Federal Aviation Administration

Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety (SAS)

William J. Hughes Technical Center

Building 291E

Atlantic City International Airport

Atlantic City, NJ 08405

April 8-10, 2014

Meeting Minutes

Purpose: Review the FY 2016 Aircraft Safety R&D Portfolio that was developed based on SAS

strategic guidance from Fall 2013 meeting.

Designated Federal Official (DFO): Eric Neiderman, FAA

SAS Chair: Joe Del Balzo, JDA Solutions

Day 1 – April 8, 2014

A1 Welcome Remarks and Agenda Review

Eric Neiderman called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM and welcomed the Human Factors (HF)

and Aircraft Safety Subcommittee (SAS) members, FAA participants, and all others in 

attendance or on the phone. Joe Del Balzo, Amy Pritchett, HF Subcommittee Chair, and Jason 

Demagalski, HF DFO introduced themselves. Eric initiated an introduction of all others present 

and on the phone.

Joe and Amy stated that this joint HF and SAS meeting was long overdue. They informed their 

respective subcommittee members that the full REDAC is meeting on April 17. As a result 

Findings & Recommendations (F&R) from this meeting must be expedited. 

Eric provided a presentation (included under tab K in the binder) Research, Engineering, 

Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) Meeting - Human Factors Subcommittee Safety 

Subcommittee. Eric spoke briefly about the benefits of conducting a joint HF and SAS meeting. 

He observed that a recent FAA Safety Briefing publication on New Technology in Aviation 

demonstrated the intertwined nature of HF and safety and the need to collaborate. Eric 

emphasized the importance of recognizing the common strategic research goal to strike a balance 

between the competitive nature of the industry and the public good. He showed a short Ted Talk 

1 Letter designations represent location of presentation in the binders distributed at the meeting. Some of the FY15 

Budget information is lacking from the Binders. This was intentional. At the time of printing the FY15 Budget had 

not been released and the information was not ready for distribution. The presentations on the REDAC KSN site 

include FY15 fiscal information.

 
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

video on disruptive technologies and posed a question on how the FAA would certify a 3-D 

printed jumbo jet for safety. He summed up by posing four strategic questions:

• Are we positioned to ensure safety given the anticipated innovations?

• Are we keeping pace with changes in technology and the industry?

• How can research effectively support certification and economic vitality?

• Are we pursuing integrated, holistic solutions?

Dennis Filler, Director William J. Hughes Technical Center Office, addressed the meeting by 

focusing on two of Eric’s strategic questions:

• Are we keeping pace with changes in technology and the industry?

• Are we pursuing integrated, holistic solutions?

Dennis observed that the FAA spends only 1.6% of its budget on RE&D. Regarding integrated 

holistic solutions, Dennis emphasized that the research must have a “place to go” within the FAA. 

He stated that HF is pervasive across all Agency domains. The recent Asiana 214 accident is 

indicative of both the HF challenges and the successful implementation of aircraft safety 

research. He asked each of the committees to encourage complete solutions sets and to help 

identify challenges where the Agency may not be adequately prepared. One challenge is that 

FAA R&D is on a five-year cycle while industry advances on a one-year cycle. The REDAC 

can help by providing direction and input on the level of investment.

Joe Del Balzo observed that the Subcommittees only address programmatic issues; it is the 

REDAC that addresses strategic issues. Amy Pritchett recognized that AVS has compelling 

safety R&D needs while ATO has equally compelling operational R&D needs. John White 

(SAS) asked how much of an investment is necessary. Dennis replied that anything above 1.6% 

is an improvement. Andy Lacher suggested that the FAA look at how they compare to R&D 

programs in other agencies.

Eric noted that Dennis’ presentation addressed both the SAS F&R from the Spring 2013 meeting 

(Spring_2013_23) and an observation made by the REDAC in their letter to the Administrator 

dated May 14, 2013. Joe Del Balzo stated his belief that Dennis properly addressed the issue and 

that the SAS considers it closed. The SAS members concurred. The REDAC Finding will be 

addressed by others.

B Roles and Responsibilities

Presenter: Cathy Bigelow (FAA)

Cathy presented REDAC and Subcommittee: Roles and Responsibilities. She opened by saying

that this presentation is a reminder of the legislative and functional basis for each Subcommittee 

and the REDAC. She added that one role of the research advisory committee aligns with Dennis

Filler’s previous request to provide guidance on the appropriateness of resources allocated to 

R&D. Cathy made it clear that the timing and objective of each subcommittee is not strictly a 

legislative matter. Each meeting helps the FAA assemble an Agency-wide research budget. The 

summer/fall meeting objective is guidance for research in FY+3. The spring meeting is a review 

of the FAA FY+2 research portfolio. Cathy ended by presenting the responsibilities of the 

2
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

Designated Federal Officials (DFO). Amy added that the DFO has the authority to end a 

meeting. 

C Budget 

Presenter: Mike Gallivan (FAA)

Mike Gallivan presented REDAC Safety Subcommittee - R&D Budget Status. Mike opened by 

stating that the FY 14 appropriation ($158.792M) was just below the FY 14 Budget Request 

($160M). Slide 3 detailed individual program cuts and plus-ups. The Joint Planning and 

Development Office (JPDO) was moved to the Operations budget. Slide 4 contains relevant 

conference language. Especially relevant is the mention of a Center of Excellence (COE) for 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and funding in the NextGen: Air Ground Integration budget 

line for the Commercial Space COE. The FY 15 budget request does not include any new 

programs. A11.n NextGen: Advanced Systems and Software Validation was deleted due to reprioritization of NextGen programs. Mike reminded the subcommittees that sequestration may 

be an issue in FY 16.

Chris Benich (SAS) asked a question about a shift in the NextGen Budget Line Items that 

eliminated ground-based augmentation. Mike stated that it could be integrated with other parts 

of the portfolio. Mike agreed to take an action to get this information to Chris.

Action Item 1: (Mike Gallivan) Provide Chris Benich with information regarding status of 

ground-based augmentation research in the NextGen program.

Subsequent to this presentation Mike talked with Steve Bradford and they plan on funding this in 

FY 16 and FY 17 depending on funding levels. Chris and Steve have a meeting in a week or two 

and they will be able to discuss this topic. Action 1 closed.

D FY 16 AVS R&D Strategic Portfolio

Presenter: Mark Orr (FAA on phone)

Mark presented FY 2016 Aviation Safety R,E&D. Mark emphasized the importance of the lifecycle approach to Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D) resources. It is outcome 

based, i.e., how we want the world to be. It is risk driven and actively sponsored by AVS. The 

intent is to approve a project-based requirement once and manage it to obtain project outputs. 

Slide 5 shows a diagram of this process. Amy stated that active sponsorship implies a use for the 

R&D. But this may lead to needed R&D that is not sponsored. How does the process account 

for sponsors having low information? Mark replied that the process includes many managers 

and sponsors throughout prioritization. The AVS Management Team AVSMT is reviewing the 

FY 16 portfolio in April to bring balance. In the end it is management that decides. Dres 

Zellwegger (member of the NAS Operations (Ops) Subcommittee) asked if the process considers 

outside work like NASA. Mark replied that sponsors who are vigilant would do that. The 

research criteria accounts for this information as well.

3
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

Joe Del Balzo commented that the SAS has positive comments on the AVS process. It leads to 

strong requirements. Andy Lacher (SAS) stated that the process is good but too rigid. It takes 

too long to adapt to changes. Mark replied that the process allows for unbudgeted requirements. 

Joe asked if the SAS could get a few examples of these pop-ups over the last few years and the 

impact to other projects or programs. 

Action Item 2: Mark Orr will provide a presentation at the next SAS meeting that shows 

examples of how pop-ups are working and their impact on other projects and programs.

Chris DeSenti asked if the pop-ups go through the process. Mark said they do but faster. There 

have been roughly five over five years. Amy asked if research gets funded outside the process. 

Dan Brock (FAA) replied that non-RE&D money is sometimes used for research but that is 

outside this process. Amy asked how the process handles broad based research and who 

sponsors it. Mark replied that Peggy Gilligan (AVS-1) is the ultimate sponsor of all research but 

she delegates it to other managers. The process captures safety risk and cross cutting research 

will rise accordingly.

Joe suggested to the SAS that they close an open F&R from the Fall 2013 SAS meeting (SAS 

Fall_2013_02) regarding pop-ups in the AVS process. Mark’s presentation and the new action 

item make it moot. SAS agreed to close said F&R.

E Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

Presenters: Christopher Swider and Sabrina Saunders-Hodge (both FAA).

Chris presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(UAS) BLI A11.l. Chris started with a UAS program review. Slide 4 identifies program 

capabilities including the UAS Integration Office. The Sponsor Team and Portfolio Matrix 

Teams are shown on Slides 5 and 6, respectively. Amy (HF) asked where the UAS COE is 

positioned in the matrix. Sabrina pointed out that John Reinhardt ANG-C2 would be the project 

lead. Chris presented seven Quad charts representing the FY 16 research requirements. Six of 

the seven are a continuation of previous requirements. Dres asked if there is a team for each 

requirement and if NASA is involved. Chris replied that there is a team for each requirement 

and that there is not much NASA involvement.

On Slide 12 Sense and Avoid System Multi-Sensor Data Fusion Strategies, Chris Benich (SAS) 

asked if the timing of this research is too late. Chris Swider replied that the interim results are 

helpful and can support the safety case by bringing products into RTCA Special Committee (SC) 

228. 

On Slide 13 Sense and Avoid System Multi-Sensor Data Fusion Strategies, Chris explained that 

the FAA does not have the resources to manage the newly appointed six test sites. Consequently 

it does not have control of the R&D. Joe asked if the FAA has a role in the test site R&D. Chris 

said no, but Dennis Filler (FAA) added that Congress might step in on this issue. Amy asked if 

the test sites could conduct non-FAA related R&D. Chris said yes

4
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

On Slide 14 UAS System Safety Criteria, Amy asked if there is a line or altitude below which 

FAA certification is not necessary. Chris replied that although all airspace is not the same, the 

FAA must be cautious.

Chris then presented the UAS Integration Roadmap. This was in response to a General 

Observation from the Fall 2103 REDAC and Action Item 2 from the Fall 2014 SAS meeting.

Joe asked if the recent NTSB court ruling has any impact on planning. Chris replied that the 

FAA has challenged that ruling. Any privacy issues are not FAA issues. Alan Jacobsen said 

what about security issues? Chris said not from a research perspective. Bill Rogers, any ground

control station research? Chris said that Kathy Abbott’s (FAA) HF group covers that work. 

Dennis Filler asked if there is enough money to get 200 UAS into the National Airspace System 

(NAS) by next year. Chris replied that he doesn’t cover the airspace issues. Is the UAS portfolio 

big enough to get UAS into the NAS? Chris said it’s impossible to answer. He has no idea of 

the shortfall. Amy commented that there are two shortfalls, the evolution and the revolution. 

Alan asked what’s not getting funded. Chris said there is no list available. We don’t have an

end-to-end requirements list.

John A. Cavolowky (NAS Ops Subcommittee) asked if there was any accommodation for 

autonomous UAS. Chris replied that it is not compatible with the airspace now. Andy Lacher 

added that ICAO identifies autonomous as something without possibility of control from the 

ground. He added that the controller will not assume the role of pilot.

Amy commented that the UAS Concept of Operations (ConOps) is not publically available. 

Chris Benich stated that the UAS Integration Roadmap is a good outline but it does not rise to 

the level of an actual roadmap. It does not show the right R&D at the right time. The goals do 

not tie to the research outcomes. The roadmap should show linkage the R&D action. Joe said 

that he was glad to see the Roadmap but that he could not yet comment on it. Chris Benich 

stated that the roadmap is not adequate. The SAS deferred further comment on the roadmap 

until Wednesday.

Chris then presented UAS Research Partners and Research Gaps in response to Action Item 6 

from the Fall 2013 SAS meeting. 

Joe stated that the SAS is not in a position to act on the open REDAC General Observation from 

the Fall 2103 meeting but Action Items 2 and 6 have been met satisfactorily.

F Flightdeck/Maintenance/Systems Integration Human Factors

Presenter: Kathy Abbott (FAA)

Kathy presented FY 2016 Human Factors and Aircraft Safety Subcommittees - BLI A11.g 

Flightdeck/ Maintenance/ Systems Integration Human Factors. She addressed a Quad chart for 

each of the seven requirements funded for FY 16. On Slide 5 Enhancing Aviation Safety 

Through Advanced Procedures, Training & Checking Methods, to include Jet Upset John White 

(SAS) asked if training was the output. Kathy replied that the output specifically addresses 

5
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

training gaps not airspace automation issues. On Slide 7, Jim Mangie (SAS) asked if Crew 

Resource Management (CRM) R&D is complete. Kathy replied that since Advisory Circular AC 

120-51E Crew Resource Management Training is out of date, R&D will continue and will be an 

input to the AC. On Slide 10, Avionics & New Technologies: Certification and Operational 

Approval Criteria Jim asked a question about the user of this information. Kathy replied that it 

is used by industry and the FAA.

Kathy handed out a CD with recent HF reports. Amy asked if the HF Subcommittee supports 

any of the HF requirements that were set below the Mendoza Line , or the funding level for 

FY16.

Action Item 3: (Kathy Abbott) Kathy will provide information regarding FY 16 HF 

requirements that were not funded in FY 16.

Action Item 4: (Mark Orr) Mark will provide information on prioritized requirements list with 

Mendoza Line for FY 15 and FY 16.

Amy asked if there are any cross-cutting topics or requirements like skill degradation in the 

cockpit. Are there any other suggestions? Kathy replied that many HF topics have that crosscutting aspect but the HF component does not usually get ranked very high by the process. One 

good example is the coordinated R&D efforts around loss-of-control. Three Technical 

Community Representative Groups (TCRG) – Flight Control Mechanical Systems (FCMS), 

Terminal Area Safety (TAS), and Human Factors (HF) are collaborating to deliver upset 

prevention and recovery training guidance to pilots. Chris DeSenti (HF) asked if this 

collaboration evolved from three separate these requirements or if they were integrated from the 

start. Kathy replied the former; the collaborative research grew organically just to get the work 

done. Amy asked how tightly they are integrated. Is there a clear driver, like the depth of the 

stall? Kathy said they are individual elements with common useable outputs. Dres asked if the 

budget process allows for funding collaboration. Mark Orr said yes if planned properly and in 

advance. Amy asked if Mark could describe a project that was cross-cutting at the start. Mark 

said that some of the icing work may be integrated by sponsors.

Joe discussed an open F&R from the Spring 2013 SAS meeting (Spring_2013_24 ) and a similar 

SAS F&R from the Fall 2013 meeting related to aligning HF with other areas of non-traditional 

HF research. The FAA view is that the FCMS, TAS, and HF effort mentioned above 

demonstrate this alignment. Joe did not agree. Phil Smith added that the AVS process should 

account for this. Mark replied that he expects the people to do this not the process. He added 

that the R&D Executive Board (REB) should play a role as well. Amy asked if the REB 

members were executives who would be willing to vote against their own interests. Cathy 

Bigelow stated that they usually vote to protect their portfolios. Amy referred back to what 

Dennis Filler is trying to do at the REB level. The SAS voted to keep both F&Rs open.

H Performance-Based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (PARC)

6
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

After a break Kathy handed out and presented the Results of the Performance-Based Operations 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (PARC)/Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) Flight Deck 

Automation Working Group. This is in response to Fall 2013 REDAC General Observation

regarding emerging human-automation issues. The goal of the working group was to update the 

1996 FAA report on The Interfaces Between Flightcrews and Modern Flight Deck Systems. The 

presentation highlighted some of the more important Findings that are relevant to Human Factors 

research. The presentation was very well received by both HF and SAS committees. Philip 

Smith (HF) stated that this is excellent. The SAS did not recommend any disposition on the 

REDAC General Observation.

The presentation for the Center of Excellence Partnership to Enhance General Aviation Safety, 

Accessibility and Sustainability (PEGASAS) was postponed until April 9, 2014.

The meeting adjourned for the day at 5:15 PM.

Day 2 – April 8, 2014

The joint meeting was called to order at 8:30 AM.

H PEGASAS – Center of Excellence for General Aviation

Presenter: Peter Sparacino (FAA)

Peter presented Aviation Research Division ANG-E2 COE-GA (PEGASAS) Overview. He 

explained that the PEGASAS acronym stood for Partnership to Enhance General Aviation Safety, 

Accessibility, and Sustainability. Pete spoke about different membership levels: core integration 

team, affiliate universities, and industry and organizational affiliates. He reminded the audience 

that this is a grants program with special legislative authorization regarding cooperative 

agreements and cost-share. A companion Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract 

allows some of the research to evolve from an idea to a prototype. Pete spoke about PEGASAS 

capabilities and addressed some of the current research activities. Pete gave an example of this

flexibility to use grants and contracts. For an AFS-500 training requirement, the COE used a 

grant to conduct the necessary R&D and the IDIQ contract to build the training prototype. AFS500 launched the program with Operations funding. Pete added that several schools will work 

collaboratively on a single issue and develop a single solution.

Dres asked if other agencies participate. Pat Watts added that the environmental COE uses 

NASA. John White asked if the transition from Center of Excellence for General Aviation 

Research (CGAR), the previous GA COE, went well. Pete said it went smoothly but it was still 

not easy.

Joe Del Balzo commented that this is an outstanding example of a grants program. The work is 

rooted in FAA needs and is managed professionally. The core fellowship is a very good idea.

7
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

Pat Watts (FAA) spoke about the larger COE program. There are seven active COEs; four of 

them are in phase down. A new COE for UAS will be initiated this year; the public meeting is 

scheduled for May 28 and 29, 2014.

The SAS then reviewed the homework from the previous day presentations. These will be rolled 

up and delivered to the full REDAC for disposition. There was no discussion on the homework. 

The SAS and HF Subcommittees did discuss the nature of evaluating process, outcomes, and 

pop-ups. Joe suggested that one of the SAS members rework the discussion into an F&R. Cathy 

Bigelow (FAA) asked if other Subcommittees will do this. Joe said he has no jurisdiction over 

them. Amy added that the joint Subcommittee meeting provides valuable cross-talk.

I Weather Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC)

Presenters: Gary Pokodner (FAA)

Gary presented FY 2016 Weather PPT Portfolio Review Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

(WTIC) BLI A12.d. Gary handed out a hard copy presentation to the subcommittee members. A 

copy of this presentation is on the REDAC KSN site. Gary emphasized the goal of WTIC

research: to improve the quality and quantity of weather information in the general aviation 

cockpit and help improve pilot decision-making regarding adverse weather. Amy asked if the 

intent was to regulate use of weather information. Gary said no the research is focused on 

information availability and related training. On Slide 6, he addressed an open SAS F&R from 

the Fall 2013 meeting regarding dissemination of information to the industry. Joe recommended 

closing the matter and the SAS agreed.

Action Item 5: (Gary Pokodner) John White asked for a briefing on WTIC related to PART 121 

operations.

J Weather Program

Presenters: Steve Abelman (FAA) and Roger Sultan (FAA on phone)

Steve presented FY 2016 Weather PPT Portfolio Review Weather Program, A11.k. His 

presentation included an update from the version in the binder. The newer version is available 

on the REDAC KSN site. Steve highlighted the primary purposes of the program: support 

NextGen operational improvements, transition legacy National Weather Service capabilities to 

NextGen, and mitigate safety and efficiency issues with weather. He also mentioned that the 

Aviation Weather Research Program (AWRP) has it is own prioritization process separate from 

AVS. He stated that space weather may need more attentions and it is not yet sponsored by 

AWRP. Roger also spoke to a dozen quad charts representing (AWRP) including two that stem 

from AVS requirements. Two other AVS requirement-driven Wx Quad charts will be briefed 

during the Aircraft Icing session. 

Roger addressed two Action Items (4 and 5) from the Fall 2013 SAS meeting: Lower Visibility 

for CAT 1 Approaches and RVR Conversion, and Safety Driven Weather Requirements for 

Wake Mitigation; and QA and AWDE Differences, respectively. 

8
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

For the first half of Action Item 4, Roger presented a new slide (not in binder) PV For Lower 

Visibility – Benefits. For the second part of the Action Item 4, Roger presented Weather Data 

Requirements for Wake Mitigation – Benefits that addressed design guidance documents for 

NextGen Operational Improvements development using dynamic wake vortex mitigation 

strategies. Chris Benich asked about the timing for weather data requirements for wake. Roger 

said it will be on-going through FY 16 but the timing for the benefit is closer to 10 years because 

of the time it takes for equipage. Chis followed by asking if it was useful for ground-based 

systems. Steve said it is used by both AVS and ATO.

Roger addressed Action Item 5 with Slide 10 QA and AWDE Differences. 

Both actions items were addressed to the satisfaction of the SAS.

There was some discussion about the difference between uncertainty of the weather products and 

GA pilot uncertainty. Amy said that by nature humans are irrational with probabilistic 

information. Even the display of the weather can include a bias. What is the relationship of the 

decision-making tool and probabilities? Amy suggested that more emphasis be placed on 

modeling decision-making rather than on human-in-the-loop weather products.

After the lunch break the Human Factors and Aircraft Safety Subcommittees split up and 

resumed their respective meetings in separate locations. The SAS reconvened in the Directors 

Conference room Building 300 at the William J. Hughes Technical Center. 

L2 Advanced Materials/Structural Safety

Presenters: Larry Ilcewicz (FAA on phone), Joseph Pellettiere (FAA on phone), and Curtis 

Davies (FAA)

Larry presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review BLI A11.c - Advanced Materials 

and Structural Safety (AMSS) - Advanced Materials and Structures Crashworthiness. Larry 

emphasized that bonding is an important part of all initiatives shown on Slide 5 Overview of the 

AVS Composite Plan. The following slides addressed bonding field difficulties and the FAA 

approach to composite safety and certification issues.

Larry highlighted Slide 14 Crashworthiness Issues Unique to Composite Materials (SIC-16-03). 

He mentioned that this program is not funded in FY 16. John White asked why and Larry 

replied that it was prioritized below the Mendoza Line. He and Curt Davies recommended that 

since there are no funded requirements for FY 16 that the Maintenance & Inspection (M&I) take 

on some of the non-destructive inspection and tear down inspection of composite parts that have 

seen service time.

Joseph Pellettiere began briefing the Structural Safety Program on Slide 17. He emphasized the 

importance of the Crash Dynamics Roadmap (Slide 18). He highlighted four areas: single 

process crashworthiness, airframe structural response crashworthiness, accident analysis, and 

2 Presentation K was delivered by Eric Neiderman in the Opening remarks.

9

 
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

transport ditching. He finished the presentation with two Quad charts representing the funded 

requirements for FY 16. 

There was no discussion from the SAS.

M3 Continued Airworthiness 

Structural Integrity Metallics (SIM)

Presenters: Mark Freisthler (FAA on phone) and John Bakuckas (FAA)

Mark presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - Structural Integrity Metallics 

(SIM) Part of BLI A11.e Continued Airworthiness. Slide 6 provides a graphic display of the 

research portfolio; Slide 7 shows in-house capabilities, and Slide 8 program partnerships. He 

emphasized the importance of partnering with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to 

promote efficient use of FAA resources. Mark and John spoke to the five Quad charts 

representing the funded requirements for FY 16. Active flutter suppression on Slide 10 is a new 

requirement. The goal is to make sure the FAA Advisory Circulars (ACs) are up to date to 

promote usage. John mentioned that the resources for Durability and Damage Tolerance Issues 

for Emerging Technologies (Slide 12) are split up five ways to match the planned outputs. He 

added that he works with Larry Ilcewicz on composite sample sizes. On Slide 14 Probabilistic 

Approach to Detecting Fatigue Damage Before Developing an Unsafe Condition (A11E.SIM.6)

Mark Orr stated that this program which began under Marv Nuss is wrapping up in FY 16.

There was no follow-up SAS discussion.

Flight Controls and Mechanical Systems (FCMS)

Presenters: R. C. Jones and Robert McGuire (both FAA)

R. C. Jones presented FY 2016 Flight Control -Mechanical Systems Review - Transport & Small 

Airplane Directorates (TAD & SAD). Mr. Jones presented three Quad charts representing the 

funded requirements for FY 16. Jim Mangie (SAS) questioned the one year effort on tire failure 

characteristics (Slide 5). On Slide 7 FCMS-16-03 Preventing Loss of Control in Part 23 With 

Sensed Angle of Attack & Better Automation John White (SAS) commented that once the sensed 

angle of attack (AOA) is installed, is it assumed the pilot knows what to do with it? Mr. Jones 

said that displays are being studied and they will be coordinated with human factors.

There was no other SAS discussion.

Electrical Systems (ES)

Presenters: Nazih Khaouly (FAA on phone) and Michael Walz (FAA)

Nazih presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - Electrical Systems (ES) Part of 

BLI A11.e Continued Airworthiness. He pointed out that recent aircraft history shows specific 

3 Presentation M has five separate TCRG sections. Engine NDE has no planned FY 16 activity and was not 

presented.

10

 
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

vulnerabilities to overheating of lithium-ion batteries. Cleaner energy storage and generation are 

also drivers towards hydrogen fuel cells. But no policy or standards exist. Nazih presented two 

Quad charts representing the funded requirements for FY16. These will be new starts in FY 16.

There was no SAS discussion.

Rotorcraft Systems (RS)

Presenters: Matthew Fuller (FAA on phone) and Paul Swindell (FAA)

Matt presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - Rotorcraft Systems (RS) Part of 

BLI A11.e Continued Airworthiness. He addressed three Quad charts representing the funded 

requirements for FY 16. Cathy Bigelow asked on Slide 8 Continued Operational Safety of 

Rotorcraft (A11E.RS.3), if the research was coordinated with the Air Force. Matt replied yes and 

that it included wildlife avoidance. 

There was no SAS discussion.

Maintenance and Inspection (M&I)

Presenters: Dale Hawkins and David Westlund (both FAA)

Dale presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - Maintenance and Inspection 

(M&I) Part of BLI A11.e Continued Airworthiness. His presentation was different from the one 

in the binder. The updated presentation will be posted on the REDAC KSN site. Dale explained 

that the M&I program dovetails with both the Structural Integrity Composite and Metallic 

programs. He added that the primary research need is to understand the effects of age and 

environmental conditions on existing/aged composite/metallic bonded repairs. He addressed a 

single Quad chart for the only funded FY 16 requirement, Inspection and Tear Down of Bonded 

Repairs (M&I-16-01). This work does not begin until FY 16.

There was no SAS discussion.

N Aeromedical Research

Presenters: Estrella Forster (FAA on phone)

Estrella presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - Aeromedical (AM) BLI A11.j. 

Estrella emphasized that the focus of the program is on the most important component of the 

NAS – the human. The program capabilities include people and laboratories. The wet-labs deal 

with human tissue related to toxicology and genomics. The dry-labs do not. Instead they deal 

with water survival water tanks and test dummies. Capabilities also include full-scale aircraft 

and virtual labs. Estrella addressed four Quad charts representing approved FY 16 requirements 

from the Aeromedical TCRG and four Quad charts representing approved Fire& Cabin Safety 

(F&CS) TCRG requirements.

11
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

Jim Mangie (SAS) asked on Slide 11 FY16 Requirement AM-2 Accident Investigation & 

Prevention why the focus of toxicology studies is on opiates and anti-epileptics. Starr stated that 

they are involved in more accidents.

Joe Del Balzo stated that the issue related to toxicology studies could be explored in greater 

detail during the Aeromedical Deep-Dive rescheduled for the next SAS meeting4 along with 

succession planning. There was no further discussion.

O System Safety Management

Presenters: Danko Kramar (FAA on phone) and Hossein Eghbali (FAA)

Danko presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - System Safety Management 

(SSM). Danko addressed the single Quad chart representing the single approved requirement for 

FY 16 Helicopter FDM Data Gathering & Analysis for ASIAS (SSM-16-01). Joe Del Balzo 

(SAS) referred to the previous SAS meeting where it was stated that ASIAS research would be 

complete in FY 15. Scott Lemay (FAA on phone) stated that commercial ASIAS research is 

complete. Mark Orr replied that the general aviation ASIAS would be complete in FY 15 but 

that some need for ASIAS research may always be present. Jim Mangie asked how this related 

to rotorcraft maintenance and inspection. Scott said that this research looks at how to process 

data and the subsequent analysis. Ken Knopp (FAA) added that the research providers in the 

Aviation Research Division do collaborate on this topic and leverage capabilities.

SAS member Andy Lacher initiated a discussion on priorities. He stated that MITRE identifies 

requirements each year that are organized around projects. The tradeoffs between risk, impact, 

and return on investment are considered in the context of each requirement. Dres agreed with 

this approach of looking at the total investment over the life cycle of the requirement. Mark Orr 

added that the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) process forces the FAA to take a year to 

year approach. Andy stated that the location of the Mendoza Line5 does not account for level of 

risk, technical approach, or execution quality. Joe Del Balzo concurred and added that the 

prioritization process serves its purpose but asked if there was some way to improve it. Mark 

replied that the AVS REDMT is looking at that.

Action Item 66

: Mark Orr will set aside one hour at the next SAS meeting to discuss 

improvements to the AVS prioritization process that focus on other successful programs like 

MITRE. Joe asked that principal participants be there in person. Topics will include risk 

tradeoffs in technical approach and execution quality for both short- and long-term frameworks. 

Joe added that Dres and Dennis Filler should participate and Andy should show examples of 

successful prioritization at MITRE. This is not intended as a redesign of the AVS Prioritization 

Process but FAA customers and their need for products should be identified. There should be a 

balance between short- and long-term research activities.

4 This addresses Action Item 1 from the 2013 Spring SAS meeting. It is being postponed with the intent to conduct 

the Deep Dive at CAMI.

5 Mendoza Line separates funded and non-funded AVS prioritized research requirements. 6 The SAS members added more elements during the ‘homework” review. See the Appendices for the full Action 

item wording.

12

 
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

Day 3 – April 10, 2014

Eric Neiderman called the SAS meeting to order at 8:00 AM.

SAS members discussed the previous day activities and reviewed the homework assignments. 

They expanded on Action Items 5 and 6, and Action Item 17 from the 2013 SAS meeting.

For Action Item 5, they asked that the WTIC presentation identify the correlation between better 

weather information in the cockpit and weather related accident reduction and PART 121 

efficiency.

For Action Item 6 they added specific items to be addressed in the Prioritization process 

improvement discussion.

For Action Item 1 from Spring 2013 they asked that the CAMI Deep Dive include discussion 

that provides insight regarding the selection of certain substances like opiates and anti-epileptics 

for research analysis and in-house succession planning for key personnel.

V8 Terminal Area Safety

Presenters: Jeff Schroeder (FAA on phone) and Andrew Cheng (FAA)

Jeff presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - Terminal Area Safety (TAS)

Part of BLI A11.h System Safety Management. He mentioned that all the research is aimed at 

changing standards. He added that TAS program capabilities include NASA Ames B-737 and 

A-330 simulators. He presented Quad charts for each of the three FY 16 requirements. The 

Advanced Maneuvers work on Slide 5 is really about stall modelling. Slide 6 describes both a 

flight data model and an analytical model. Dres asked if the analytical model is useful with new 

airplanes. Jeff replied that they are because the OEMs use enough data. The work focuses on 

Part 121 operations due to legislation but could be expanded to GA. Slide 10 Real-time runway 

friction estimate compared two current research approaches: maximum available friction model 

and braking action analysis. He added that the Airport R&D Technology Branch is conducting 

related research. Jim Mangie added that this is a very daunting challenge and that the 

researchers should not be discouraged. Something is better than nothing. Jeff addressed Slide 

15 Helicopter Operational Safety Improvements Using Advanced Vision Systems (TAS-16-05) by 

mentioning that the work has not started yet but that DOD is looking at this using Honeywell and 

Blackhawk helicopters.

Jim Mangie commented on Slide 5 Advanced Maneuvers (TAS-16-01) regarding the number of 

aircraft types necessary to study. Jeff replied that he intends to create a cookbook for others to 

create the models under Part 121. Jim then asked why there was no research for unstable 

approach. Jeff replied that the FY 16 funding was cut off by the prioritization process. John 

7 CAMI Deep Dive

8 Presented out of sequence to accommodate remote participants

13

 
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

White asked if there is an explanation as to why you stop a project when it is near completion. 

Mark Orr replied that AVS managers decide the fate of a program. Jeff said he feel it was likely 

that funding could be restored in FY 16.

P Software and Digital Systems (SDS)

Presenters: Barbara Lingberg (FAA on phone) and Alanna Randazzo (FAA)

Barbara presented FY2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - Software and Digital Systems 

(SDS) BLI A11.n: Advanced System and Software Validation BLI A11.d (partial): Aircraft 

Icing/Digital System Safety. Barbara addressed the program covered under BLI A11.d Digital 

System Safety. The research focused on technology changes in the industry. She presented

Quad charts representing three of the four FY 16 research requirements. Barbara made the point 

on Slide 4 SDS Program Overview that as long as the technology continues to change the work 

will never be done.

During the presentation, Ed Bolton, Assistant Administrator for NextGen, made an impromptu 

visit to the meeting to both thank the SAS members for their guidance and to share hisvision. He 

stated that the four priorities are: to execute programs, to deliver capabilities, to advance 

collaboration, and to know how to do better. He added that the REDAC and the Subcommittees 

help build the foundation for NextGen.

Andy Lacher asked on Slide12 SDS-16-04 Airborne Electronic Hardware Development 

Techniques and Tools funded by A11.d – Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety if the emphasis was 

being placed on commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware or software. Barbara replied that the 

focus is on hardware as a platform.

Ray DeCerchio (FAA on phone) presented FY2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review -

Software and Digital Systems (SDS) BLI A11.d (partial): Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety –

Onboard Network Security and Integrity. Ray explained that the program is actually broader that 

just network security. It should be labeled wireless security instead. Ray stated that the Boeing 

787 demonstrates a significant increase in wireless connectivity to aircraft systems. The intent is 

to identify and mitigate aircraft system cyber security vulnerabilities and threats before the bad 

guys get there. The benefits of the program include new regulations, standards, guidance, and 

training. Ray presented the fourth SDS research requirement for FY 16 that focused on network 

security and integrity.

Joe Del Balzo commented on both programs with a focus on content and capability concerns. 

He is confident that the content is well covered but he needs to know that the research capability 

is keeping pace. He requested an explanation of SDSS core capability at the next SAS meeting.

Action Item 7 (Barbara Lingberg): Provide an explanation of SDSS core capability at the next 

SAS meeting.

Richard Barhydt (NASA on phone) presented NASA-FAA research Collaboration in Software 

and Digital Systems Safety Assurance Research Transition Roadmap (RTR). Richard provided

14
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

hard copy handouts of his presentation. He stated that the RTR is similar to the research 

transition teams (RTTs) used by NASA and FAA NextGen office. It has been adapted to FAA 

AVS customers and the research is focused more on knowledge and analyses, rather than 

prototype hardware/software or field demos. The joint products will provide the FAA with 

information to support guidance, handbooks, ACs, or other aircraft certification documents. 

Dres asked if there are any tools to track safety cases. Richard stated that NASA Ames has such 

a tool.

Action Item 8 (Eric Neiderman): Provide information regarding the NASA Ames tool to track 

safety cases.

Andy Lacher asked if there was any work or test cases related to adaptive systems. Richard 

replied that current case studies may not feed into this phase of the research. 

Joe and John White commented that this is an excellent example of FAA and NASA 

collaboration.

Q Aircraft Icing

Presenters: Tom Bond (FAA on phone) and Jim Riley (FAA)

Tom presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - Aircraft Icing 6DB With an 

update on Icing Weather Tasks A11.K. Tom provided the program overview and Jim Riley 

presented the four Quad charts representing the FY16 research requirements from BLI A11.d and 

two research requirements from the AVS wedge of the BLI A11.k Weather Program. On Slide 7 

Simulation Methods Development/Validation to Support Appendix C Icing Certification & COS 

(AI-16-03) Jim stated that the emphasis is on validation of the industry developed codes and that 

the costs are shared equally with industry. On Slide 9 Simulation Methods 

Development/Validation to Support Appendix C Icing Certification & COS (AI-16-03) Jim stated 

that the research effort is focused on atmospheric conditions . The Darwin campaign was about 

two thirds through when it was halted by aircraft issues. When the work resumes may be shifted 

to Costa Rica due to loss of Rapid Scan Satellite in Darwin. On slide 10 Terminal Area Icing 

Weather Information for NextGen (TAIWIN) – A11.K: WX-03 Jim stated that the research will 

result in a new rule that could impact new designs for Part 25 aircraft.

Ken Knopp (FAA) added that he expects more staffing in the Aircraft Icing program, including a 

research meteorologist.

John White complimented the program. There was no further discussion.

Eric Neiderman called attention to the fact that this was Joe Del Balzo’s last SAS meeting as 

Chair. Eric thanked Joe for his excellent service and leadership. 

15
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

R Fire Research9

Presenters: Jeff Gardlin (FAA on phone) and Gus Sarkos (FAA)

Jeff presented REDAC SAS FY 2016 By: Jeff Gardlin/Gus Sarkos - Fire Research and Safety 

Portfolio Review. Jeff explained that the program has two drivers. The first is the inherent fire 

risk in aircraft operation due to fuels and flammable parts. The second is environmental 

restrictions on effective fire safety technologies. Jeff showed several slides related to recent 

accidents related to lithium batteries as cargo and in on-board systems. He emphasized the role 

of the research program in supporting the right standards and that the outputs are used in other 

Directorates like Security and Hazardous Materials Safety (ASH).

Gus Sarkos presented the program capabilities with an emphasis on the people, laboratories, and 

partnerships. He added that the work his people conduct is recognized world-wide because the 

laboratories enable the right projects. Gus presented the single Quad chart for the FY 16 

research requirement. He provided contract funding levels on Slide 19 Fire Research and Safety 

(FCS-16-01): FY12 - $3,240; FY13 - $3,070; FY14 - $3,910; and FY16 - $3,000.

John White (Acting SAS Chair) asked Gus about his plans for succession planning. Gus said 

that he uses the Aviation Grant program as a mechanism to identify and recruit new people. Eric 

Neiderman added that the student intern program feeds the new hire pipeline as well.

Jim Mangie made a statement that the research work in this program related to identifying the 

source of smoke in the cockpit is timely and very relevant. Since the SAS meeting began, he has 

knowledge of four aircraft returns due to smoke.

S Propulsion and Fuel Systems

Presenters: Jay Turnberg, Tim Mouzakis, John Fisher, and Michael Gorelik (all FAA on phone) 

and Dave Galella (FAA)

Jay presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - BLI A11.b Propulsion and Fuel 

Systems PS-16-01: Advanced Damage Tolerance and Risk Assessment Methods for Engine LifeLimited Parts (Advanced Materials) and PS-16-03: Volcanic Ash Engine Ingestion. Jay 

differentiated between program capabilities for PS-16-01 and PS-16-03. The former uses 

Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) and four engine manufacturers and the later uses the 

Vehicle Integrated Propulsion research (VIPR). Both collaborate with NASA and the US Air 

Force under the lead of one engineer at the Technical Center. He presented a Quad chart for 

each of the two research requirements.

Michael Gorelik (FAA on phone), the newly named Chief Scientist and Technical Advisor 

(CSTA) for Fatigue and Damage Tolerance noted that DARWIN could be used also for nonengine critical components and engine static parts with some modification. John White asked 

which manufacturers were involved with the NASA VIPR to test a P&W F117 engine under 

varying degrees of ingested volcanic ash concentrations. Dave Galella stated that Pratt & 

Whitney and Rolls Royce are involved with the VIPR testing.

9 John White assumed the SAS Chair position after Joe departed.

16

 
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

T Catastrophic Failure Prevention

Presenter: Jay Turnberg for Jorge Fernandez and Bill Emmerling (all FAA)

Jay presented FY 2016 Aircraft Safety PPT Portfolio Review - Catastrophic Failure Prevention 

A11.f - Advanced Analysis Methods for Impact of Composite Aircraft Materials in Rotor Burst 

and Blade Release. Jay emphasized that the Advanced Analysis Methods for Impact of 

Composite Aircraft Materials in Rotor Burst and Blade Release Program (AMRBI) is the only 

research program that addresses engine installation issues for safety at the aircraft level. One of 

the tools supported by the program, LS-DYNA, is a complex tool that requires user’s guide that 

may work its way into certification. John White asked if the tool is moving from metals to 

composites. Bill replied yes. Bill then presented the Quad chart for the FY 16 research 

requirement.

There was no further discussion.

U Alternative Fuels for General Aviation

Presenter: Jay Turnberg for Peter White and Dave Atwood (FAA)

Jay presented FY 2016 Alternative Fuels for GA Portfolio Review – NextGen BLI A11.m. The 

program was driven originally by a destination 2025 performance metric “A replacement fuel for 

leaded aviation gasoline is available by 2018 that is usable by most general aviation aircraft” and 

section 910 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. The research program relies 

almost exclusively on the FAA Aviation Fuel and Engine Test Facility (AFETF) and staff at the 

William J. Hughes Technical Center. Partnerships include the Coordinating Research Council 

(CRC), ASTM International Aviation Fuels Subcommittee, and the Piston Alternative Fuels 

Initiative (PAFI). Jay presented the Quad chart representing the one FY 16 research requirement.

There was no discussion.

Wrap up

John White indicated that the formal presentations were complete and that the remaining SAS 

members would complete their homework and submit them to Gloria Dunderman by the next 

day. The general consensus was that a joint meeting with Human Factors Subcommittee should 

be considered once a year. The SAS should also consider what type of presentation would be 

most beneficial in the future.

Eric closed the meeting with thanks to the FAA staff that handled all the logistics for the 

meeting; to the SAS members for their efforts and expertise; and the all the research presenters 

for their excellent work.

17
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

No dates were discussed for the Fall meeting but March 24 -26, 2015 was offered as a possible 

date for the next Spring meeting, location TBD.

Eric adjourned the meeting at 1:46 PM.

18
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

AGENDA (v8)

Federal Aviation Administration

REDAC Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety (SAS)

William J. Hughes Technical Center

April 8-10, 2014

Joint HF and SAS Subcommittee Meeting Building 291E

Dial in Access: 888-924-3230, Passcode: 207756

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

8:30 – 9:00 Welcome/Opening comments

• Introductions

• Review of Subcommittee action items

Amy Pritchett/Joe Del Balzo 

Jason Demagalski/ 

Eric Neiderman

9:00 – 9:15 Welcome Dennis Filler

9:15 – 9:30 Roles and Responsibilities Cathy Bigelow

9:30 – 10:15 Budget Update Mike Gallivan

10:15 – 10:30 Break

10:30 – 11:15 Planned FY16 AVS R&D Strategic Portfolio Paula Martinez/Mark Orr

11:15 – 11:30 Subcommittee discussion All

11:30 – 12:30 Lunch

12:30 – 2:00 UAS 

- FY 2016 Research Portfolio

- Roadmap

- Research collaboration (e.g., with DOD, 

NASA-Ames, etc.)

Chris Swider/

Sabrina Saunders-Hodge

2:00 – 2:30 Q&A/Findings and Recommendations Discussion All

2:30 – 2:45 Break

2:45 – 3:20 Flight Deck FY2016 Requirements Briefing: Core 

Program (Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration 

Human Factors)

- Loss of Control Research Coordination

Kathy Abbott

Jeff Schroeder/Andrew Cheng

James Wilborn/Bob McGuire

3:20 – 3:45 Q&A/Findings and Recommendations Discussion Subcommittee members

3:45 – 4:10 Final Report of the Performance-based Operations

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (PARC) Commercial 

Aviation Safety Team (CAST) Flight Deck Automation 

Working Group Report

Kathy Abbott

4:10 – 4:30 PEGASAS Center of Excellence Pete Sparacino

4:30 – 5:00 Wrap up – Homework Assignments - Review of Action 

Items

6:30 Dinner: TBD

19
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

Dial in Access: 888-924-3230, Passcode: 207756

Joint HF and SAS Subcommittee Meeting until 10:00 AM

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

8:30 – 9:30 Review of Homework Assignments from Previous Day 

– Findings and Recommendations Discussions

All

9:30 – 10:05 NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit Gary Pokodner

10:05 – 10:30 Weather Program Steve Abelman

10:30 – 10:45 Q&A/Findings and Recommendation Discussion All

10:45 – 11:00 Break: HF and SAS Subcommittees separate for 

individual Subcommittee meetings. Shuttle bus will 

transport all members to Building 300.

HF – Director’s Conf. Rm.

SAS – CAD 2&3

11:00– 11:20 SAS Opening Remarks Joe Del Balzo, Chair

Eric Neiderman, DFO

11:20 – 11:40 ANG-E2 R&D Overview Eric Neiderman

11:40 – 12:40 Lunch

12:40 – 1:10 Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Larry Ilcewicz/Joseph 

Pellettiere/Curt Davies

1:10 – 1:20 Findings & Recommendation discussions SAS members

1:20 – 2:45 Continued Airworthiness

Structures – Metallic (SAD & TAD)

Flight Control & Mech. Systems – (SAD & TAD)

Electric Systems (TAD)

 Rotorcraft – (ASW-RD)

Engine NDE – (EPD)

Maint. & Inspection – (AFS-300 & TAD)

Mark Orr

Ian Won/John Bakuckas

Robert C. Jones/Bob McGuire

Paul Siegmund/Mike Walz

Matt Fuller/Paul Swindell

Jorge Fernandez/Ed Weinstein

Dale Hawkins/David Westlund

2:45 – 2:55 Findings & Recommendation discussions SAS members

2:55 – 3:10 Break

3:10 – 3:40 Aeromedical Research Estrella Forster/

Jean Watson

3:40 – 3:50 Findings & Recommendations Discussion SAS members

3:50 – 4:20 System Safety Management Danko Kramar/

Hossein Eghbali

4:20 – 4:30 Findings & Recommendations Discussion SAS members

4:30 – 5:00 Wrap up – Homework Assignments - Review of 

Action Items

All

7:00 Get-together happy hour - hors d'oeuvres (HF & SAS)

3 South Buffalo Ave., Ventnor, NJ 08406

Eric’s Bungalow

20
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

Dial in Access: 888-924-3230, Passcode: 207756

Thursday, April 10, 2014

8:30 – 9:00 Review of Homework Assignments SAS Members

9:00 – 9:30 Software and Digital Systems Barbara Lingberg/Ray 

DeCerchio/Alana Randazzo

9:30 – 9:45 NASA Research Transition Roadmap (RTR) Richard Barhydt (NASA)

9:45 – 9:55 Findings & Recommendations Discussion SAS members

9:55 – 10:10 Break

10:10 – 10:40 Aircraft Icing Tom Bond/Jim Riley

10:40 – 10:50 Findings & Recommendations Discussion SAS members

10:50 – 11:35 Fire Research Jeff Gardlin/Gus Sarkos

11:35 – 11:45 Findings & Recommendations Discussion SAS members

11:45 – 12:45 Lunch

12:45 – 1:15 Findings & Recommendations Discussion SAS members

1:15 – 1:45 Propulsion and Fuel Systems Jorge Fernandez/

Dave Galella

1:45 – 1:55 Findings & Recommendations Discussion SAS members

1:55 – 2:25 Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research Jorge Fernandez/

Bill Emmerling

2:25 – 2:35 Findings & Recommendations Discussion SAS members

2:35 – 3:05 NextGen – Alternative Fuel for GA Peter White/Dave Atwood

3:05 – 3:15 Findings & Recommendations Discussion SAS members

3:15 – 3:30 Break

3:30 – 4:00 Terminal Area Safety Jeff Schroeder/

Andrew Cheng

4:00 – 4:15 SAS Open Action Item #3 –AVS Strategic 

Guidance

Mark Orr

4:15 – 4:30 SAS Recommendation Review Eric Neiderman/Joe Del Balzo

4:30 – 4:50 SAS Feedback Joe Del Balzo

4:50 – 5:00 Future Meeting Planning and Discussion Joe Del Balzo

5:00 Adjourn

21
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

DISPOSITION OF SAS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SAS Spring_2013_23: RE&D Planning Process (CLOSED)

SAS Recommendation: To best deal with the current environment of budget instability, the 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety (SAS) recommends that FAA consider establishing a process 

for establishing and reassessing research priorities across all Lines of Business. There are needs 

to be a single focal point responsible for the agency’s research strategy (including priorities) 

guided by executive oversight from within the FAA. Advisory committees (such as the REDAC) 

might be used as a sounding board.

Joe Del Balzo stated that Dennis Filler’s presentation properly addressed the issue and that the 

SAS considers it closed.

SAS Spring_2013_24: Flight Deck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors and 

NextGen Human Factors (REMAIN OPEN)

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that, for funding and functional purposes, 

AFS and AVS explore the possibility of closely aligning human factors research requirements 

with the other research areas they support, even though those issues fall outside of the traditional 

human factors portfolio. For instance, research on artificial vision and the complexity of 

instrument approaches both support increasing airspace capacity, which is a NextGen issue. 

Additionally, the Subcommittee recommends that more support and priority be given to human 

factors research that supports significant new or revised regulation.

The SAS stated that they did not see enough progress in this area to warrant closing the issue.10

SAS Fall_2013_1: WTIC use of COTS (CLOSED)

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the sponsors of this research interface 

with other Research, Engineering, and Development (R,E&D) areas to explore COTS 

possibilities and with the appropriate areas in FAA to facilitate dissemination of tools and 

information to industry.

Based on Gary Pokodner’s presentation, the SAS agreed to close this recommendation.

SAS Fall_2013_2: AVS Pop-up Process (CLOSED)

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA review the process for 

reallocation of funding for current year or following year pop-up requirements to assure this 

process is user-friendly and encourage its use when research needs arise from rapidly changing 

situations.

Based on Mark Orr’s presentation and the newly created Action Item 2, the SAS agreed to close 

this recommendation.

10 Spring_2013_24 and Fall_2013_3 were addressed by the SAS at the same time.

22

 
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

SAS Fall_2013_3: Alignment of Human Factors Research (REMAIN OPEN)

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that, for funding and functional purposes, 

FAA explore the possibility of closely aligning human factors research requirements with the 

other research areas they support, even though those issues might fall outside the traditional 

human factors portfolio.

The SAS stated that they did not see enough progress in this area to warrant closing the issue.

23
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

ACTION ITEMS

Carryover from Fall 2013 Meeting

1. Provide deep-dive of Aeromedical program at the Spring 2014 meeting (this is a carryover 

from the Spring 2013 SAS meeting). (Robert Johnson) REMAIN OPEN

2. Present UAS Integration Roadmap (this is a carryover from the Spring 2013 SAS meeting). 

(Jim Williams) CLOSED

3. AVP will brief the SAS on the development of the list of emerging risks in the AVS Strategic 

Guidance. (Rob Pappas) REMAIN OPEN

4. Provide additional information on outcomes for Lower Visibility for CAT 1 Approaches and 

RVR Conversion, and Safety Driven Weather Requirements for Wake Mitigation. (Roger 

Sultan) CLOSED

5. Provide additional information to the members to clarify the distinction between the Quality 

Assessment (QA) and AWDE (Aviation Weather Demonstration & Evaluation) bullets on 

slide 5 with slide 17 of the Weather Program. (Warren Fellner) CLOSED

6. Provide a briefing on FAA efforts to document UAS research linkages with NASA, DoD, 

and DHS as well as efforts to identify potential research gaps. (Jim Williams) CLOSED

New Action Items:

Action Item 1: (Mike Gallivan) Provide Chris Benich with information regarding status of 

ground-based augmentation research in the NextGen program. CLOSED

Action Item 2: Mark Orr will provide a presentation at the next SAS meeting that shows 

examples of how pop-ups are working and their impact on other projects and programs. 

Action Item 3: (Kathy Abbott) Kathy will provide information regarding FY 16 HF 

requirements that were not funded in FY 16. 

Action Item 4: (Mark Orr) Mark will provide information on prioritized requirements list with 

Mendoza Line for FY 15 and FY 16.

Action Item 5: (Gary Pokodner) John White asked for a briefing on WTIC and Part 121 

operations. Identify the correlation between better weather information in the cockpit and 

weather related accident reduction and PART 121 efficiency.

Action Item 6: Mark Orr will set aside one hour at the next SAS meeting to discuss 

improvements to the AVS prioritization process that focus on other successful programs like 

MITRE. Joe asked that principal participants be there in person. Topics will include risk 

tradeoffs in technical approach and execution quality for both short- and long-term frameworks. 

Joe added that Dres and Dennis Filler should participate and Andy should show examples of 

successful prioritization at MITRE. This is not intended as a redesign of the AVS Prioritization

Process but FAA customers and their need for products should be identified. There should be a 

balance between short- and long-term research.

24
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

Action Item 7: Eric Neiderman will provide an explanation of SDSS core capability at the next 

SAS meeting.

Action Item 8: Eric Neiderman will provide information regarding the NASA Ames tool to 

track safety cases.

25
2014 Spring SAS Meeting Minutes

ATTENDANCE

SAS members HF Members

Joe Del Balzo (Chair) Amy Pritchett (Chair)

Chris Benich Chris DeSenti

Andy Lacher Alan Jacobsen

Jim Mangie Bill Rogers

John White Phil Smith

Eric Neiderman (FAA DFO) Jason Demagalski (FAA DFO)

Walter Desrosier (phone) Jack Blackhurst (on phone)

Participants:

Kathy Abbot

Steve Abelman

Allan Abramowitz

Kenneth Allendoerfer

Dave Atwood 

John Bakuckas

Richard Barhydt (phone)

Cathy Bigelow

Regina Bolinger

Ed Bolton (Assistant 

Administrator for 

NextGen)

Tom Bond (phone)

Matt Brackmann

Daniel Brock

John Cavolowsky (NAS 

Ops Subcommittee)

Andrew Cheng

Bill Crossley

Curtis Davies

Raymond DeCerchio

(phone)

Gloria Dunderman

Steven Edgar

Hossein Eghbali

William Emmerling

Jorge Fernandez

Dennis Filler

John Fisher (phone)

Estrella Forster (phone)

Mark Freisthler (phone)

Mark Fuller (phone)

Dave Galella 

Mike Gallivan (phone)

Jeff Gardlin (phone)

Jim Gregory

Michael Gorelik (phone)

Larry Ilcewicz

Dale Hawkins

John Hensyl

Cliff Johnson

Robert Jones

Rusty Jones

Nazih Khaouly (phone)

Chuck Kilgore

Ken Knopp

Danko Kramar (phone)

Paul Krois

John Lapointe

Xiaogong Lee

Jim Lignugaris

Barbara Lingberg (phone)

Rich Lyon

Srini Mandalapu

Carol Manning

Tom McCloy

Robert McGuire

Nelson Miller

Tim Mouzakis (phone)

Bridger Newman

Kerin Olson (phone)

Mark S. Orr (phone)

Joseph Pellettiere (phone)

Lynn Pham

Gary Pokodner

Shawn Pruchnidli

Steve Ramdeen

Alanna Randazzo

Jim Riley

Mark Rodgers

Gus Sarkos

Sabrina Saunders-Hodge

Andrea Schandler

Jeff Schroeder

Chris Seher

Tim Smith

Peter Sparacino

Roger Sultan (phone)

Chris Swider

Paul Swindell

Jay Turnberg (phone)

Warren Underwood 

(phone)

Isidore Venetos

Tong Vu

Chinh Vuong

Michael Walz

Jean Watson (phone)

Pat Watts

Ed Weinstein

Dave Westlund

Jim White

Michelle Yeh

Dres Zellwegger (NAS

Ops Subcommittee)

26