May 10, 2010 

The Honorable J. Randolph Babbitt 

Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dear Administrator Babbitt: 

On behalf of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), I am enclosing the summary 

findings and recommendations from the fall meetings of the standing REDAC Subcommittees (Aircraft Safety, NAS 

Operations, Environment and Energy, Airports, and Human Factors). 

In response to a request from the Senior VP for NextGen, the REDAC is planning to form a working group to 

investigate the dynamics of change of the NAS. The objective is to identify strategies and research which would 

increase the probability of success of NextGen. 

The full committee also made the following general observations: 

Concern on Level of Technical Expertise in Key Areas - The FAA has a unique need for expertise in key areas such as 

critical software and digital systems and human factors both for certification and acquisition. The REDAC reiterates its 

concern that there has been inadequate progress in developing the core competency and technical workforce in this and 

other key areas. The problem is recognized by the agency but progress has been limited due to the inability of the FAA 

to compete on the market for highly desirable talent. The REDAC recommends maintaining the priority in this area and 

investigating internal approaches for workforce development in key areas including hiring high potential junior staff 

with “fast track” training and responsibility paths. 

NextGen Technical and Program Risk Management - The REDAC observes that much of the NextGen planning has 

been success based and it is unclear if technical and program risks have been fully identified. The REDAC 

recommends that the FAA should review NextGen plans to identify assumptions which establish technical and program 

risk in key areas such as human factors and software certification. These risks should be mitigated by risk management 

strategies which validate or dispute assumptions through early research and identify mitigations to the most likely and 

significant risks. In addition, there should be consideration given to how the NextGen plans would adapt to 

unfavorable research and development test results. 

Need for a Comprehensive View of FAA Research and Development Portfolio - The REDAC has had difficulty 

meeting its responsibility to evaluate the FAA R&D portfolio due to the complexity of how research and development 

are funded and managed within the agency for historical and operational reasons. It would be useful to the REDAC 

and the Agency to have a comprehensive mapping of all research and development related activity. 

Nav Lean - The REDAC was encouraged by the plan to investigate Lean processes for certification, safety and 

operational approval motivated, in part, by prior REDAC concerns regarding excessive safety standards for new 

systems. The REDAC looks forward to the results of this study and would like to support this effort. 

We hope that these observations are useful to you and the agency. The REDAC stands ready to assist if there is any 

way we can help in our common objectives of improving the safety, efficiency and capability of the air transportation 

system. 

Sincerely, 

R. John Hansman 

Chair, FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Enclosure 
Recommendations on the FY 2012 R&D Portfolio 

Subcommittee on Airports

The Subcommittee was pleased to learn that the funding for the Airport Technology 

Branch was $22.47M in the Omnibus Appropriation, that staff at the Tech Center are 

creating 10-year research plans for both the Safety and Pavements area, and that the 

many projects underway are being handled responsibly and with obvious expertise. 

Finding (1): In the ARFF area, the subcommittee expressed significant interest in the 

research to develop standards for determining the amount of agent needed on New Large 

Aircraft (NLA). The subcommittee appreciated the point that new technologies may 

offset the need for new agent types, quantities, or delivery systems, but the highest 

priority remains to complete the research that will establish if FAA needs to change its 

requirements for the amount of firefighting agent needed for U.S. airports receiving NLA 

service. 

Recommendation: The FAA should continue the high priority ARFF research to answer 

the question on the amount of firefighting agent require for airports receiving NLA 

service. 

Finding (2): The Subcommittee was pleased with the advances made on FOD detection 

equipment, and is pleased that the research is focusing on performance standards rather 

than individual product acceptance. Likewise, in the area of wildlife detection 

equipment, the research is aiming at criteria that will provide alerts to tower personnel as 

opposed to demanding full time attention to what amounts to yet another monitoring 

device. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that in the case of both the FOD 

detection and the Wildlife detection radars the FAA provide guidance on best 

management practices in implementing and operating the systems along with the system 

performance specifications.. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee also found that FAA's friction research is coalescing with 

the Takeoff and Landing Performance Advisory Committee. Research is close to 

concluding a single runway friction assessment tool that will resolve pilot inputs, airport 

operations inputs and even friction measuring devices into a single classification to assess 

and declare the condition of a runway. 

Recommendation: FAA should support the implementation of the TALPA-ARC 

method and should promote its use worldwide. 

Finding (4): The subcommittee was pleased with the presentation from the FAA's 

National Planning and Programming Office (APP) on the progress of the NextGen 

program and the impact on airports. The Subcommittee believes this is a very important 
area, and the brief demonstrated that FAA has considered the recommendations stated in 

previous REDAC reports. 

Recommendation: The FAA should continue to provide updates at future subcommittee 

meetings on NextGen and its impact on airports. 

Finding (5): The Subcommittee was pleased with the research in the area of alternative 

paint /marking materials. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that future guidance should contain 

information on how to apply the materials. Also, the subcommittee recommends that 

guidance on the use of Type I / III glass beads in airport paints should clearly state which 

type would be more appropriate for airport use. There is currently a disparity in the 

existing guidance and recent research results, and airports would benefit by having the 

latest, up-to-date information on this topic. 

Finding (6): The subcommittee also found that the research on developing a low cost 

ground surveillance (LCGS) system for airports is very promising. The purpose of the 

research is to review and evaluate LCGS systems, with a focus on how they can be used 

by airports to improve airport surveillance. The subcommittee commented that the 

proposed Airports solution appears to be much more robust than that being investigated 

in Air Traffic Organization's LCGS program. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommended that whatever solution is found for 

the LCGS program needs to have ATO involvement, since both systems may be used by 

either airport operations or ATC. The subcommittee felt that it is critical that LCGS be 

focused on the airport operator. 

Finding (7): In the GPS ground-vehicle navigation project, a project has been initiated 

to evaluate current technologies, provide a list of implementation and operational 

recommendations, and to provide cost estimates for equipment procurement. The 

subcommittee found that the research currently underway is well executed. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the research team work with 

the Airport GIS program to develop future technology / system requirements (e.g. maps 

in vehicle display). The GPS ground vehicle research team is also investigating the 

challenge of how the equipment might provide zone / proximity alerts to the driver of a 

vehicle operating on an airport with a complex geometry. The subcommittee 

recommends that human factors issues should be considered when determining how often 

a driver is alerted. A system that provides constant alerts may give drivers a false sense 

of security and cause them to not be as vigilant as they otherwise would be when 

traversing an airport. 

Finding (8): The subcommittee is pleased that the research aimed at developing an 

airport and airspace simulation model is being coordinated with the Airports GIS 

program staff. The main elements of this project are to: build the airport database; 
improve the digitization of airports; develop a process to use PDARS data; and build 

airport latitude and longitude data in a way that is consistent with the directives of FAA 

Advisory Circular 150/5300-18B (Airport Data – Geographic Information System 

Standards). 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA follow-up with a 

vendor who may have already been able to incorporate ASDE-X and PDARS data into 

typical simulation software. 

Finding (9): Pavement research continues to provide benefits to the airport industry. 

Recommendation (a): In the area of Alkali-Silica Reactivity (ASR) testing, the 

subcommittee recommends that the existing research projects construct additional slabs 

of known non-reactive aggregates that have been appropriately screened with the proper 

ASTM testing protocols as a control group. This approach would provide data to indicate 

if the anti-icing agents are causing a deleterious reaction or exacerbating the deleterious 

reaction of inferior materials. Preliminary research through the IPRF indicates that 

improper screening of aggregates may in fact pose a greater threat to deleterious reactions 

in concrete than the anti-icer itself. 

Recommendation (b): Additionally, the subcommittee recommends that the Technical 

Center consider research into the load-transfer effectiveness of dowelled and un-dowelled 

pavements. It is recommended the FAA consider constructing "dummy" contraction 

joints following the specifications listed in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6E, and 

measure the load transfer across these joints. This data would also provide engineers 

valuable information when designing and specifying joint types for airfield pavements. 

The national costs for using steel dowels in pavement construction are rising, and 

research into this subject may help airport operators reduce future construction costs by 

eliminating unnecessary design features. 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety

The Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety (SAS) of the FAA Research, Engineering and 

Development Committee (REDAC) met at MITRE’s Center for Advanced Aviation 

Systems Development on March 9-11, 2010. The meeting included tours of the CAASD 

Integrated ATM Lab with demonstrations of CDTI/ADS-B Applications and Runway 

Incursion-Flight Deck-based Direct Warning. The primary purpose of the meeting was to 

review FY12 Research Requirements and included detailed reviews, “Deep Dives” into 

several research programs. 

General Observations 

• The SAS again found the presentations given by FAA managers and researchers 

to be of uniformly high quality. 
• The method of summarization and content presentation of the many complex 

topics continues to improve and were readily comprehensible at a management 

level. 

• The prioritization process of research proposals appears to be effective. 

• The SAS believes that the portfolio content is substantially correct, but is 

concerned that several research programs lack a sufficient level of technical 

expertise to assure success. 

• The SAS found no programs that should be eliminated. 

• The extent to which FAA leverages the work and expertise of other government 

agencies, industry and academia continues to be an effective way to conduct 

relevant research. 

• The SAS finds FAA to be extremely responsive in responding to subcommittee 

comments and recommendations. 

• Specific Findings and Recommendations on individual areas of research reviewed 

and discussed by the subcommittee follow. 

Finding (1): (Icing Program) The Aircraft Icing program is well defined and poised to 

deliver high value. The icing program has built important collaborative research 

relationships with other FAA programs, NASA, Canadian research organizations, 

European research organizations and the aerospace industry. This is to be commended as 

it will enable the FAA to expand its icing research portfolio and increase their impact by 

conducting collaborative research programs on high priority programs of mutual interest. 

The high ice-water content, engine icing program is such a high priority program and 

leverages many of these relationships. This program addresses the engine malfunctions 

due to ice crystals that have occurred on many commercial flights in convective weather 

primarily in the tropics. The Appendix C research including the work on 3D ice accretion 

and icing aerodynamics certification methods is well conceived and is important to the 

FAA mission of flight safety. This program is currently building an international 

coalition and research plan and this should be encouraged. Finally, aircraft icing is an 

important safety area where the FAA has significant interests and responsibility. The 

icing program has several high priority programs and very limited in-house expertise. 

They rely heavily on partners and grantee/contractors to manage their programs. 

Concern exists within the Subcommittee regarding the lack of FAA “bench strength” in 

this important area. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue to support the high priority high icewater content, engine icing research program and support the Appendix C research on 3D 

ice accretion. The Subcommittee recommends that FAA review the current “bench 
strength” and take appropriate hiring action to assure continuity in technical strength well 

into the future in the aircraft icing research area. 

Finding (2): (Weather In The Cockpit) The Weather in the Cockpit program appears to 

be on the right track using a gap analysis to help define the needed research requirements. 

A concern remains regarding the planned timing of research completion in 2015 intended 

to support the mid term NextGen implementation of 2018. 

Recommendation: Assure the research deliverables are progressively released to enable 

industry to respond to them in formulating solutions to the Weather in the Cockpit 

imperative. 

Finding (3): (Propulsion Malfunction Research) The Subcommittee found the planned 

Propulsion Malfunction research plan would benefit from deep engagement with engine 

and airframe manufacturers contributing their knowledge & expertise in this area. 

Recommendation: The FAA should develop an industry partnership approach to assist 

& accelerate the Propulsion Malfunction research activity. 

Finding (4): (Unmanned Aircraft System) The ongoing Unmanned Aircraft System 

research is urgently needed to define a path to permit safe operation of UAS vehicles in 

the NAS. Although this broad and difficult area has been hampered by several leadership 

and organizational changes in the past few years, the SAS has noted good traction in the 

recent past. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the research sponsoring office 

& the research performing technical community continue to jointly refine the 

development of the research requirements and firmly establish the optimum path to 

achieve the important goal of 

enabling UAS operation in the NAS. 

Finding (5): (ASIAS) The SAS found that the ASIAS research project has made 

significant progress and continues to be directly responsive to the need of safety analysts 

within the FAA and aviation industry. The subcommittee commends the work being done 

by MITRE CAASD and notes the increased degree of trust that has developed from 

ASIAS industry participants. ASIAS is clearly an integral component of a Safety 

Management System designed to bring today’s safe aviation system to even higher levels 

of safety. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that the FAA continue efforts to increase the 

number of airline participants and ensure that the ASIAS program continues to be a 

safety tool that is increasingly used to identify emerging risks before they become 

potential safety issues. 

Finding (6): (Conduct of Research and Development) The SAS commends FAA for the 

advancing the development of a monthly reporting template to monitor progress in 
achieving measurable milestones and deliverables of all research activities in the 

Aviation Safety R&D portfolio. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that FAA adopt a monthly reporting template 

and move quickly to implement it across the entire Aircraft Safety R&D portfolio. 

Finding (7): The SAS continues to believe that successful conduct of research and 

development demands a series of sponsor-performer arrangements and conditions, all of 

them often urged on FAA by various groups. 

1. Although a partnership in the execution of the research including shaping the 

approving methods and products expected is required, it is essential that the 

responsible sponsor organization have a strong voice not only in the setting of 

requirements – but also the funding authority. 

2. The responsible sponsor organization must have a strong voice in the design and 

performance of the work, and must clearly monitor and have oversight of the 

work so that meaningful results can emerge. 

3. The responsible sponsor organization must itself have the technical and 

management skills to fully understand and monitor the work of the performing 

organization – whether it is within or outside the FAA. While this cadre of 

expertise may need to be small, it must be able to understand and guide the work. 

Experience in R, E&D has shown that in the absence of such skills in FAA, the 

results are almost always poor. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA review the structure of the 

Aircraft Safety Research Program to ensure that the current roles of the sponsor and 

performing organizations are best suited for successful conduct of safety research. This 

review should include roles related to authority over and management of research funds. 

Finding (8): (The Proper Role of TCAS) TCAS was intended to be an independent

safety net in the ATC system. It was recognized from the beginning that the 

independence would not be total, since TCAS depends on the Mode S data link and the 

barometric altimeter. However, every attempt was made to provide as much real 

separation and independence from the ATC system tools as possible. 

Recommendation: The SAS believes that as the community explores the closer 

integration of TCAS with other systems such as ADS-B and aircraft autopilot systems the 

potential safety risks associated with the reduction of independence need to be carefully 

considered. The SAS requests further detail from the FAA on this issue and how these 

potential safety risks are assessed. 

Finding (9): (Structural Integrity/Composites) The Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

considers the research effort on Structural Integrity/Composites to be a model 

program. With a very small but clearly expert internal FAA management resource, this 
effort leverages the work and expertise of other government agencies and the industry on 

a critical safety matter. The focus on developing standards and guidance based on theory 

and practical experience, and the emphasis on providing usable guidance to FAA people, 

and many others, makes this a valuable example of how to do things right. The 

Subcommittee endorses the proactive approach to composite structure maintenance and 

inspection being executed. Staying ahead of the composite aircraft fleet is very important 

to assure future continued operational safety. 

Finding (10): (FAA Facilities and Laboratories) The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee 

wishes to reemphasize an earlier recommendation on FAA funding and support for 

facilities and efforts which serve not only FAA but are also resources for the world. 

These facilities and efforts – such as much of the work of the Civil Aeromedical Institute 

and the William J. Hughes Technical Center – have a world-wide impact and contribute 

in important ways to the eminence and high reputation of FAA. Support of these efforts 

and increasing public knowledge and understanding of these activities is critical to the 

success of research activities in support of NextGen, self-separation, human factors, 

reduction of spacing between parallel runways, RNP, etc. Even in difficult budget 

periods, adequate funding must be provided not only for the modernization, care and 

feeding and operation of existing facilities but funding must also be provided to ensure 

that laboratories with required capabilities to support future research are available when 

needed. Precedence for the use of F&E funding for the procurement, upgrade, repair or 

operation of facilities and equipment at the Tech Center and CAMI has been established. 

The procurement of equipment for CAMI, the support of the Pavement Test Facility and 

repair of R&D facilities at the Tech Center are examples recently cited by Tech Center 

Counsel. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA seriously explore creative 

ways outside of the RE&D budget to support the modernization and operation of existing 

laboratories and the establishment of laboratory capabilities to support future research 

requirements. 

Finding (11): (Software and Digital Systems) The Software and Digital Systems 

Program appears to be moving in the right direction to meet the near-term and mid-term 

needs of the NextGen program. A notable accomplishment in FY 10 was the 

development and submission of a SDS comprehensive research plan which is intended to 

consolidate the SDS research planning that has taken place and show how FAA 

objectives are being met. The baseline regulatory support programs in addition to the 

FY12 research requirements provide a solid context within which to assess the research 

initiatives. It was also noted that the research currently planned will not meet the 

anticipated far-term needs of the NextGen. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue to support the SDS program and ensure 

the staffing and resources needs are adequate to meet the research needs. In order to 

address NextGen far-term requirements the SDS program should develop a joint research 

plan with NASA to ensure the far-term research being done by NASA will transition to 
the FAA and address the complex system integration expectations of the NextGen by 

2025. 

Finding (12): The SAS remains concerned about whether FAA’s internal core capability 

can successfully carry out the Software and Digital Systems research plan. It was noted 

that the Chief Scientific and Technical Advisory positions for Aircraft Computer 

Software and Advanced Avionics remain vacant. It was also noted that one hire was 

made at the Tech Center in FY 2010 which puts the staff even with the FY09 with 1 

additional hire planned for FY11. The SAS strongly asserts that the absence of a critical 

mass of talent in this program will lead to unsatisfactory research results. 

Recommendation: The SAS again recommends that FAA aggressively take action to 

acquire the specialized expertise to support this critical program. 

Finding (13): (FAA Core Research Capability) The SAS is concerned that several 

research programs lack a sufficient level of technical expertise to ensure success. The 

Icing Program and. the Software and Digital Systems Program are obvious examples. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that the FAA Sponsor Organization and 

Performing Organization jointly undertake a study to quantify the core capability 

required for both organizations to support all critical research programs and take steps to 

obtain FAA support to acquire the needed core capability. 

Finding (14): (The Impact of Computers/Automation on Aircraft Safety) The SAS noted 

the challenges related to obtaining the optimum balance between the role and power of 

the pilot and of the automation systems on the aircraft along with the optimal method of 

information display to the pilot. The challenges increase as computers and Automation 

Systems become more powerful. These same challenges and issues apply to the 

increasing levels of automation being introduced into the Air Traffic Management 

Systems on the ground. 

Recommendation (a): The SAS recommends that FAA consider the need for additional 

research to ensure that the optimum balance between the power of the pilot and of the 

automation systems. 

Recommendation (b): The SAS recommends that FAA consider the need for additional 

research to devise better, more fool-proof methods of testing automation systems for fault 

detection as well as for single and multiple fault survivability. 

Finding (15): (Rotorcraft Research) The Subcommittee is pleased to see the rotorcraft 

research work being conducted in a coordinated effort with the Army as was 

recommended. The research supporting addressing tiltrotor safety assurance approach is 

very much needed. 
Recommendation: The Fly-by-Wire Research work being done in support of the 

certification approach for the advanced tiltrotor Bell 609 aircraft should be accelerated to 

assure it is rapidly transitioned to guidance and regulatory material. 

Finding (16): (FAA Center of Excellence for General Aviation Research: CGAR) The 

SAS continues to be impressed with the research activities at the COE for GA Research. 

The CGAR is another example of how cost sharing arrangements, complemented by 

FAA management competence and leadership, can be an effective way to conduct 

relevant research and advance the knowledge of FAA staff. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue to support relevant research activities at 

CGAR. 

Finding (17): The UAS/Conventional Aircraft certification requirements matrix 

developed at a COE appeared to be of value to the UAS community. It was not clear as to 

why the matrix is not yet publicly available. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee requests further details on the public availability 

and intended use of the UAS matrix. 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy

Finding (1): In reviewing future year budget estimates for environmental research, the 

subcommittee noted that the proposed funding levels are essentially flat for the years 

2013 and beyond. Since, as a practical matter, the costs of doing business in these years 

will increase, this “flat-lining” leads to an effective reduction in research funds available 

while the research needs and complexities are increasing. 

Recommendation: While the subcommittee understands the problems in projecting outyear funding levels, we recommend that out-year budgets at least provide a factor for 

inflation in order not to project a practical decrease in funding levels. In addition, the 

Agency should attempt to communicate to the subcommittee its actual needs in future 

years so effective advice can be given. 

Finding (2): The subcommittee noted the progress being made in the development of a 

new noise roadmap. At the same time, it appears that there is a funding shortfall that has 

the potential of slowing progress in this area. Specifically, there does not appear to be 

funding to conduct required community surveys. 

Recommendation: The Office of Environment and Energy should work with the Office 

of Airports to determine whether funding in the airports research program to fund the 

$1.5 million necessary to conduct community noise surveys is available. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee notes, and is encouraged by, the continuing cooperation 

with NASA in a variety of environmental research areas. 
Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the growing cooperation 

between the FAA and NASA in the area of environmental research must continue and 

expand. This expansion is especially important in the Agency’s relationship with 

NASA’s Airspace Systems and Fundamental Aero programs. 

Finding (4): The subcommittee notes that the FAA and the EPA appear to be better 

engaged in addressing aviation environmental issues. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that cooperation between the FAA 

and the EPA should expand. Specifically, the FAA should request that the EPA actively 

participate in the REDAC Environmental Subcommittee. 

Finding (5): The subcommittee finds that the cooperation between the Office of 

Environment and Energy and ATO is an excellent example of breaking down barriers 

between Agency organizations. One specific area of cooperation that merits mention is 

the requirement for NEPA compliance in the modernization effort. The subcommittee 

appreciates these continuing efforts to integrate environmental considerations into 

operational decisions. 

Recommendation: Building on the growing relationship between the operational and 

environmental components of NextGen will be crucial as the Agency moves forward with 

its modernization efforts. This intra-agency cooperation should therefore continue and 

expand. In order to facilitate the subcommittee’s assessment of ongoing environmental 

research needs, we recommend and request that ATO provide a briefing to the 

subcommittee on exactly how environmental considerations are being integrated into the 

NextGen models. 

Finding (6): AEE’s research efforts to support the ICAO/CAEP process continue to be a 

priority. The issues being considered in the ICAO process are increasingly complex and 

need to be informed by good science. Communication of these efforts to the stakeholder 

community is essential, especially the explanations of how the research underpinnings are 

integrated into the formation of the U.S. policy. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue communicating strategic planning and 

the status of research efforts that inform environmental policy decisions. Specifically, it 

is recommended that the FAA should conduct a workshop for stakeholders, including the 

international community, to communicate the status and underlying assumptions of the 

use of the Agency’s Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT). 

Finding (7): The PARTNER Center of Excellence appears to be maturing and making 

excellent contributions to the environmental research effort. We continue to remain 

concerned about proposed Congressional language in the FAA Reauthorization bill that 

calls for the establishment of a new Center of Excellence on alternative fuels. The 

existing PARTNER structure already has the capacity to conduct this research. 
Recommendation: If an additional Center of Excellence is established, existing COE’s 

should be encouraged to compete for selection and the Agency should consider the 

additional costs associated with administering a new COE when conducting its source 

selection. 

Subcommittee on Human Factors

Background: Previous recommendation and FAA response letter dated January 29, 

2010. Recommendation: Continue to place strong emphasis on human factors issues, as 

reflected in the Human System Integration Roadmap 

FAA Response: We agree that the Human System Integration (HSI) Roadmap is pivotal 

to addressing human factors issues for NextGen. ATO-P Office of Human Factors 

Research and Engineering (AJP-61) is identifying and tracking areas for improvement in 

the next annual update to start in the second quarter of FY 2010, and will continue to 

keep the Human Factors Subcommittee abreast of these activities. 

Finding (1): As noted above in the FAA’s response to this recommendation, human 

factors is receiving gradually increasing emphasis as the FAA moves forward with 

NextGen. In particular, this evidence was provided by: 

• A sustained high budgeting level in critical human factors research areas, both within 

Flight Deck and Air Traffic , particularly with regard to self separation including the 

various options for delegating responsibilities to the flight crew, and air-ground 

integration (and their implications for human-automation interaction), as well as the 

F&E budgeting for the controller workforce. 

• The January meeting, held with Steve Bradford, that initiated discussions into key 

needs for R,E & D in NextGen to address human factors issues within. 

• The human factors portfolio about which we were briefed provides a very suitable 

vehicle for integrating and disseminating HF research to the wider NextGen design 

community. 

• The emphasis in the FAA’s response on understanding pilot and controller response 

to off-nominal events. 

Recommendation (a): Continue the progress toward deeper involvement of human 

factors in NextGen planning and research. We believe that continued development of the 

HSI roadmap is a major vehicle for making this happen. However, this planning effort 

must also extend beyond the research planning focus of AJP-61 to an extensive review of 

NextGen plans for the need to address human factors issues. This review should consider 

where assumptions about human performance in future NextGen operations establish 

technical and programmatic risks that need to be mitigated by a risk management strategy 

that preemptively identifies and seeks mitigations to the most likely and significant risks. 

Likewise, this planning effort must plan for the key decision points and critical path items 

contingent upon addressing human factors in NextGen development. 
Recommendation (b): We recommend that the NextGen I&I office (AJP-A) vigorously 

pursue the appointment of a full time position for Chief Systems Engineer for-Human 

Factors. This position must be given the responsibility and authority to examine 

NextGen plans for situations where human factors considerations must be addressed, both 

to meet the NextGen plans as articulated, and to mitigate technical and program risks 

established by assumptions about human performance. In addition, this position should 

serve to foster the appropriate application of human factors knowledge throughout 

NextGen developments, as well as identifying areas needing research. Thus, this position 

will additionally serve as a vital link between the research focus of AJP-61 and 

development and engineering aspects of NextGen developments applying human factors. 

We recommend that AJP-61 personnel have input in assessing the qualifications of 

potential hires for this position 

Recommendation (c): As we have in the past, we recommend that every effort be made 

to select a permanent replacement for the head of AJP-61, following the departure of 

Karlin Toner. 

Recommendation (d): As we have in the past (September Rec 1c), we recommend that 

the subcommittee be briefed on two critical areas with HF components (but outside the 

funding lines of AJP-61): (1) Human factors aspects of the weather program by AJP-68, 

and (2) concepts of operations and research by AJP-66. We recognize that such briefings 

could not be scheduled for the recent March meeting because of time constraints. 

Recommendation (e): Assure that the new human factors research portfolio makes 

contact with (articulates in general form) all of those HF efforts within the FAA that lie 

outside of the direct funding line of AJP-61. 

Recommendation (f): We recommend that the current FAA research program continue 

to follow the guidance of the Administrator's response, and insure that human in the loop 

simulations include off-nominal events, and focus on evaluating pilot and controller 

responses to those events. 

Background: Previous recommendation and FAA response letter dated January 29, 

2010. 

Recommendation: Continue the excellent progress of collaboration with NASA’s 

Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck project, within the Aviation Safety Program. 

FAA Response: We agree and AJP-61 will continue collaboration to ensure involvement 

with the NASA Aviation Safety Program’s Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck Project with 

particular emphasis on applications such as merging and spacing and closely spaced 

parallel operations. We will also emphasize transitioning NASA research products to 

FAA for integration as part of our NextGen Air Ground Integration research efforts. 

Finding (2): We were fully satisfied with the FAA’s response that such collaboration 

remains in force and is expanding. In particular the research portfolio of Flight Deck 
NextGen projects reflects a very high level of coordination with and FAA funding of 

research performed by NASA that leverages their expertise and resources. 

 

Recommendation: Continue on-going collaboration in the areas of Air Traffic and 

Airspace Systems. Of note out of FAA-funded reimbursable tasks to be completed by 

NASA, we hope that the FAA will soon exploit the results of the task generating 

recommendations regarding ATC priority research issues for NextGen. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee received a series of excellent briefings from human 

factors researchers at MITRE, regarding HITL simulations of various concepts that will 

appear in NextGen. From this briefing it appeared that the FAA, through AJP-61 has 

taken a good step forward for keeping closely in touch with the conduct and products of 

this high quality and NextGen-relevant human factors-related research. This briefing also 

provided an opportunity for AJP-61 staff to learn about MITRE CAASD research in 

related areas, and establish direct contacts. 

Recommendation: The FAA (via AJP-61) should continue the coordination and look 

for opportunities to progress the coordination with MITRE, as much of it appears to fit 

directly into issues within the HSI roadmap, and has profound implications for future 

concepts (e.g., potential increase in controller workload, resulting from the more rapid 

updates associated with ADS-B driven displays.) 

NAS Operations Subcommittee

Observation: The subcommittee held its meeting at the MIT Lincoln Laboratory, and 

heard briefings on MIT/LL’s surveillance research, weather forecasting research, 

weather-ATM integration research, and air traffic control tower research. Additionally, 

briefings were given on the FAA’s PARTNER program, the FAA’s RED budget, and the 

FAA’s NAS Operations PPT research. The MIT/LL briefings were at an excellent level 

of technical depth, and gave the subcommittee members unusually clear insight into the 

way some of this work for the FAA is being conducted. 

Finding (1): The committee was briefed on two programs which will require new 

approaches to evaluating safety: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Airspace Access, 

and Staffed NextGen Tower (SNT). Both introduce new operating paradigms, with new 

and significantly different human roles and responsibilities. Overly conservative 

requirements, with insufficient analysis, will inhibit the addition of new capabilities. The 

subcommittee reaffirmed the statement in the October 19, 2009 REDAC letter to the 

Administrator that “there does not appear to be a clear system-level process for managing 

risk and arbitrating safety requirements for new systems or procedures.” At the REDAC 

meeting in April, the Chair learned with pleasure of the “lean” process instituted by AVS 

and ATO as an excellent first step to have such a process. 

Recommendation: The NASOPS subcommittee requests a briefing to the full 

subcommittee on the new processes for assessing safety levels developed by AVS and 

ATO. 
Finding (2): The budget briefing contained the RED budget request for FY11 and one 

line (BLI 1A08) from the F&E budget devoted to NextGen, but information from other 

CIP BLIs, such as those for the NextGen Solution Sets, was not forthcoming. Clearly, 

R&D (as defined by OMB) for NextGen is being performed in these other lines (e.g. 

RWI). Without complete budgetary and programmatic context of the FAA’s R&D 

program, NASOPS is unable to give balanced advice on the overall allocation of R&D 

efforts and whether the most important work is being undertaken. NASOPS has raised 

this issue before. 

Recommendation: All Research and Development for NextGen should be presented to 

NASOPS, which would include that performed in funding under Solution Sets, 

Transformational Programs, and/or cross-cutting R&D 

Findings (3): The majority of NextGen R&D presented emphasizes Part 121 NextGen 

implementation, with little attention focused on on-demand commercial air carriers, air 

taxis, charter, business, corporate, private and other GA operators. Without addressing 

the unique aspects of these operators, NextGen implementation may be delayed and 

opportunities for innovation will be missed. 

Recommendation: Develop an overall R&D strategy, identifying top research issues 

and key decisions the research will drive, for all classes of aviation, and recommend the 

overall strategy for fostering and maturing research and development for both mid-term 

and long-term time periods. The strategy should include R&D focused on activities in 

Parts 135 and 91, as well as UAS and rotorcraft operations. 

Findings (4): The FAA’s R&D investments are weighted to enable the mid-term 

implementation of NextGen capabilities. The lead for longer term NextGen outcomes 

require sustained investment beginning now to ensure timely implementation. The 

subcommittee is concerned that these areas are inadequately funded, and that the is FAA 

not planning to leverage innovation in the private sector (e.g., using incentives such as 

the “X prize” , public-private collaborations, or the establishment of notional 

performance requirements) for these long-term objectives. 

Recommendation: This R&D should capitalize on innovation from the private sector, 

partly by including consideration of how to incentivize users to equip (e.g. “first 

adopters”). 

Finding (5): There remains a need to better understand the overall context of the 

research needs and fit of the Concept Development work being done relative to NextGen 

development. Additionally, this area has been cut in funding, contrary to previous 

recommendations. 

Recommendations (a): Provide the subcommittee future briefings on context and fit 

between the concept development and exploration research and the NextGen plans and 
Enterprise Architecture. Specific focus on connecting the research to the solution sets, 

infrastructure roadmaps (e.g. automation and human factors), and OI’s is needed. 

(b) As was recommended by NASOPS previously, more resources should be devoted to 

this activity. Current funding does not permit far term concept development (e.g. > 

2018), or research on concepts not currently in the portfolio (e.g. dynamic airspace 

resectorization, TFM evolution ConOps, 4-D trajectory management.) 

Finding (6): The MIT/LL briefings were a “deep dive” into weather forecast technology 

and the interaction with TFMM mechanisms. The committee was very pleased with the 

quality of the work. The evolution of weather research at MIT/LL, NOAA, ESRL, and 

NCAR into development of useful products now including CoSPA is a testimonial to the 

value of this research, and MIT/LL staff did an excellent job noting the inclusivity of 

efforts among these labs. 

These briefings showed progress in addressing some of the recommendations of the 

WAIWG by the work at MIT/LL, but the remainder of the weather-ATM integration 

R&D being accomplished elsewhere needs to be addressed in this regard. For example, 

the committee was told that the FY10 funding for the RWI and NNEW areas has been 

delayed due to internal FAA processes. 

Recommendation: NASOPS will request a complete FAA weather R&D briefing, with 

a strategy for addressing the WAIWG recommendations and equivalent levels of detail 

for work being funded elsewhere, at an upcoming meeting. 

Finding (7): Traffic managers are concerned with managing the scarce NAS resources 

to best meet the needs of NAS users. They have become specialized in their roles as 

managers of the NAS assets and flows. This is a very different job from that performed 

by controllers, but traffic managers are nonetheless selected from the ranks of the Air 

Traffic Controllers and were originally selected with the controller skill set in mind. We 

were encouraged to hear that the FAA human factors research is exploring (mid-term) 

NextGen controller selection criteria and training, but, there is currently little or no 

human factors focus on the unique and growing role of Air Traffic Managers. 

Recommendations (a): Initiate a human factors research program to identify the 

specific skill set required for Air Traffic Managers in the present and 2018 NextGen 

systems. This research should culminate in selection and training standards for Air 

Traffic Managers. 

(b) Initiate a research effort to identify the skill sets required for Air Traffic Controllers 

and Airspace Managers for 2025 and beyond, since the people who will be hired in the 

next 5-10 years will still be in these jobs in that time frame, but the role of controllers 

airspace managers will undergo significant changes in that timeframe. 

Finding (8): NASOPS was impressed with the breadth of projects in the FAA’s COE 

E&E program PARTNER. Overall funding has increased to $8M for the current FY, and 
the funding appears to be stable. A strong cadre of partner universities participates in 

PARTNER with good support from industry in the projects. NASOPS did not, however, 

receive sufficient insight into the overall program to judge quality and portfolio 

adequacy. 

Recommendation: NASOPS requests “deep dive” briefings on PARTNER to (a) 

understand how it fits into the overall E&E program, (b) assess ATM-related projects 

being conducted, and (c) understand PARTNER processes for technology transfer