1

Subcommittee on Human Factors WINTER/SPRING 2017 | MINUTES

Meeting date | March 28-29, 2017

Meeting location | NASA Ames, Moffett Field, CA

Purpose: Review the R&D accomplishments for fiscal year 2017.

Facilitator: Dr. Sherry Chappell, DFO

Note Taker: Dr. Sherry Chappell, DFO

All releasable briefings can be found at: https://redacdb.faa.gov/browse.cfm.

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, March 28th, 2017

Welcome and Overview of the Human Systems Integration Division | Presenter Alonso Vera, Chief, Human 

Systems Integration Division

Alonso Vera provided an overview of the NASA Human Systems Integration Division. He explained that there were 

different branches of the division. The Human-Machine Interaction Branch is responsible for developing software 

for space systems. The Human Performance Branch has work in both space and aeronautics and makes up roughly 

8-10% of the division’s funding. Integration and Training is the largest branch in the division. It has many resources, 

including the Airspace Ops Lab, the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) Lab, UAS in the NAS program, and the HumanCentered Systems Lab. This branch is also responsible for the review of Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)

reports, and they have set up a similar reporting system for the Federal Rail Administration. 

Alonso transitioned to an update on planning and scheduling in space, focusing on the Mars Rover. He explained 

that the Rover’s 1st mission was not entirely planned in advance, as the rover is sophisticated to the point that it will 

analyze in real-time, moving toward scheduling by the people in space, rather than people on earth.

Alonso concluded with the topic of Human Performance, further describing labs that they have as resources (Human 

Vibration Lab, Fatigue Lab, Virtual Environments Lab). He finished by stating that the FAA has a large role in 

determining what comes of NASA research.

National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) Redesign | Presenter Shelley Yak, FAA Director of William J. 

Hughes Technical Center, REDAC Co-Chair

Shelly Yak briefed the committee on the redesign of the National Aviation Research Plan (NARP). She explained that 

there were different types of research funding: Airport Improvement Program; Research, Engineering, and 

Development; and Facilities and Equipment. The latter funds most of the NextGen projects and work at MITRE 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD).

She explained that the NARP is submitted yearly, and urged the committee to provide feedback. This feedback is 

necessary to develop a high-level research plan that outlines strategy that aligns with the FAA’s mission. Shelly 

explained that out of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit came recommendations to make the 

NARP more forward-looking and that the prioritization process should be more transparent. The redesign of the 

NARP will be carried out by the Research Executive Board (REB) for February 2018. The goal is to receive feedback 

from the REDAC, then improve based on that feedback for 2019. Shelly stressed that we (Human Factors 

Subcommittee) must leverage knowledge from the FAA, academia, and interagency partnerships.
2

 Within the Research, Engineering, and Development Program are the following

o Pavement

o Airport & terminal

o Air traffic management

o Commercial space

o UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems)

o Fire safety

o Aircraft structures

o Propulsion & fuel systems

o Digital systems

 Hardware design

 Cyber security

o Weather

 Forecasting

 Better weather in cockpit

o Icing

o Cross-cutting across all of the above areas

 Mission support

 Human engineering

 Cyber security

 System safety management

 Environment & energy/fuels

Shelly continued by explaining the goals of the research plan. Some of these goals include:

 Improving airport operations, air traffic & air space management capabilities

 Accelerating use of new aerospace vehicle & airport technologies

 Increasing infrastructure durability & resiliency

 Identifying emerging technologies & knowledge gaps

Shelly acknowledges that the FAA is not usually involved in the development of technologies, but there are instances 

where they have (e.g. fuel tank inerting; industry claimed it was too difficult). Finally, Shelly again urged the 

subcommittee for their feedback.

FY19 Requirements: ATC/TechOps Human Factors Efforts | Presenter Jason Demagalski, AJI Human 

Performance Manager

Jason Demagalski briefed the committee on the FY19 Requirements for ATC/TechOps. He began by explaining that a 

current struggle was to balance the current demands for information with doing longer-term research. He admitted 

that the roundtable process was not yet where it needed to be. There are 30,000 people in the ATO and the Human 

Factors expertise is spread out among many different organizations. He explained that they were currently 

developing a team resource management course to be delivered where problems existed, but they want to make it 

available to everyone. They have produced a fatigue app called “Fully Charged” (www.fullychargedapp.com). They 

also have plans to utilize gaming to enhance ATC training, using games to build skills.
3

Mixed Equipage Discussion, F&R Fall 2016 Recommendation #1 | Presenters Kathy Abbott, Chief Scientific 

and Technical Advisor, Flight Deck Human Factors; Jason Demagalski, AJI Human Performance Manager

Kathy Abbott and Jason Demagalski led a discussion on mixed-equipage, prompted by a recommendation from the 

previous REDAC meeting. They started by providing a brief overview on the topic, explaining that currently there 

was no Human Factors specific research on mixed-equipage, however, it was addressed as part of many research 

programs. For example, when air traffic procedures are being developed, the FAA looks at accommodating all types 

of aircraft and pilot qualifications. Flight standards give approval for operators to use a specific type of flight deck 

equipment; they then monitor operations to ensure there are no safety issues. In addition, the FAA closely monitors 

the implementation of new procedures.

They went on to explain the Lead Carrier Program, which involves working with the lead airline on a specific 

procedure at an airport. In evaluating new ATC procedures, simulations have mixed-equipage scenarios that look at 

the impact of low equipage and almost complete equipage. As new capabilities are being added they are looked at 

individually, as mixed-equipage as part of the development process. They went on to note that NAS Ops has a 

Finding and Recommendation (F&R) on mixed equipage, and this information should be leveraged. The 

subcommittee wants the FAA to be aware of this issue as new capabilities are being implemented. The presenters 

asked if the F&R could be closed, and the committee agreed that it could be closed. Certain committee members 

were tasked with developing another F&R.

NextGen efficiencies increase with HF consultation or HF research, F&R Fall 2016 Recommendation #4 | 

Presenter Stephanie Kreseen, Scientific & Technical Advisor for Human Factors

Stephanie Kreseen briefed the committee on NextGen efficiencies increase with HF research. She explained that the 

HF team was looking at the Established on RNP at Seattle and Denver. The hope was that by doing this, the group 

will gain lessons learned from these pre-implementation sites. There are six different systems/procedures being

developed for the time, speed and spacing tools. The group was also looking at contingency ops in degraded 

NextGen environments. Stephanie emphasized that involvement of Human Factors research must be done at the 

pre-implementation period. Post-implementation reviews should only apply to new equipment, not new 

procedures. Stephanie urged the committee to recognize this, and aid in the effort by continuing the dialogue on 

this topic. The committee can also contribute by taking a closer look at topics such as airspace restriction, weather, 

congestion, etc. Stephanie asked the committee if this F&R can be closed, and the committee agreed that it can be 

closed.

NASA-FAA UAS Traffic Management (UTM) Research Transition | Presenter Tom Prevot, NASA Ames

Tom Prevot briefed on the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) Research Transition. He began by explaining that this 

program was a joint NASA-FAA program. UTM is an air traffic management ecosystem for uncontrolled airspace. It 

is a separate, but complementary system to the air traffic management system. The initial focus is below 400 ft AGL 

in all but Class A airspace. He explained the conditions that surround the operation of a UAS, specifically for the 

operator. Communication, navigation, and surveillance all must be in place. The operator must register, then 

undergo training and qualify to operate the UAS. The operator must comply with airspace constraints, and avoid 

problematic weather. He went on to explain the regulator’s role in this transition, that being able to define and 

inform the operators of airspace constraints, as well as facilitate collaboration among UAS operators so as to avoid 

conflicts.
4

Tom described a test that took place at UAS test sites for 13 flight hours by 14 operators. The test observed a 

number of conflict alerts, intruder alerts, flight conformance alerts for staying within airspace, priority ops, 

simulated contingency ops, and others. They acknowledged the major effect that conditions such as wind, 

temperature, and altitude have on UAS. Tom explained that the next test will have 

the UAS service supplier technologies & procedures integrating into NASA UTM.

Wednesday, March 29th, 2017

Budget Update | Presenter Mike Gallivan, Manager RE&D Financial Management

Mike Galivan presented the budget update. The R, E&D FY 17 Budget Request was $167.5M. The agency was

currently under a Continuing Resolution thru April 28, 2017. The agency was operating on a budget based on the FY 

2016 appropriation. There were no new starts that were proposed in the FY 2017 Budget Request.

AVS Research Prioritization Process, F&R Fall 2016 Recommendation #3 | Presenter Mark Orr, AVS R&D 

Manager

Mark Orr briefed the committee on the AVS Research Prioritization Process, starting by explaining that the FAA has 

coordinated with the technical sponsors of the research projects to ensure that the top priorities are addressed. 

The budget is specified by congress, and his group can move 10% of money in or out of BLIs as needed. The AVS 

research is applied research according to OMB. There are 3 criteria for evaluating research needs: 1) safety risk 

reductions, 2) gaps in regulation or policy; and 3) commitments the FAA has made (e.g. NTSB recommendations) or 

congressional demands.

Mark emphasized that with this money, the people are paid before any amount goes towards research. Under a 

Continuing Resolution (CR), the numbers from the previous year’s budget are used, so a cut to a BLI continues 

through the CR. In the year of execution, unbudgeted research can be funded. A committee member questioned if 

the FAA is able to retain a core expertise that will support the important HF issues. They also separately asked if the 

FAA should identify areas that they have in-house expertise. A new F&R will be coming from this.

Mark asked the committee if this F&R can be closed, and the committee agreed that it should be closed.

FY19 Requirements Flight Deck Core & NextGen | Presenter Kathy Abbott, Chief Scientific and Technical 

Advisor, Flight Deck Human Factors

Kathy Abbott briefed the committee on FY19 Flight Deck Requirements for both Core and NextGen. Beginning with 

Core, Kathy explained that industry comes to the FAA to get approval, so research is necessary for Avionics & New 

Technologies to support guidance and regulations. Moving on to NextGen, a committee member asked if an F&R on 

NextGen Complexity would be helpful; the committee did not reach a consensus. 

Kathy continued onto emerging issues, explaining that in 2019, there will be a new requirement to train pilots on 

monitoring. Europeans are requiring pilots to be trained in resilience/mental flexibility; Alonso mentioned that 

NASA has already introduced this as part of its selection process for astronauts. Kathy’s team is currently looking at 

developing a new Advisory Circular (AC) on flight path management. The Pilot Controller Procedures and Systems 

Integration Working Group is looking at phraseology issues, including differences between ICAO & FAA. The
5

committee discussed whether there should be an F&R on resiliency/complexity in order to get funding from 

NextGen. The committee agreed that there should be and one would be drafted.

FAA’s UAS Human Factors Outreach Program, F&R Fall 2016 Recommendation #2 | Presenters Stephen 

Plishka, Human Factors Engineer; Michelle Yeh, AIR R&D Manager

Stephen Plishka and Michelle Yeh briefed the committee on the FAA’s UAS Human Factors Outreach Program. At a 

UAS Symposium that week – Stephen provided UAS developers with the general guidance documents. Stephen will 

see about putting a link on the UAS website to the general guidance documents. Kathy Abbott has plans for a 

workshop on UAS Autonomy. A committee member asked if the FAA had a list of all the meetings on automation; 

Stephen answered saying he will check with his management. Stephen and Michelle asked the committee if this 

F&R can be closed; the committee agreed that it could be closed.

Update on UAS HF Research, Action Item #3 | Presenter Ashley Awwad, Scientific & Technical Advisor for 

Human Factors

Ashley Awwad briefed the committee on the UAS Human Factors Research Plan. She explained that the current 

approach for UAS is a “clean slate” approach. They were not basing the control station design on manned aviation, 

as this was tried by the Air Force and was not shown to be a good approach. Leah will share the Air Force’s findings 

on competencies for border patrol UAS pilots. A committee member asked if the research addresses ATC 

procedures as well; Ashley explained that it does not at this time. Stephen Plishka made a point that AFRL had done 

a lot of work on multiple UAS for a single operator; however, this did not get funded for FY19. He also noted that 

there was a NATO Panel looking at autonomy in this area.

Aviation Safety Reporting System UAS Findings | Presenter Linda Connell, Director, Aviation Safety 

Reporting System

Linda Connell briefed the committee on the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) as it related to UAS. She 

explained that all ASRS UAS reports go into the database. They then analyze the context of the UAS event, given the 

information in the report. They can do call-back studies for ~$75K/year. They also have the ability to create 

software that triggers another data collection if an ASRS report is filed on a certain topic.

Flight Deck Task Management | Presenter Barbara Holder, Technology Fellow, Honeywell Aerospace

Barbara Holder briefed the committee on a project for the FAA’s Human Factors Division on Flight Deck Task 

Management. Task management was identified in the FltDAWG report as being a major factor in flight path 

management, both the strategic and tactical aspects of task management. The industry survey revealed that 

workload management was often taught instead of or in conjunction with task management. Currently, training on 

information management is viewed as important, but it is not in place. Another topic was that of disruption 

management. In her study, all operators visited had training on this; however, nominal disruptions are left to pilot 

judgement. They also learned that instructors need training on how to train and evaluate task management. She 

emphasized that effective task management balances workload & keeps pilots ahead of the aircraft.
6

Other notes:

 Kathy Abbott was to give a briefing on Distance Learning & Training Methodologies Research

o Keep action item open

 Next meeting – Kim Cardosi will brief on their analysis on UAS ASRS study

In addition to the presentations, the subcommittee received the following demonstrations:

UAS Detect and Avoid Simulation Jay Shively, Sub-Project Manager for DAA for UAS in the NAS

Demonstration UAS Traffic Management Tom Prevot, Manager for UAS Traffic Management

Demonstration of NASA’s Program for Real-Time 

Safety Monitoring 

Matt Daigle, Indranil Roychoudhyru, and Lilly Spirkovska, 

Discovery and Systems Health

Attendees 

March 28, 2017

NAME COMPANY

Kenneth 

Allendoerfer

FAA, WJHTC

Jack 

Blackhurst

USAF

Maureen Molz FAA WJHTC

Alan Jacobsen Boeing

Dan Herschler FAA ANG-C1

Daniel Brock FAA/Flight 

Deck

Leah Rowe USAF AFRL

Chris DeSenti MITRE

Mark S. Orr FAA, AVS R&D 

Mgr

Paul Krois FAA

Alonso Vera NASA

Sherry 

Chappell

FAA

Jimmy Bruno FAA
7

Stephanie 

Kreseen

FAA

Carla 

Hackworth

FAA

Robert Barhydt NASA

Kim Cardosi DOT/Volpe

Kathy Abbott FAA

Tom Prevot NASA

Jason 

Demagalski

FAA

Indranil 

Roychoudhury

NASA/SGT

Wendy A. 

Okolo

NASA

Lilly 

Spirkovska

NASA

Matthew 

Daigle

NASA

Chinita 

RoundtreeColeman

FAA

Barbara Holder Honeywell

David 

McKenney

ALPA

Maura Lorenz DOT/Volpe VIA 

TELEPHONE

Regina 

Bollinger

FAA “ 

“

Carol Manning FAA CAMI “ 

“

Roger ? “ 

“

Phil Smith OSU “ 

“
8

Shelly Yak FAA VIA 

TELEPHONE

Ashley Awaad FAA “ 

“

Carl Bertson FAA Contractor “ 

“

Evan Harvey FAA Contractor “ 

“

March 29, 2017

NAME COMPANY

Sherry 

Chappell

FAA

Kathy Abbott FAA

David 

McKenney

ALPA

Richard 

Barhydt

NASA

Barbara 

Holder

Honeywell

Chris DeSenti MITRE

Mark Orr FAA

Jimmy Bruno FAA

Jessica 

Nowinski

NASA

Stephanie 

Kreseen

FAA

Linda Connell NASA AMES

Jack 

Blackhurst

USAF

Alan Jacobsen Boeing

Leah Rowe USAF

Kim Cardosi DOT/Volpe
9

Maureen Molz FAA

Carla 

Hackworth

FAA

Kenneth 

Alexander

FAA

Dan Herschler FAA

Daniel Brock FAA

Paul Krois FAA

Evan Harvey FAA Contractor VIA TELEPHONE

Carl Bentson FAA Contractor “ 

“

Michele Yeh FAA “ 

“

Ashley Awaad FAA “ 

“

Stephen 

Plishka

FAA “ 

“
Federal Aviation Administration REDAC Human Factors Subcommittee

NASA Ames Research Center, Bldg N262 Room 100, Moffett Field, CA

Meeting Agenda, March 28-29, 2017

1

DAY 1 – Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Join WebEx meeting

Meeting number: 994 126 996

Host key: 515461

Meeting password: PG6XMTD$

Time Topic Presenter

8:00 am – 8:30 am Pick up visitor badge/register vehicle at NASA 

Visitors Facility

8:30 am – 9:00 am

30 minutes

Welcome / Opening comments / Introductions Jack Blackhurst, HF Subcommittee Chair

Sherry Chappell, DFO

9:00 am – 9:30 am

30 minutes

Welcome & Overview of the Human Systems 

Integration Division

Alonso Vera, Chief, Human Systems 

Integration Division

9:30 am – 10:00 am

30 minutes

National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) 

Redesign

Shelley Yak, FAA Director of William J. Hughes 

Technical Center, REDAC Co-Chair

10:00 am – 10:30 am Morning Break 30 minutes

10:30 am – 11:30 pm

60 minutes

FY19 Requirements ATC/TechOps

and Center of Excellence Human Factors 

efforts

Jason Demagalski, AJI Human Performance

Manager

11:30 am – 1:00 am Lunch 90 minutes

1:00 pm – 1:20 pm

20 minutes

Mixed Equipage Discussion

F&R Fall 2016 Recommendation #1

Kathy Abbott, Chief Scientific & Technical 

Advisor, Flight Deck Human Factors

Jason Demagalski, AJI Human Performance

Manager

1:20 pm – 1:40 pm

20 minutes

NextGen efficiencies increase with HF 

consultation or HF research

F&R Fall 2016 Recommendation #4

Stephanie Kreseen, Scientific & Technical 

Advisor for Human Factors

1:40 pm – 2:25 pm

45 minutes

Demonstration of NASA’s Program for RealTime Safety Monitoring 

Action Item #4

Kai Goebel, Tech Area Lead for Discovery and 

Systems Health

2:25 pm – 2:40 pm Afternoon Break 15 minutes

2:40 pm – 4:00 pm

80 minutes

NASA-FAA UAS Traffic Management (UTM)

Research Transition

Tom Prevot

4:00 pm – 4:45 pm

45 minutes

Demonstration UAS Traffic Management 

Bldg N262 room H211

Tom Prevot

4:45 pm – 5:00 pm

15 minutes

Homework Assignments – Review of Action 

Items

All

Evening Dinner – location TBD All
Federal Aviation Administration REDAC Human Factors Subcommittee

NASA Ames Research Center, Bldg N262 Room 100, Moffett Field, CA

Meeting Agenda, March 28-29, 2017

2

Day 2- Wednesday March 29, 2016

Join WebEx meeting

Meeting number: 993 062 538

Host key: 983767

Meeting password: YCCnXx@6

Time Topic Presenter

8:00 am – 8:20 am

20 minutes

Budget Update Mike Gallivan, Manager, R,E&D Financial 

Management

8:20 am – 9:00 am

40 minutes

AVS Research Prioritization Process

F&R Fall 2016 Recommendation #3

Mark Orr, AVS R&D Manager

9:00 am – 10:00 am

60 minutes

FY19 Requirements Flight Deck Core & NextGen Kathy Abbott, Chief Scientific & Technical 

Advisor, Flight Deck Human Factors

10:00 am – 10:30 am Morning Break 30 minutes

10:30 am – 11:00 am

30 minutes

Q&A/Finding and Recommendation Discussion All

11:00 am – 11:15 am

15 minutes

FAA’s UAS Human Factors Outreach Program

F&R Fall 2016 Recommendation #2

Stephen Plishka, Human Factors Engineer

Michelle Yeh, AIR R&D Manager

11:15 am – 11:45 am

15 minutes

Update on UAS HF Research

Action Item #3

Ashley Awwad, Scientific & Technical 

Advisor for Human Factors

11:45 am – 1:15 pm Lunch 90 minutes

1:15 pm – 2:15 pm

60 minutes

UAS Detect and Avoid Simulation

Bldg 243, DSRL Lab

Jay Shively, Sub-Project Manager for DAA for 

UAS in the NAS

2:15 pm – 2:45 pm

30 minutes

Aviation Safety Reporting System UAS Findings Linda Connell, Director, Aviation Safety 

Reporting System

2:45 pm – 3:15 pm

30 minutes

Flight Deck Task Management Barbara Holder, Technology Fellow, 

Honeywell Aerospace

3:15 pm – 3:35 pm Afternoon Break 20 minutes

3:35 pm – 3:55 pm

20 minutes

Distance Learning & Training Methodologies 

Research

Action Item #9 & 10

Kathy Abbott, Chief Scientific & Technical 

Advisor, Flight Deck Human Factors

3:55 pm – 4:30 pm

35 minutes

Q&A/Findings and Recommendations 

Discussion/Wrap up-Homework AssignmentsReview of action Items

All

EVENING Networking – location TBD