LoBiondo, who is the Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee. 

Thank you for being here. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and congratulations. Thank you for the opportunity to sit in on this hearing this 

morning. Ms. Edwards, thank you very much. Our committees have 

a lot in common with a lot of common goals and very important 

issues to discuss, and that’s why I’m very pleased this morning to 

welcome and introduce Dennis Filler, who is the Director of the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s premier facility in the world for 

traffic management and federal laboratories. There are almost in 

total a little bit under 5,000 people, incredibly dedicated people 

who are very inspiring with the work that they do, again for the 

premier facility in the world for safety and security research and 

development. Dennis has an expertise with the FAA, joining it in 

1992. He is a United States Military Academy graduate from West 

Point, and incredible skills in both people management but maybe 

more importantly, understanding that which takes place that sometimes is extremely complicated, and I enjoy hearing the stories of 

when some of the incredible, smart engineers are discussing their 

solutions. Dennis actually asked to have the formulas explained to 

him so he can review their thought process through this. So thank 

you for allowing Dennis Filler of the FAA’s Directorate to be able 

to testify today. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

being here this morning. 

And Bill Leber is the Co-Chair for the Committee to Review the 

FAA Research Plan on Certification of New Technologies into the 

National Airspace System. In addition to serving in this position, 
17 

Mr. Leber is also the Vice President for Air Traffic Innovations at 

PASSUR Aerospace Inc. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. John Hansman is the T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT. 

He is also the Director of MIT’s International Center for Air Transportation and the Chair of FAA’s Research and Development Advisory Committee. Dr. Hansman is a fellow of the American Institute 

for Aeronautics and Astronautics. 

Dr. Greg Hyslop is the Senior Member at the AIAA and Vice 

President and General Manager of Boeing Research and Technology and the Chief Engineer for Engineering, Operations, and 

Technology at the Boeing Company. 

And I now recognize Dr. Shin for five minutes. Dr. Shin. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JAIWON SHIN, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, 

AERONAUTICS MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA; 

AND MEMBER FAA RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

Dr. SHIN. Good morning. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member 

Edwards, Chairman LoBiondo, and Congressman Knight, thanks 

so much for this opportunity to testify about NASA’s aeronautics 

R&D activities. 

NASA’s Aeronautics Research Program is making air travel 

cleaner, safer, and more efficient by developing revolutionary technologies to address a growing demand for mobility, severe challenges to sustainability of energy and the environment, and the advances in information, communication and automation technologies. NASA’s research directly benefits the passengers and 

businesses who rely on aviation every day in the U.S. aviation industry to continue to grow and maintain global competitiveness. 

NASA develops game-changing concepts, algorithms and technologies to safely increase throughput and efficiency of the National Airspace System. We work in close partnership with the 

FAA and the aviation community to enable and extend the benefits 

of NextGen. Our research programs also focus on major leaps in 

the safety, efficiency, and environmental performance of subsonic 

fixed and rotary-wing aircraft to meet growing long-term civil aviation needs and also pioneering low-boom supersonic flight to 

achieve new levels of global mobility and sustaining hypersonic 

competency for national needs. 

Partnerships are an essential part of NASA aeronautics activities. Our partners include but are not limited to other government 

agencies, U.S. aviation industry, and universities. One of our most 

important government partners is the FAA. Over the last several 

years, NASA, the FAA, and other federal agency members of the 

Joint Planning and Development Office, or JPDO, by working together defined the vision for the NextGen and established a roadmap to get there over the long term. The FAA’s Interagency Planning Office continues to lead the coordination of several key technology focus areas such as the prioritization of UAS-related research and development across federal agencies. 
18 

NASA’s Air Traffic Management research has been developing 

advanced ATM tools that will enable more accurate predictions 

about air traffic, flow, weather, and routing. NASA also has been 

working to ensure that these tools work well together and demonstrate the potential of widespread use throughout the system. 

Our successful model for NASA/FAA collaboration is embodied in 

Research Transition Teams, or RTTs. RTTs are designed to enhance progress for NextGen advancement in critical areas and effectively transition advanced capabilities to FAA for implementation. RTTs serve as the bridge between NASA’s long-term, gamechanging technology R&D and the FAA’s R&D to support nearterm implementation and certification. Under RTTs, NASA and 

FAA developed joint research plans and fund their respective portions of the plan research according to the nature of the research 

and their relatively capabilities. 

Over the last four years, I am happy to report that NASA has 

transitioned to five major technologies to FAA. NASA is also researching unmanned aerial systems and, more broadly, inclusive 

autonomous systems and technologies. NASA’s UAS Integration 

into NAS project is developing technologies that address sense and 

avoid, communication, and human- machine interaction challenges 

in order to enable safe and routine UAS access to the NAS. 

Through close coordination with FAA’s UAS Integration Office, 

industrial standards organizations and international organizations, 

NASA’s research provides validated findings that inform the FAA’s 

policy and rulemaking processes. 

In order to safely enable widespread, small, civilian UAS—which 

are less than 55 pounds—operations at low altitudes, NASA has 

initiated research in UAS Traffic Management, or UTM. The goal 

of UTM is to enable safe and efficient low-altitude airspace operations by providing critical services such as airspace design and 

geo-fencing, separation management, weather and wind avoidance, 

routing, and contingency management. 

Just as our aeronautics R&D investment over the last 100 years 

have shaped the aviation system of today, our current portfolio is 

setting the foundation for the next 100 years of aviation innovation. Business as usual is not going to guarantee the United States’ 

preeminence in the global market nor will it enable us to meet 

these challenges. We must stay with our proven formula of leadership through technological superiority. NASA aeronautics has a 

unique and important role in that formula. Long-term, revolutionary aeronautics research has long provided the basis for new 

concepts and capabilities leading to industry innovation and societal benefits. 

ARMD will continue its role of undertaking research and development that falls outside the scale, risk and payback criteria that 

govern commercial investment. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Shin follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Dr. Shin. 

I’d like to recognize Mr. Filler now for five minutes. Mr. Filler. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. DENNIS FILLER, DIRECTOR, 

WILLIAM J. HUGHES TECHNICAL CENTER, FAA 

Mr. FILLER. Good morning. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member 

Edwards, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this 

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s aviation research and development portfolio. 

I am Dennis Filler. I’m the Director of the William J. Hughes Technical Center. I also serve as the FAA’s Director of Research. In that 

capacity, I am responsible for managing the FAA’s aviation research program. 

Aviation is a vital resource for the United States. To maximize 

the opportunities that the aviation industry provides, the FAA 

must not only maintain, but continually improve, the National Airspace System, or NAS. Collaborative, needs-driven research, engineering and development is central to this process. The FAA’s research portfolio enables the United States to remain a world leader 

in providing safe, efficient, and environmentally sound air transportation. 

FAA research, and specifically research conducted at our Technical Center in Atlantic City, has contributed to making aviation 

safer, both at home and abroad. For more than 50 years, the FAA’s 

world-renowned researchers, scientists, and engineers have developed technologies, standards, and procedures that prevent inflight 

fires and improve survivability. The National Transportation Safety Board recognizes the Technical Center’s contributions in fire 

safety research saved lives during the horrific Asiana Airlines 

crash in 2013. 

In addition to making aviation safer, FAA research is making it 

more efficient. Key NextGen foundational programs such as ADS– 

B, ERAM, and DataComm have all been developed, tested or began 

their nationwide deployment at the Technical Center through our 

unique engineering, test, evaluation and sustainment activities. 

Collectively, these programs will deliver operational efficiencies 

into the National Airspace System. 

Our applied research is also delivering near-term benefits. For 

example, our research into minimum wake turbulence separation 

standards has allowed us to safely recategorize distances needed 

between aircraft, which increases efficiency and reduces flight 

delays. Because of wake RECAT, FedEx can take advantage of a 

13 percent increase in departure capacity at Memphis, and at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, Delta Airlines projects reduced 

delays will save $14 to $19 million in operating costs over a oneyear period. 

Greater efficiency also reduces the environmental impact of aviation. The FAA is invested in accelerating new technologies that reduce fuel burn, noise and emissions through the Continuous Lower 

Energy Emissions and Noise program, or CLEEN. This public-private partnership leverages limited federal funds to develop technology to make today’s aircraft fleet quieter and more fuel-efficient. 

Aviation is constantly evolving and there will always be a need 

for applied research in response to these changing needs. That is 
32 

why we are conducting robust research around new entrants to the 

airspace such as unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS. 

Recently, we announced the selection of a new Center of Excellence for UAS, which will be led by a team from Mississippi State 

University. The Center of Excellence will focus on research, education and training in areas critical to the safe integration of UAS 

into the nation’s airspace. Also, as part of the Pathfinder program, 

we’re leveraging industry interests in UAS applications to further 

explore other integration opportunities. The trials performed in 

this program could yield valuable data to further FAA-approved 

UAS operations. 

While we respect our past and its legacy, our vision is firmly 

fixed on the future. We’re committed to ensuring that the United 

States continues to lead the world in the development and implementation of aviation technology while we continue to operate the 

safest and most efficient aviation system in the world. 

This concludes my statement. I’ll be happy to answer any of your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Filler follows:] 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Filler. Thank you very much. 

Now I recognize Mr. Leber for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM LEBER, 

CHAIR, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT TITLED 

‘‘TRANSFORMATION IN THE AIR—A REVIEW 

OF THE FAA RESEARCH PLAN;’’ 

AND VICE PRESIDENT, 

AIR TRAFFIC INNOVATIONS, PASSUR AEROSPACE 

Mr. LEBER. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on issues concerning civil aeronautics 

research and the FAA reauthorization. 

I’m here today in my capacity as one of the Co-Chairs of the 

Committee of the National Research Council, which recently reviewed an FAA research plan for certification of new technologies. 

That report was requested in the FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012. It was released on Monday, June 8, 2015. 

Mr. Chairman, before commenting on the findings of our report, 

I want to make clear that our committee had a very narrow and 

limited charge. We were asked to review and comment on this one 

research plan. The FAA has many other plans for research and for 

other aspects of the implementation of NextGen. We were not 

asked to and did not review those other plans. 

Our committee found that the February 2014 certification research plan does not demonstrate how integration of aircraft, 

ground systems, and procedures will occur in the National Airspace 

System. It in particular omitted any substantive discussion of the 

air segment. Successfully demonstrating how integration will occur 

will create confidence in the implementation and, we believe, attract stakeholder and operator investment 

Mr. Chairman, our committee believes that all stakeholders will 

benefit substantially from the explanation of the end-to-end processes necessary to certify, approve, and implement advanced 

NextGen capabilities beyond the mid-term, that is, five to seven 

years. In our view, a new FAA plan should outline how the agency 

can best coordinate its research with other relevant organizations, 

particularly NASA, which conducts significant research of relevance on air traffic systems. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about this important National Research Council report, and I look forward to addressing your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leber follows:] 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Leber. 

I recognize Dr. Hansman for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. R. JOHN HANSMAN, 

T. WILSON PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS 

& ASTRONAUTICS; DIRECTOR, 

MIT INTERNATIONAL CENTER 

FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION, 

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; 

AND CHAIR, FAA RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

Dr. HANSMAN. Good morning. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member 

Edwards, and Members of the Committee, thanks for the opportunity to be here today to talk about research and its importance 

in aviation in the United States. 

Research and development is vital to maintaining the safety, efficiency, environmental performance, and security of aviation in the 

United States and the rest of the world. The FAA oversees and operates the largest and most complicated National Airspace System 

in the world, and it needs R&D to maintain and improve the performance of the system. 

As Chair of the REDAC Committee, I’ll just mention some of the 

things that we have identified to the FAA of some of the strategic 

areas that we think are important. One that’s been mentioned is 

the integration of UAS in the NAS. Another has also been mentioned, the efficient operational approval of new capabilities into 

the system to enable things like NextGen, so we have the technologies. We have to figure out how we actually get them operationally approved. 

Human factors of increasingly automated systems as the Asiana 

accident represents, we have more automation in airplanes. We 

have to understand how humans interact with these things, both 

in the air and on the ground. 

Data integrity and cybersecurity has also been mentioned. Cybersecurity is an emerging concern in aviation. It’s been around for a 

long time. Some of the vulnerabilities may be overstated but this 

is clearly an important area for research. 

There’s also opportunities we feel to leverage Big Data. You 

know, the airspace system actually generates one of the nicest sets 

of data that’s out there, and it gives us an opportunity to understand the dynamics of this complicated system. 

Also, the other thing that the FAA needs to do is do research to 

be prepared to either use or approve new technologies as they 

emerge. For example, additive manufacturing, as we start to think 

about building airplanes with printing technology, do we have the 

understanding to make those approvals? Or the impact of portable 

devices, the iPhones and iPads that we all carry around, can 

change how cockpits and airplanes are operated, but there are systemic issues in terms of both vulnerability and how those would 

interact with the rest of the system, so we need to be doing research to support all those. 

I’m happy to take any further questions or talk in more detail. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hansman follows:] 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Dr. Hansman. 

Now I recognize Dr. Hyslop for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. GREG HYSLOP, 

SENIOR MEMBER, AMERICAN INSTITUTE 

FOR AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS; 

VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, 

BOEING RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY; 

CHIEF ENGINEER, ENGINEERING, 

OPERATIONS & TECHNOLOGY, 

THE BOEING COMPANY 

Dr. HYSLOP. Thank you, Chairman Babin, Ranking Member 

Edwards, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify about the importance of the Federal 

Aviation Administration’s research, engineering, and development 

programs to our nation’s continued leadership in aviation. 

While I currently serve as Vice President and General Manager 

of Boeing Research and Technology, I’m speaking to you as a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the 

world’s largest aerospace professional society serving more than 

30,000 individual and 95 corporate members. 

The FAA is of significant importance to AIAA, so I’m pleased 

that Congress is moving forward with legislation to extend the 

agency’s programs. Reauthorization with adequate funding levels 

will ensure that our nation remains the world leader in aerospace 

innovation. 

I’ve gained a great appreciation in my career for the important 

role that research and development plays in driving innovation. It 

is imperative that we continue to make strong investments in 

R&D. Wherever R&D goes, innovation and economic growth follow. 

More than half of our economic growth is due to technological innovation, yet U.S. government R&D as a percentage of our GDP 

has fallen by 60 percent since 1964. In contrast, China’s R&D investment is the fastest growing of all advanced countries and is 

forecast to overtake the European Union and the United States by 

the end of this decade. 

It is important to note that when we fail to invest in new R&D 

programs, we risk losing talent and expertise that has taken us 

decades to cultivate and would be difficult to reconstitute. Our engineering talent is not a fixed asset. It is made up of people who 

need challenging new projects. 

It also is important to note that declines in government R&D 

funding discourage young people from pursuing careers in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics. It is no mystery why 

U.S. engineering ranks were wide and deep in the 1960s and 1970s 

when U.S. R&D spending strong and the United States space program was prompting countless students to pursue STEM careers. 

We are on the cusp of implementing a major advancement in 

transportation that could be just as exciting: a space-based air traffic management system. Creating such a system will have the same 

kind of impact on air travel that the Interstate Highway System 

had on surface transportation. The Next Generation Air Transportation System will enable more efficient airline operations and 
60 

yield annual cost savings in the billions of dollars. Now is the time 

for Congress to make strong financial commitment and set a firm 

timetable for NextGen’s completion. 

NextGen also is an integral part of the industry’s plan for reducing airplane CO2 emissions. Commercial aviation accounts for two 

percent of manmade carbon emissions, but that percentage will increase as air traffic grows unless NextGen is completed. According 

to the International Air Transport Association, cutting flight times 

by just one minute per flight would prevent 4.8 tons of CO2 emissions every year. Sustainable biofuels are another important element of the industry’s emissions reduction plan. Industry and government have partnered to create, test, and evaluate biofuels. As 

the supply of biofuels increases, their price will decline, spurring 

airline use. We’ve made good progress but still have a lot of work 

ahead of us. It is important that the U.S. government stay involved 

in the development of sustainable biofuels. 

The third element of our industry’s emissions reduction strategy 

is something the aerospace sector has been doing since its inception: developing ever-more-efficient airplanes. There are solid business reasons behind our work. Airlines always want greater efficiency. Now there are important environmental reasons as well for 

lighter, more aerodynamic airframes and more fuel-efficient engines. Government has important roles to play in these efforts so 

it is vital that Congress continues to fund long-lead research 

projects related to airframe and engine efficiency. 

Finally, it is important that the FAA keep up with and enable 

the pace of innovation occurring in the aerospace sector. One program designed to maximize FAA resources is under study. Government and industry are researching how to move toward a systems 

engineering approach to airplane and engine certification. The end 

result of such a move would be a better, more efficient certification 

process, one that encourages innovation and accelerates the incorporation of innovative product enhancements. 

Over the last century, the United States has been synonymous 

with global aviation leadership, and we can continue that legacy, 

but we cannot afford to rest on our laurels and simply say ‘‘remember when research and development was a national priority.’’ The 

research programs at the FAA and NASA are critical to the work 

of the men and women of AIAA. The realization of NextGen, 

biofuels, more efficient jet engines, and lighter, more aerodynamic 

airplanes all require collaboration and partnership and a reliable 

stream of government investment in aviation’s future. 

Thank you again for inviting me to speak here today, and I look 

forward to discussing this topic with you further. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hyslop follows:] 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Hyslop. I appreciate 

that. And I thank all the witnesses for your testimony, and I recognize myself for five minutes. 

This question is for Mr. Filler and Dr. Shin. Since 2008, Con- gress has provided more than $1.5 billion in developmental projects 

intended to explore new concepts and evaluate alternatives to reduce uncertainty and risk associated with NextGen programs. 

However, unlike major acquisition programs, these projects do not 

have formally approved cost and schedule milestones and do not receive the program oversight given to other procurement programs. 

Last year, the Department of Transportation’s IG Office testified 

that the initial 2004 estimates of $40 billion shared equally by the 

public and private sectors could double or even triple. The IG’s Office also warned that the initial 2025 implementation date could 

slip by as much as a decade. Just this week, the IG announced a 

review of NextGen. 

In lieu of cost and schedule milestones, how do FAA and NASA 

ensure that this effort is on budget and meeting its objectives? Dr. 

Shin or Mr. Filler, whichever one of you would like to go first. 

Mr. FILLER. NASA and FAA do coordinate through a variety of 

forums. In our research efforts—Dr. Shin is a member of our R&D 

Advisory Committee—the program he mentioned earlier, the ASTS, 

we also work on research efforts in that forum. We routinely receive products and technology transfers through the Research and 

Technology program, the RTTs, and integrate those into NextGen 

planning. NextGen is not a static plan that has a finite destination. 

It is constantly evolving as time progresses, demands change, and 

likewise we adapt our programs. But NASA and FAA do coordinate 

routinely, if not quarterly, I’ll say monthly, through a variety of forums and throughout all our many, many levels in the agency to 

make sure that we are constantly in sync with each other. 

Dr. SHIN. Yes, Chairman. Thank you for that question. NASA, as 

I mentioned in the oral testimony, is the organization that develops 

enabling revolutionary technologies, so we are indeed our country’s 

depository for research and development for all types of aeronautics 

technologies. So in particular, on the air traffic management and 

safety side, we are heavily coordinating with FAA, and in fact, my 

perspective is, FAA is the most important customer for NASA in 

the civil aviation side and DoD is the most important partner for 

us in dual-use technologies. 

So as Dennis Filler just mentioned about RTTs and also I mentioned in the opening testimony that it is a big change for NASA 

and FAA to work together through this RTT. 

I can share stories from maybe ten years ago. We used to develop 

NASA technologies in hoping that FAA will incorporate and implement that. Sometimes it works, sometimes it didn’t work because 

we didn’t have the coordination and collaboration from day one. So 

we changed that, and that’s the essence of our research transition 

team, as I mentioned. So we coordinate from day one that FAA air 

traffic controllers, managers, technical people work together to devise the research plan together and update and refine. 

So just one quick example is that EDA, we call Efficient Descent 

Advisor. This is the technology that allows aircraft to have a continuous descent without throttling up and down and following the 
69 

path that is somewhat of a reverse wedding cake, if you will. So 

that saves a tremendous fuels and also reduces community noise. 

So that type of technology could save $300 million per year in fuel 

savings if the technology is implemented across fleet and airports. 

So that’s the kind of impact research that we are doing with FAA. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Our Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. 

Edwards, is going to allow the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, 

to ask the first question, and I understand you have to leave, so 

I’ll recognize—— 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking 

Member Edwards. 

Mr. Filler, I understand the FAA is starting work on a multiyear 

effort to update the scientific evidence on the relationship between 

aircraft noise exposure and its effect on communities around airports. This will be done by contacting residents by phone, by mail, 

and it’s indicated that you’ll not disclose which communities will be 

polled to preserve the scientific integrity of the study. According to 

FAA, a key goal of the survey is to determine whether the agency 

should reevaluate the noise metrics that it uses, and while I appreciate the need for scientific evidence, I remain incredibly concerned 

about the nature of the citizen complaints about the aircraft noise 

that is not being well understood. 

I represent National Airport, and we hear this every day. As you 

know, aircraft noise is currently measured on a scale that averages 

all community noise during a 24-hour period with a tenfold penalty 

on noise that occurs during night and early morning hours. Now, 

all this methodology works if you’re looking for a long-term average 

noise level. It doesn’t help if you’re trying to measure the noise impact of a plane that’s flying over your house. In that type of situation, you want to find a way to measure peak decibel level and frequency. 

So Mr. Filler, my question is, how will the study address those 

concerns, you know, the inability to have a picnic in your backyard 

or have a conversation on your front porch? 

Mr. FILLER. Sir, I know that these considerations are being evaluated right now in the FAA’s Environment and Energy program. 

Specifically, I can’t answer your question directly. I don’t have the 

technical expertise personally in this domain but I can assure you 

we’ll be glad to take the question back and get you a more thorough answer. 

Mr. BEYER. All right. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Shin, is NASA doing any research on reducing aircraft noise? 

What can we look forward to in the future? 

Dr. SHIN. Yes, that is one of our main research topics at NASA, 

as you point out, because the community noise is a big issue 

around the world, not just U.S. airports, and our issue is more 

acute because all the major airports in the United States are landlocked. So we have all the houses around the airports. And to compound the problem, as the Congressman accurately pointed out, it 

is a perception issue as well. So it’s not entirely scientific approach. 

So there is an international noise measurement standard, so we 

are following that to reduce the noise, but still, there is a strong 

concern about communities around the airport with airplanes fly-
70 

ing over their houses. So we are working both from operational procedures. So how can we effectively route airplanes around the communities to land safely but with less noise? That’s part of that EDA 

that I talked about, Efficient Descent Advisor. So operational side, 

we work on that, but also vehicle side, engine noise. We have 

just—actually Boeing should take credit to put that Chevron nozzle 

which reduces the engine noise substantially. So we are working on 

also aircraft technologies to reduce noise. 

Mr. BEYER. And the Boeing headquarters is right next to National Airport, so they’re motivated. 

Dr. Hyslop, yesterday the EPA announced that it’s going to try 

to regulate the emissions from airplanes. Aviation is one of the 

fastest growing sources of greenhouse gases right now. What are 

we doing technologically and operationally to reduce the emissions 

from our aircraft? 

Dr. HYSLOP. Thank you, Congressman. And the committee—or 

the company is very committed to reducing emissions of aircraft because we recognize we have that responsibility. There’s a number 

of technologies that are in work, and I can highlight several. Dennis talked about the CLEEN program, which is a program we have 

done in conjunction and partnership with the FAA where we look 

at not only aerodynamic efficiencies to reduce fuel burn. We look 

at different materials. We just completed a flight test last year 

with a different kind of engine nozzle out of a ceramic material 

that will address acoustics. We’ve done a significant amount of 

work in biofuels looking at various forms and sources for where 

those biofuels come from, and since the number one cost of operating an airliner is still going to be fuel, there is a constant drive 

from us and the engine companies to become more and more efficient all the time, which is really why things like the 787 

Dreamliner and what really drove a lot of those technologies behind those aircraft and will continue to drive them into the future. 

So between aerodynamics and biofuels and new materials that 

would enable those, there’s significant work underway in conjunction with FAA and NASA. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Doctor, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. 

And I’d like to now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Knight. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate seeing Dr. Shin 

here today. It’s always good to see you and hear your testimony. 

I have a couple questions about where we are and where we’re 

going to be in the next ten years as far as airliner flight. You know, 

it seems like for the last 40 years, we’ve almost been stuck in the 

mud. In 1970, if I went to go across country, it probably took me 

4–1/2 days. Today it takes me 4–1/2 hours. We’re much cleaner, we 

do this more economically but we are a little bit stuck technologically. 

I know that NASA has done many programs. Back in the early 

2000s, you did a Quiet Spike program that worked on dispersing 

the sonic boom and making it so maybe we could travel across the 

country supersonic at some period of time. Is that something that 

NASA is still working toward? Is that something that maybe the 
71 

private industry—we have about 20 billionaires out there that are 

just driving to become millionaires by getting into the aerospace 

and space industry. Maybe we want to incorporate some of them 

too to look at this. 

Dr. SHIN. It’s good to see you again, Congressman Knight, as 

well. Thank you for that question, because the speed will become 

important. As Chairman and both Ranking Member mentioned 

about growth in Asia Pacific region in mobility and the distance, 

as we call it, tyranny of distance, will become important factor in 

aviation. So to that end, we have been working—NASA has been 

working in developing low-boom supersonic flight technologies. The 

focus on low boom is because currently we have a law internationally and also in the United States that doesn’t allow supersonic 

flight over land. So unless we change that rule to certain—meeting 

the certain target rather than complete ban, the private industry 

I highly doubt will jump into this venture. As you pointed out, 

there are many interested private industry partners who would 

like to see this new capability. So that’s where NASA is focusing, 

trying to develop scientific database that by design we can actually 

build low-boom supersonic airplane, not through some kind of gimmicks but actual design, and then provide that database to FAA 

and international rulemaking agencies, organizations for their consideration to change the rule. Then I think our industry’s ingenuity 

and the agility will provide that opening up the new capability. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you. 

And Dr. Hyslop, I’ve worked with AIAA. It’s a great organization. 

You hit me with one of the comments that you made about our 

STEM students and our engineering students and maybe we’re not 

as like we were in the 1950s and 1960s. I think that part of it is 

the advent of computers, that computers are very cool today, and 

a lot of our engineering students are going into that type of field 

as opposed to in the 1950s and 1960s they went on to aeronautical 

engineering or something like that. Where do you think we’re dropping the ball on this? Because I don’t know any Congressman or 

legislator out in the States that don’t talk about STEM? It is the 

buzz phrase today. It is what we want. We are seeing the jump in 

young ladies being involved in engineering. I would venture to 

guess in 1960, if you were a young woman and you were becoming 

an engineering student, you were one in a thousand. Today you’re 

probably one in five. So we’ve made huge advancements in that, 

and those are just my—don’t look those up but I’m betting that 

they’re a lot closer. So where are we dropping the ball on this? 

Dr. HYSLOP. Well, that’s a very good question, Congressman. I 

think—I was at a STEM event with fifth graders in Houston a few 

weeks back, and we have to communicate to them the excitement 

that comes from aerospace and working on these kind of products 

and being part of these kind of teams and bring these products to 

life. But I think you really—instead of focusing on the student, we 

really have to focus on the teachers, and we probably need to focus 

on the families that support the student because unless you take 

a full rounded view of that to make sure the teachers are comfortable teaching STEM-type subjects at very low levels and that 

the families know where to get—if they can’t provide the support, 
72 

they know where they can get help to help them support that student as they’re going through those courses. 

In my opinion, I think it’s—we may be too focused on the student 

and not enough on the faculty and on the families so that we’ve got 

a more balanced approach to the whole issue. 

Mr. KNIGHT. I appreciate that very much. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, and well stated. 

I’d like to recognize the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ranking 

Member Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again, 

thanks to the witnesses. 

Just a comment on the last discussion with—about STEM. The 

American Association of University Women just this last week, just 

a couple of days ago, released an amazing report about women and 

girls and their participation in STEM fields, and the problem that 

we’re seeing really begins in about first grade where for a variety 

of reasons, girls make a decision very early on that they are not 

science and math students. And so we have to disengage from that. 

But the problems that actually continues—the problem continues 

through the lower grade levels, and then even into college and even 

in the workplace. Once a woman is in as an engineer, there’re a 

variety of factors that lead to her making a decision that that’s not 

for her. And so we have a lot to do because the fact is that we 

are—according to this AAUW report, we are losing a significant 

portion of our economy precisely because women and girls are not 

engaged in the STEM fields, and the 21st century, frankly, is all 

about that, whether it’s in aviation or others of our R&D fields. 

And so, if there’s some point at which we can have a hearing and 

really discuss the factors that are leading to that and how we can 

more greatly engage women and girls, that would be a good conversation. And the problem is particularly acute for students of 

color, and so we’ve got a lot to do. Otherwise we’re going to lose 

a major part of our workforce. 

Mr. Filler, I want to go back to this issue of the plan that was 

supposed to be transmitted to the—by the President to the Congress 2014 and 2015, because this is very problematic. We’re trying 

to look at how we engage in this next generation of technology for 

aviation but we don’t even get the benefit in the Congress of a plan 

that’s required by statute, not in 2014 and not in 2015. And so can 

you give us a definitive date by which we can expect what has been 

due since 2014? 

Mr. FILLER. Yes, ma’am. As far as a definitive date, I can tell you 

that both plans have left the FAA. The delay was because we totally restructured both of these plans, and subsequent to that, the 

internal coordination required to clear the plans took much longer 

than what we ever anticipated. I can assure you that we have in 

fact started on the 2016 plan. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Wait. Congress would like to see 2014 and 2015 

before we get to see 2016. 

Mr. FILLER. Yes, ma’am, both 2014 and 2015 have left the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. FILLER. Okay? 
73 

Ms. EDWARDS. I hear what you’re saying. I guess I’m trying to 

figure out where we should drive to pick it up and when it’s going 

to be delivered to Congress, and I don’t mean to be flippant about 

this but when we’ve required something by statute, it’s precisely 

because we need that in order to be able to make an assessment 

about what we’re doing on resource allocation and whether plans 

are going according to plan. 

I mean, one of my frustrations, frankly, has been since that I’ve 

been on this Committee and in Congress, we’ve been talking about 

NextGen as though it is going to be a transformation of the industry, and yet what we’re hearing sounds much more like it’s a little 

tweak here and there, a couple of upgrades not a transformation. 

Mr. Leber, I’m a little bit curious about the nature of your testimony because you focus very specifically on the limited scope that 

you had as the Academies. How should your work and analysis 

really inform what it is that we’re doing? 

Mr. LEBER. Thank you, Congresswoman. I encourage the Committee to read the report thoroughly. We clearly had challenges 

getting information, and so we—it took a while for the FAA, first 

of all, to produce the report. Then we had—we had asked for 

speakers at some of our earlier meetings. We were unable to obtain 

them. Ultimately, we did have those speakers address the committee, and we appreciated that. But it was clear to the committee 

that this research report was not given the priority we thought it 

deserved as something that the Congress specifically asked for in 

the reauthorization. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Do you think that there’s a gap in terms of the 

FAA and NASA understanding the value of the Academies in informing how we go forward? 

Mr. LEBER. Through the course of our investigation, NASA’s 

work with the Academies was cited repeatedly as exemplary and 

effective. But yes, in answer to your question, Congresswoman, it 

appeared to us that there was a significant gap in the way the 

agency, the FAA, interacts with the Academy and the way NASA 

interacts. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope we 

can explore further about the way that we close that gap because 

the Academies play an important role in us figuring out the direction and the critical analysis that needs to take place in terms of 

how we develop our R&D capability. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay, and I’d like to recognize Mr. LoBiondo, 

the Aviation Subcommittee Chair on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question is for—questions are for Mr. Filler. With cybersecurity being today and increasingly becoming extremely critical for us 

as a nation, Dennis, can you tell us what is the Tech Center doing 

today? What can it be doing additionally? What should it be doing 

additionally to help deal with this cybersecurity problem? And then 

I have a UAS question if you—depending on the time that’s left. 

Mr. FILLER. Thank you, Congressman. In the realm of cyber, currently we are working on research initiatives looking into the certification of aircraft technologies with cyber implications, how to 
74 

take in and understand the current means and methods that are 

being employed, how software is developed, and then likewise how 

they are in fact tested and certified for use onboard aircraft systems. So that is ongoing research that is happening. 

Recently, we have built a cyber test facility—we call it the 

CyTF—at the William J. Hughes Technical Center. Since we have 

the capability of every operational development system within the 

National Airspace System, we are going to use the CyTF to look 

at new and emerging vulnerabilities and threats to existent and developmental NAS systems. 

Likewise, please keep in mind that every system that goes into 

the National Airspace System has as part of its foundational building blocks cyber concerns already built in to every platform. Cyber 

is not a static threat. It is dynamic and therefore it requires continuous evaluation and research to make sure that we can counter 

these emerging or zero-day threats, things that we haven’t seen before. What we’re doing is actually turning the entire Technical Center into a cyber test facility where we can attack each of our representative systems with various threats to be able to find out how 

our systems respond and then what countermeasures we have to 

develop and put into our system to be able to counter what is a 

very dynamic situation. 

In the future, we need to continue to work in large technologies 

from DoD, from DHS, and anywhere else through cooperative research and development agreements and make sure that we continue to adopt these technologies and apply them because that’s 

what FAA research is all about: applying technologies that are out 

there commercially or developed through other governmental agencies that have the leads in many of these areas to make sure that 

we are continually ensuring that aviation remains safe and secure. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So is it safe to say that for the FAA, the Tech 

Center is the tip of the spear for cybersecurity issues? 

Mr. FILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. A follow-up question is, there’s a lot of excitement and a lot of discussions about the UAS integration into the 

national airspace. Can you tell us what the FAA Tech Center is 

uniquely qualified to do in relationship to UAS integration? 

Mr. FILLER. On UAS integration, we have a UAS laboratory, and 

it has many representative UAS systems. We have every system 

within the NAS, and so we are in fact exploring integration of UAS 

into the NAS by using very advanced simulation technologies to 

interact with existing elements of the NAS and then also future 

concepts. 

So just last year, we completed a very extensive test program 

with the Department of Defense on integrating their UAS into operation in the National Airspace System. It was a very detailed, 

very exhaustive, very thorough simulation that went through many 

domains of flight and looking at ways that for example, the Department of Defense can safely integrate UAS and use them in the National Airspace System. We use a very exhaustive test methodology 

to test various proofs of concepts and see what works and what 

doesn’t work to assure that we have continued safe integration of 

UAS. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Filler. 
75 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to sit on the Committee, and as our Committee moves to the actual presentation of 

the reauthorization bill, we look to you for a close working relationship in a very bipartisan way with your Committee and the Science 

Committee to move forward. Thank you very much. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for visiting this 

morning and your line of questioning. 

And also we have—I’d like to recognize at this time the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate everybody 

being here today, and I wanted to ask Dr. Shin a question because 

I know that UAS integration into the NAS is an important facet 

of your work, and how does NASA’s work contribute to FAA’s ability to regulate future UAS operations? 

Dr. SHIN. Yes. Thank you for that question, Congressman. 

We have started UAS integration into NAS project about five 

years ago, so we have been developing, as I mentioned in the opening statement, the sense-and-avoid technologies, also communication and human-machine interaction, and we’re also building live 

virtual constructive test environment to test all the technologies. 

So we have been heavily involved in the rulemaking by supporting 

technical data and knowledge and technologies so that FAA and 

RTCA can make the rules within capabilities of the system. So 

that’s what we have been working in very close partnership with 

FAA. 

Also, we have initiated last year for helping the community to 

allow safe and routine access of the small UAS at the much lower 

altitude, perhaps below 700 feet. That’s where a lot of commerce 

interest is, as we’ve been hearing on the news media. So our role 

again is trying to provide enabling technologies and in partnership 

with FAA to allow these operations in a safe and effective manner. 

Mr. VEASEY. And something else I wanted to ask you too is, how 

do you envision leveraging the research results from both the COE 

for UAS and the FAA test sites? 

Dr. SHIN. Yes. Our project manager for UAS integration into 

NAS that I just mentioned has visited and his team has visited all 

six FAA UAS test sites, and we are evaluating what sort of partnership and collaboration is possible, and as I mentioned, we are 

also developing that live virtual constructive test environment 

where we can actually insert virtual aircraft, manned or unmanned, also with manned aircraft, and we can do these tests at 

multiple sites across the country. So that’s why we call it live virtual constructive environment. 

I think there’s a great potential for NASA to collaborate with 

these UAS test sites using that framework and so we are actively 

looking into all possibilities. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. Thank you very much. 

My next question is for Dr. Hansman. Regarding the mixing of 

unmanned aircraft systems and manned aircraft operations, you indicate in your prepared statement that the future UAS operations 

will require formal concepts of operations and procedures for such 

mixing to occur. Specific to that research, you say that the REDAC 

is concerned that the ‘‘fundamental work to support this has been 

deferred or neglected.’’ Can you elaborate exactly on what type of 
76 

fundamental work has been deferred or neglected and the implications of FAA not supporting this research? 

Dr. HANSMAN. Sure. So there are multiple classes of UAVs that 

have different requirements, so as Dr. Shin mentioned, there’s a lot 

going on at the low altitude—low-altitude small UAVs. There is a 

current rule out for line-of-sight operations. There’s work being 

done at NASA beyond line of sight. The bigger challenge actually 

occurs when you have slightly larger UAVs that want to operate 

in the airspace that manned airplanes want to operate on, and 

there’s really—it’s not clear what the right procedures are going to 

be. Are you basically going to treat them as manned airplanes, IFR 

targets, and have to operate under those rules? What happens 

when the operator loses communication with the UAV? What are 

the procedures and things like that? 

So this has been an area that’s actually fundamentally hard, and 

people have been sort of doing the easy job, doing the low-altitude 

job, and they haven’t really dug in on the fully integrated UAV and 

the NAS. So that was the particular we’re worried about. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. Thank you very much. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I think we’ll go back through one more time a line of questioning, 

and I would like to follow up with a little bit that has already been 

talked about somewhat. We’re aware of many recent reports that 

individuals claim to have been able to hack into airline inflight entertainment systems, taking control of aircrafts’ flight control systems, and while these claims may be greatly exaggerated, again, if 

you’d elaborate more than a while ago, what is FAA, NASA and the 

industry doing to prevent this from happening? This is for Mr. 

Filler, Dr. Hyslop and Dr. Shin. 

And to follow that through, do you believe that government is 

doing enough? Because I noted in Mr. Leber’s report that NRC has 

mentioned that cybersecurity should be more of a consideration. 

Mr. FILLER. Sir, the—— 

Chairman BABIN. Mr. Filler. 

Mr. FILLER. Thank you. The FAA takes the cybersecurity threat 

very seriously. As I mentioned earlier, yes, we do have active research ongoing looking at the increasing interaction of automation 

systems onboard the aircraft and the use of interconnected electronics. As systems become more and more connected, the interaction effects provide opportunities for new threats to emerge and 

be able to have vulnerabilities exposed. We are looking to make 

sure that there are no vulnerabilities, so as the threat changes, 

we’re working with all of the agencies involved to include intelligence agencies on how these emerging threats are coming out and 

making sure that our current airframes and systems are maximally 

protected. Again, though, it is a very dynamic and a very challenging problem—it’s not that you get to point X and you are done. 

It’s ongoing just as each of us are equally aware of, we apply patches to all of our computer operating systems daily if not at least 

weekly. Likewise, we’ll have to make sure that all of our systems 

are fully secured. So right now we do have very active, ongoing research to make sure that these threats are not posing any risk to 

aviation, and to date, we’ve demonstrated very safe and efficient 
77 

flights throughout the National Airspace System. So, thus far we’ve 

been able to do a very good job. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Filler. 

Dr. Hyslop? 

Dr. HYSLOP. Yeah, Congressman. There’s close collaboration 

across the industry to ensure the entire aviation system is secure 

from a cyber perspective, and the best practices and threat information is shared amongst everyone on a regular basis. 

Speaking now for my company, in the United States, Boeing has 

led the establishment of an Aviation Information Sharing Analysis 

Center. Members include Airbus, nearly all U.S. domestic airlines 

and Air Canada and a number of other non-U.S. airlines as well 

as airports are considering membership. This group receives regular cyber threat briefings from all the appropriate agencies and 

the FAA plus members are able to rapidly share emerging threats 

as they see on their own networks with each other. So there’s significant amount of interaction amongst industry and the governments on this important issue. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. Thank you. 

And Dr. Shin? 

Dr. SHIN. Yes. Only a couple points to add. As we are introducing, as the Chairman pointed out, introducing more autonomous 

systems and more software-laden systems in the airplane, NASA is 

also working on verification and validation to help industry to develop the software, not only cost-effectively but also safe and secure, and we develop a lot of software as well for control systems 

or other aircraft systems, so we are also ensuring that our technologies will be secure and safe. That’s one point. 

But the second point is, through that interagency planning office 

that FAA’s running in place of JPDO now has Homeland Security 

as a member, and so the overall and coordinated effort led by 

Homeland Security Department working with FAA and other federal agencies and industry, as Dr. Hyslop mentioned, I think we 

are doing everything we can to make airplanes safe. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Dr. Shin. 

And also, since the report was so critical, I’d like to let Mr. Leber 

have an opportunity to give us his view there. 

Mr. LEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We had a specific focus on confidence and timeliness of implementing things in the National Airspace System. We went through 

various aspects of the report, but there was a clear gap there, and 

it was not clear to us in the report itself, the 10-page research plan, 

that this issue was being adequately focused on. So we called it out 

in our recommendations. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay, sir. Thank you. 

And I’d like to go through one more time here and recognize the 

gentlewoman from Maryland, Ranking Member, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

I want to follow up with Dr. Hansman from the earlier line of 

questions. What are the implications of not having the research 

plan available for several years now? 

Dr. HANSMAN. So in terms of the NARP plan as—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Yes. 
78 

Dr. HANSMAN. So within the REDAC, the internal elements have 

actually been briefed to the REDAC so there has been internal 

communication. So I think that from that standpoint, there hasn’t 

been a problem. 

There was a bit of a problem, which I indicated in my report, in 

that there are multiple lines of funding where research is funded 

within the FAA. So there’s the R&D budget, there’s also F&E budget, airports, NAS ops. It’s actually very difficult for us as the 

REDAC, and I actually think for the agency itself, to maintain a 

strategic view of its research portfolio because it’s carved into different pieces and there is clearly stovepipes within the agency 

within different parts of the agency. So I do think that’s a challenge for the agency itself and then for advisory committees like 

REDAC. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so then that leads to the next question. What 

do you think are the key issues and research areas that the Committee ought to prioritize in the R&D section of FAA’s next reauthorization, and why? 

Dr. HANSMAN. Well, this is now into the personal opinion. I think 

that the expectations on REDAC or expectations on NextGen are 

somewhat out of whack with reality and probably always have 

been. I think that one of the things that’s not appreciated is how 

difficult it is to make improvements to a system which is incredibly 

safe and actually reasonably efficient. So the real challenge we 

have is, we have the technologies. There’s no question we have 

ADS–B, we have all of the ground technologies. We sort of know 

what to do in the technical side. We actually have ideas on what 

the—how we should operate but unable to get those approved in 

a way that you can guarantee that we won’t degrade the safety of 

the system is an incredible challenge, and I think that’s why the 

report that Bill talked about, the intent of the Congress was to try 

to push the FAA to really think about that. I think that there is 

some institutional resistance to do that, and I think it’s well intentioned. They want to maintain the safety of the system. They don’t 

want to be pushed. They don’t want to do things that take risk. 

And safety is the number one priority. So I think—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Because you’re talking about developing not a parallel system but integrating these new technologies into an existing 

system. 

Dr. HANSMAN. Yeah, you have an existing system that flies every 

day, 24 hours a day, that has accident rates that are unprecedented in any level of transportation. So when you come in with 

some whacko new technology that someone wants to put in and say 

well, you know, let’s do this, the FAA legitimately says well, wait 

a minute, okay, we need to do that. So do they have the—that’s 

part of the reason for the importance of the research. They have 

to have done enough research so that they can say no, no, you can’t 

do that for this reason. They also need to think about are there 

process ways that would allow them to test the technology, start 

to bring it in, in some evaluation way that would allow you to get 

it into the system faster than ten years from now, 20 years from 

now. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Leber, do you have a perspective about that 

or about other areas of R&D that should be prioritized? 
79 

Mr. LEBER. Well, Congresswoman, I’m not sure I can improve on 

John’s eloquent expression there. I think it was spot on. But I will 

just say that we have a cultural challenge, not a technological challenge. We have a communications, maybe—well, a communications 

challenge, I think. So we need to find ways to overcome the goodness that the FAA brings in its absolute vanguard of safety. They 

are beyond successful. And that goes for the entire industry, not 

just the FAA. But we need to overcome our communications and 

cultural resistance to change because the world is going to change 

and we’re going to have to change aviation with it if we’re going 

to lead. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And then Dr. Hansman and other witnesses if you 

want, do you have a perspective on the extent to which the 

NextGen office I guess as a coordinating kind of entity is effectively 

carrying out its joint planning responsibilities? Is there another 

balance that needs to be struck? 

Dr. HANSMAN. I think the NextGen office is actually— with its 

current administration has actually been doing a pretty good job. 

They—because of the pressure and because of the fact that 

NextGen is behind and hasn’t delivered, as you guys have indicated, have shifted to a short-term focus. So it’s—these are the 

things. They’ve clearly prioritized the things so that—that are 

short term to get something on the table, get some results. 

I do have a concern that you then start to lose some of the longterm focus, so you’re not investing on the things that we need to 

do in the future or emerging opportunities or issues. So that would 

be the concern. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Yeah. I mean, I guess my concern as I expressed 

earlier is that sure, you do these short-term things but then it becomes a sort of system that’s about upgrading as opposed to transforming. 

Dr. HANSMAN. Yeah, I just—if I could, I think the reality was, 

it was always going to be an upgrading instead of transforming, 

that the expectations at the beginning were probably unrealistic. 

They were aspirational, and given the reality of implementation, 

the challenges of implementation, I think it’s—they have to do this 

really on a worldwide basis, that some of the ideas were probably 

a little bit aggressive. So I think that—and part of this is, we can’t 

shut off the system. We have to run. So I think we actually have 

to figure out how to do effective, highly leveraged transitions of the 

existing system that will really improve the performance where you 

need it. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

I’d like to—oh, the gentleman from Texas is gone too and so is 

the gentleman from California. So we will—if there’s anything 

else—is there anything else we need to do? 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here, for your testimony, 

and for your questions of folks here, and the record will remain 

open for two weeks for additional written comments and written 

questions from other Members. 

So without any further ado, this meeting is adjourned. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(81) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
82 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Jaiwon Shin 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 

Responses by Mr. Dennis Filler 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 

Responses by Mr. William Leber 
129 
130 
131 
132 

Responses by Dr. R. John Hansman 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 

Responses by Dr. Greg Hyslop 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
(147) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
148 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHSNON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this morning’s hearing on ‘‘Transforming 

America’s Air Travel’’ and welcome to the chairmanship of the Space Subcommittee. 

I look forward to what I hope will be a strong, bipartisan partnership on addressing 

the important space and aeronautics issues facing our nation. 

Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress we fly a lot, often weekly, between our 

Districts and Washington, D.C. Like millions of other Americans who travel on commercial airlines, we can appreciate the importance of our nation’s strong safety 

record in civil aviation. 

This record is the result of hard work and a steadfast commitment by the FAA 

and the civil aviation community to the safety of our nation’s airspace system, and 

I commend them on their dedication. However, as a Member of both this Committee 

and the Transportation Committee, I know that the world of aviation is rapidly 

changing. 

New technologies and capabilities, such as unmanned aircraft systems, present 

significant opportunities for economic growth. Yet they also present challenges in 

their safe integration into the national airspace system. 

And, while the NextGen initiative is intended to enable our aviation system to respond to growing capacity, it too has its own challenges. Pilots and air traffic controllers will need to interact with new sources of information and increased use of 

automated systems that will require changes in how they make decisions. 

In short, Mr. Chairman, the changes to our aviation system will not be simply 

technological, they will be cultural. Because it is people who are at the heart of safety, and the ongoing transformation of aviation in the U.S. will require not just research and development, but also an evolution of our workforce and the training 

that we provide to it. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on what is needed to foster the skills 

that our workforce will need in order to fulfill the potential of new capabilities while 

mitigating any risks that the transformation of our aviation system will involve. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, aviation and aeronautics research is vital to the wellbeing of this nation. We need to ensure that NASA and FAA have the resources 

they will need to continue to make progress in the coming years. 

It is an investment that will pay dividends far into the future. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, and I yield back. 

Æ