Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 

October 3, 2007 

Meeting Minutes 

On Wednesday, October 3, 2007, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Research, 

Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), held a meeting in the 

Bessie Coleman Room, at 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., in Washington, DC. Attachments 1 

and 2 provide the meeting agenda and attendance, respectively. 

Welcome and Introductory Remarks 

Mr. Barry Scott, REDAC Executive Director, read the public meeting announcement and turned 

the meeting over to the REDAC Chair, Dr. John Hansman. 

Dr. John Hansman, REDAC Chair, welcomed the members and audience participants. He 

reminded everyone the full committee membership had decreased in size and that most of the 

work is done within the subcommittees. 

Operational Evolution Partnership – Vicki Cox 

Vicki Cox, Vice President, ATO Operations Planning, briefed on the Operational Evolution 

Partnership (OEP). She discussed defining the OEP domains and the seven “Solution Sets” 

targeted to address Capacity, Efficiency, Safety and Security. 

Ms. Cox reviewed the format below for the REDAC input of the OEP review. 

Request Subcommittee Recommendations on Planned Domain/Solution Set R,E&D and 

Capital R&D Activities 

– Address all Solution Sets or Domains that are appropriate for the Subcommittee 

– Recommend priorities 

– Comment on linkages including those with other agencies 

– Comment on proposed approach 

– Recommend alternative approaches if appropriate 

Request Subcommittee Recommendations on Demonstrations

– By appropriate Subcommittees 

– Comment on proposed approach 

– Recommend alternative approaches if appropriate 

We will make specific requests of the subcommittees once we have our FY09 budget pass back 

and have made appropriate adjustments to our FY09 planning. 

The REDAC recommendations will be discussed and approved at the March 5, 2008 meeting. 

Dr. John Hansman will present the Committee’s recommendations to the OEP Advisory Board. 
Next Gen/JPDO Update – Robert Pearce 

Robert Pearce, Deputy Director of the NextGen JPDO, briefed the members on the JPDO and 

NextGen. He stated the goal is to achieve a Next Generation Air Transportation System that 

meets the nation’s future air transportation safety, security, mobility, efficiency, and 

environmental needs. He stated a plan is in place for providing a mechanism for alignment and 

oversight in conjunction with various agencies. Implementation approaches include: 

• Operation Evolution Partnership (OEP) 

• NextGen Program Office 

• Inter-agency Weather Study Team 

• U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

• NASA – Aeronautics Research Plan 

Mr. Pearce commented on the focus and objectives for FY07 and FY08. FY07 was about 

completing the NextGen Plan. FY08 will be about achieving alignment and supporting 

implementation decision-making, while continuing to build depth and fidelity into the plan. 

The Committee expressed concerns of needing a more solid, clearer plan. They asked: what is 

the feedback method for the gap analysis; what are the top 2 or 3 in the gap analysis; and what 

are the real shortfalls and status? Noted that without having key research drivers and key 

policies, implementation for 2008 cannot be made. Things that are really “hard” in the plan are 

unclear. 

Members stated that if things have changed they are not aware of them. What are the priorities 

and what research needs to be done to support it? Reiterate in detail what the current plan is. 

Identify the top-level requirements, mid-level between the high-level and low-level and how to 

address them; key concepts development; the avionics road map; a time frame and traceability 

for the drivers. 

The Committee discussed possible ways for the concerns to be addressed. Mr. Pearce took an 

IOU to brief the members again and address the concerns. 

ACTION: JPDO will brief the Committee again in March. We will provide materials in 

advance for members to review prior to the meeting. 

NASA/JPDO Update – Lisa Porter 

Dr. Lisa Porter, Associate Administrator for Aeronautics, presented an overview of what NASA 

and JPDO have been working on and future coordinated plans. While JPDO is transitioning to 

its new organizational structure, NASA continues to provide support to the various divisions. In 

addition, NASA has worked closely with counterparts in FAA to advance these areas in a 

coordinated manner. The agency will begin to address the challenge of integrating advanced 

aircraft configurations into the NextGen. 

Dr. Porter reviewed the following: 

- Airspace Systems Program 

- Airborne Separation Assistance Concept & Safety Assessment 
- Functional Allocation of Separation Assurance (SA) 

- Aviation Safety Program 

- ASIAS Status – NASA Activities 

- Three Advanced Data-Mining Tools Applicable to ASIAS Developed in FY07 

- FY08 R&D Activities Supporting Vulnerability Discovery 

- Fundamental Aeronautics Program 

John Hansman commented that trying to figure out the gaps is critical. 

Dr. Porter invited members to visit the website for more information on NASA’s Aeronautics 

Research (www.aeronautics.nasa.gov). 

Update on Aviation Safety Information Analysis & Sharing (ASIAS) – Jay Pardee and 

Thomas Tessitore 

Mr. Jay Pardee along with Mr. Thomas Tessitore updated the members on ASIAS. They 

discussed the many ASIAS objectives and how an increase in system capacity demands 

improved methodologies. 

Mr. Pardee mentioned the various groups affiliated with ASIAS. He stated the transition of 

ASIAS to MITRE has been successfully completed. In addition, MITRE has completed initial 

high priority tasks that include an analysis of CAST Safety Metrics, and development of V1 

ASIAS Operational Concept. 

The ASIAS Executive Board (AEB) will: consist of two co-chairs (AVS & Industry); 

representative of key stakeholders; and consensus-based decision making. The board will 

provide guidance and oversight over the ASIAS program. They will coordinate analytical efforts 

among industry/government entities. The AEB will forward all analytical products to 

appropriate safety teams for in-depth analysis. 

Weather Working Group (Report Approval) – Bill Leber and Ray LaFrey 

Mr. Bill Leber (Chair) and Mr. Ray LaFrey (Co-Chair) presented the final report of the WeatherATM Integration Working Group. The objective of the twelve-month study was examining the 

potential benefits associated with a higher degree of integration between two dissimilar and 

fundamentally inexact sciences, namely weather and air traffic management. The study would 

also provide specific recommendations to the FAA that were considered most likely to lead to 

better, more efficient ATM solutions, in the face of weather constraints. 

Mr. Leber stated that approximately 70% of NAS delays are attributed to weather. He reviewed 

the key findings and recommendations of the report. Mr. Leber summarized that there are 

opportunities that exist to reduce the weather related delay for both tactical 0-2 hours and 

strategic 2-10 hour planning horizons. An integrated, cross disciplinary research program is also 

needed for this to be successful. 

The motion was presented and the report was approved. Members agreed to include a summary 

of recommendations at the beginning of the report. 
Presentation of Subcommittee Guidance for Fiscal Year 2010 

The standing subcommittees review FAA’s R&D investments in the areas of Air Traffic 

Services, Airport Technology, Aircraft Safety, Human Factors and Environment & Energy. 

Attachment 3 provides recommendations presented by the following chairs. 

REDAC Subcommittee Subcommittee Chair

NAS Operations Mr. Victor Lebacqz 

Airports Mr. Edward Gervais 

Aircraft Safety 

Human Factors 

Dr. Michael Romanowski 

Dr. John Hansman (for Dr. Kevin Corker) 

Environment & Energy Mr. Steve Alterman 

Action: Mr. Ed Gervais will summarize points of his June 25th memo and forward to 

Dr. Hansman for inclusion in the Committee’s letter to the Administrator. 

Committee Discussion – Guidance for FY 2010 

The members engaged in a discussion on the change in the FAA and NASA research efforts. 

Members commented that collaboration was improving in certain areas, but the research gaps are 

still unknown. 

The members agreed to provide comments relative to the briefing received by the JPDO. 

Members will receive another briefing at the next meeting and wish to have materials in advance 

to prepare. 

Dr. John Hansman thanked the members for the excellent work and adjourned the meeting. 

The Administrator’s letter is provided in Attachment 4. 
Attachment 1

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

800 Independence Avenue, SW – Round Room (10th Floor) 

Washington, DC 20591 

October 3, 2007 

Agenda

9:00 a.m. Welcome John Hansman 

Barry Scott, FAA 

9:15 a.m. Update – OEP 

- REDAC Task - Expectations 

Vicki Cox, FAA 

9:45 a.m. Progress Update – Next Gen – JPDO 

- Progress to date – future outlook 

Bob Pearce, FAA 

10:15 a.m. Progress Update - NextGen - JPDO 

- NASA (NASA’s plans for NextGen) 

- FAA (What Research & Technology 

Development are doing to move toward 

NextGen) 

Lisa Porter, NASA 

Barry Scott, FAA 

11:00 a.m. Break 

11:15 a.m. Update – ASIAS 

- Roles of FAA, NASA & Mitre 

Thomas Tessitore, FAA 

Jay Pardee, FAA 

11:45 a.m. Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety Mike Romanowski 

12:00 noon Lunch 

1:00 p.m. Report Approval - Weather Working Group Bill Leber 

Ray LaFrey 

Presentation of Subcommittee Guidance for FY 2010

1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Airports Ed Gervais 

1:45 p.m. Subcommittee on Human Factors John Hansman 

2:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Environment & Energy Steve Alterman 

2:15 p.m. NAS Operations Subcommittee Victor Lebacqz 

2:30 p.m. Break 

2:45 p.m. Committee Discussion – Guidance for FY 2010 

- Future Activity 

John Hansman 

3:30 p.m. Adjourn 
Attachment 2

REDAC Attendance – October 3, 2007

Members 

John Hansman, Chair Steve Alterman Lisa Porter 

Victor Lebacqz Michael Romanowski Edward Gervis 

Agam Sinha Barry Scott, Executive 

Director 

Other Attendees 

Denise, Davis, FAA Cathy Bigelow, FAA Lee Olson, FAA 

Monique Morris, FAA Sabrina Saunders-Hodge, 

FAA 

Paul Krois, FAA 

Gloria Dunderman, FAA Michelle Whetstine, FAA Nick Sabatini, FAA 

Victoria Cox, FAA Susan Conry, FAA Kelli Willshire, FAA 

William Leber, NWA Raymond LaFrey Bill Sears, Beacon 

Elizabeth Soltys, FAA Robert Pappas, FAA Tim Athan, House Science 

Committee 

Guy St.Sauvcur, DOD Michael Schwartz, FAA Chris Seher, SRA Int’l. 

Gisele Mohler, FAA John Wendelken, BAE . Dan Ellwell, FAA 

Frank Mangine, FAA Tom Tessitore, FAA 

Karlin Toner, NASA John Cavolowski, NASA Mike Basehore, FAA 

J.J. Furtck, FAA Jean Watson, FAA 

Lynn Pickard, FAA Susan Mertes, AIA Robert Pearce, JPDO 

Nick Stoer, NSA John White, NASA Nelson Miller, FAA 

Jay Pardee, FAA Art Shank, DOT/OIG Kevin Johnson, NOAA 

Charles Ruehle, FAA Peggy Gilligan, FAA Tom McCloy, FAA 

Mike Gallivan, FAA 
Attachment 3

Subcommittee on Airports – Ed Gervais, Chair

The Airport Subcommittee: 

 Encourages continued cooperation between the FAA and the TRB ACRP. 

u ACRP projects include the development of airport performance guidelines, trends 

and characteristics of rates and leasing policies, air quality impacts , the 

development of a multi-modal noise and emissions model, the development of an 

airspace analysis tool, methods for improved passenger throughput and prevention 

practices to avoid / minimize wildlife strikes. 

 Appreciates the continued funding support and recommends an increase 

 in staffing by one person in FY 09. 

 Strongly supports testing with the new large aircraft fire fighting mock-up at Tyndall 

AFB, FL, as well as continued research on: 

u FOD detection radar 

u Light emitting diode technology for airport lighting 

u Engineered Material Arresting Systems 

u Airfield pavement behavior and longevity 

u Design and construction of a materials laboratory at the Tech Center 

The Airport Subcommittee suggests that the FAA: 

 Consider taking on the most promising projects of the Innovative Pavement Research 

Foundation (IPRF) and the Airfield Asphalt Pavement Technology Program (AAPTP) in 

the event that either of those programs are not funded in the upcoming legislation. 

 Initiate a study of the affects of runway de-icing fluids on surface friction. 

 Consider staring a research project on the design of the location of exit taxiways, as a 

possible means to reduce runway occupancy times (this task relates to Next Gen 

initiatives). 

 That the projects that are currently underway at the Tech Center are of high value and 

importance and should continue as planned. 

Summary of Recent Events 

The Airport Subcommittee continues to enjoy good industry participation and has welcomed new 

members from the San Diego Regional Airport Authority and the Airline Pilots Assn. 

The National Pavement Test Facility continues to perform full scale pavement testing; currently 

evaluating concrete overlay performance under four wheel and six-wheel loading. 

Internationally – The FAA opinion regarding the outcome of the initial (1998-2002) test results, 

as related to ACN / PCN appears to be on it’s way to become the defining standard for the 

International Civil Aviation Organization ACN/PCN methodology. 
Attachment 3 – Continued

Subcommittee on Human Factors – Dr. John Hansman (for Dr. Kevin Corker)

There were three areas of focus in research and development that were reviewed by the 

subcommittee for Human Factors in a subcommittee meeting held at NASA Ames Research 

Center (September 14-16, 2007). 

1. The subcommittee was provided information on the new FAA organization with respect 

to the Human Factors Research and Engineering Group as a part of the Research and 

Technology Office in the Air Traffic Organization Operations Planning Services (ATOP). We were briefed on the roles and responsibilities of the Human Factors Research and 

Engineering Group and its processes with particular emphasis on how that Group is 

managed and how that organization is responsive to the Joint Planning and Development 

Office (JPDO). 

2. The subcommittee was also provided a view of the projected budget for Human Factors 

research and development (2008-2010). 

3. Finally, the subcommittee was provided a view of current NASA research in Human 

Factors research in the Airspace Systems and Safety Programs. These briefings were 

intended to support the subcommittee in making an assessment of “gaps” in Human 

Factors research associated with the JPDO’s requirements and changes in NASA’s 

strategic direction and budget. 

The following recommendations and comments of the committee are based on these 

perspectives. 

Summary Organizational Issues: 

The FAA has undergone significant organizational change in ATO-P supportive of JPDO and its 

research requirements. 

Finding 1: The committee finds that Human Factors research and human-system integration is 

well aligned into the ATO-P processes and supportive of the JPDO research program, as well as 

the Operational Evolution Partnership 

Recommendation: The subcommittee urges that the Human Factors Research and Engineering 

Group maintains its centrality in human-system integration research and attend to cross-cutting 

research issues in the ATO-P organization. Overall, the organizational structure, along with 

current and anticipated budgetary increases, bodes well for the appropriate level of concern for 

human-system integration. 

Finding 2: The subcommittee feels that cross cutting areas of applied Human Factors research 

(specifically, in the areas of safety, human error and modeling) provide an opportunity for 

assuring that “human factors” concerns become an integral system engineering element in both 

the ATO and AVS research and development processes. 
Summary Budget Issues 

A significant increase in funding for fiscal year 2008 and a further increase in 2009-2010 are 

anticipated. The subcommittee concludes that the combination of significant increase in budget 

and major organizational changes offer significant opportunity for development and integration 

of human factors research in support of: 

• decision-making in procurement issues, 

• development of near and midterm flight deck and ATC workstations, 

• development and convergence of ATC procedures and training, and 

• support of flight deck and ATC JPDO research requirements 

The subcommittee finds that the Human Factors office is responding to these and other specific 

areas of research development integration. 

Finding 3: There is a convergence of conditions that the subcommittee feels provides the 

Human Factors Research and Engineering Group with an opportunity to redefine itself at a 

national level within the Human Factors research community. The new organizational structures 

in ATO, the significant proposed increase in budget and the likely increase in the breadth of 

demand for applied human factors research, given changes in NASA’s roles and responsibilities 

in applied Human Factors research, remind the subcommittee of the opportunities and motivation 

provided for the National Plan for Aviation Human Factors. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends revisiting and updating a national Human 

Factors research plan, with the FAA taking the lead in applied aeronautical Human Factors 

research to address and define current gaps in support of JPDO research requirements. 

Summary Integration of Research with NASA 

It was a goal of this subcommittee meeting to have the Human Factors Subcommittee advise the 

FAA of the adequacy of its research portfolio given changes in NASA Aeronautical Human 

Factors research. It was, however, difficult to make an assessment of the NASA Human Factors 

research portfolio with respect to the FAA HF program. The subcommittee was provided 

presentation of specific research projects but did not receive information about the breadth or 

extent of NASA’s investment in aeronautical Human Factors. 

Finding 4: The committee did not feel it was in a position to make a comparison, or gap analysis, 

between NASA’s response to JPDO Next Generation research requirements in Human Factors 

and that work being performed by the FAA. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that an interagency programmatic exchange 

be undertaken with respect to applied aeronautical Human Factors and that the Human Factors 

Research and Engineering Group take the lead in this effort. 
Attachment 3 – Continued

Subcommittee on Environment & Energy – Mr. Steve Alterman, Chair

The Environment and Energy Sub-Committee of the FAA Research, Engineering and 

Development (RE&D) Advisory Committee (REDAC) held a two-day meeting on August 21-22, 

2007, in Arlington, Virginia. At that meeting, the sub-committee received status updates on 

various efforts and initiatives, including briefings from the Subcommittee’s Continuous Low 

Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) Task Force and the Operational Evolution Partnership 

(OEP). The subcommittee members spent the majority of the meeting focusing on defining 

environment and energy drivers and strategic priorities. 

The subcommittee identified the following specific issues as matters to bring to the attention of 

the Administrator. 

Issue 1: The subcommittee feels that developing solutions (technology/fuels, operations) to limit 

or mitigate environmental impacts is critical to the future of the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen). The maturing of technologies will have the greatest impact 

on future environmental advances and is therefore the most critical component. 

Recommendation 1: For environmental solutions to become viable, sufficient additional 

resources will be required. The FY09 budget as proposed in the NARP is the minimum 

investment required from the agency. 

Issue 2: The OEP briefing was critical since it ties research to implementation. Research in a 

vacuum does not solve problems; therefore, tying research to operational implementation is 

absolutely essential. 

Recommendation 2: Developing a robust R&D plan for enabling the OEP transformation is 

critical. It is also important that environmental concerns be identified as a major priority along 

with capacity, efficiency, safety, security. 

Issue 3: The subcommittee felt that the Office of Environment and Energy needs to reevaluate 

its strategic priorities. 

Members view NextGen efforts as equal in importance, if not more so, than efforts focused on 

the International Civil Aviation Organization Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

(ICAO/CAEP). While members felt that both activities important and must be supported, 

emphasis should be driven by the change in importance of NextGen. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the Office of Environment and Energy 

consider the following priorities in its future efforts: 

• #1 Applied Solutions such as technology development, alternative fuels, operational 

improvements and maturation of the CLEEN program should be the top priority. 

• #2 Modeling should focus on NextGen as the #1 priority, although continued work on 

CAEP remains critical. 

• #3 Research on understanding the various elements of aviation environmental challenges 

(climate, local air quality, noise and water quality) continues to be critical, with climate and 

water quality identified as the areas that need to be accelerated. 

• #4 Research to support regulatory work must continue, but the subcommittee felt that 

the other priorities listed above are more important. 

Continuing to mature Centers of Excellence (COEs) and the CLEEN consortium are business 

priorities, not program priorities, but clearly need to continue. 
Issue 4: The National Airspace System (NAS) enabled by NextGen will have a number of new 

aircraft and systems. It is critical to determine the environmental impacts of these new aircraft 

and systems. Research to determine these impacts should be part of the NextGen R&D plan. 

Recommendation: Ensure that determining the environmental impacts of new aircraft and 

systems (including developing appropriate analytical tools) is considered in building the FY10 

FAA R&D budget. 

Issue 5: The scope of the environment and energy program has grown to meet needs. Budget 

requests should include resources for additional personnel to address developing issues (while 

keeping to the principle of maintaining a lean organization). 

Recommendation: Ensure that resources for additional personnel are part of future budget 

requests. FAA also needs a robust recruiting strategy to attract qualified personnel to execute the 

NextGen R&D efforts. 

Issue 6: The committee was supportive of the CLEEN implementation briefing. 

Recommendation: FAA and NASA should start working the details of CLEEN, even if 

establishing the program is reauthorization/appropriations dependent. The subcommittee should 

be briefed on progress/status at Feb 2008 meeting. 

The subcommittee agreed to hold its next meeting 20-21 February 2008, in Savannah, Georgia. 

Gulfstream will host. 
Attachment 3 – Continued

NAS Operations Subcommittee – Dr. Victor Lebacqz, Chair

Activity

1. NASOPS met for three days at the NASA Ames Research Center in August. One day was spent 

on a review of NASA’s ATM-related research, and one to a joint meeting with the Human 

Factors Subcommittee of REDAC reviewing NASA’s human factors research. 

2. At the request of JPDO, NASOPS subcommittee made comments on the JPDO draft R&D plan. 

Findings

1. NASA’s foundational research in ATM automation technologies is addressing long-term issues 

in automation, but it is not clear that the FAA is tracking it or assessing its connection to their 

needs. NASA’s human factors work should be addressing foundational issues in humanautomation interaction or air-ground roles and responsibilities in the context of FAA NextGen 

design, and that connection was not clear from the briefings. 

2. The final version of the JPDO R&D Plan needs to identify priorities in research, responsible 

parties for conducting the research, and estimated resources and timeframes (the committee saw 

only working drafts of the document which were lacking these important details). 

3. Review of FAA’s ATM and Next-Gen related research by the NASOPS subcommittee has 

continued to be confusing by virtue of incomplete or obscure financial and research information, 

and providing recommendations based on the level of detail that has been presented is difficult. 

Recommendations

1. The FAA and NASA signed a new MOU (Feb 2006) that stipulated the formation of an 

Executive Research Steering Committee to coordinate research and development activities 

between the two agencies, but this has not been implemented. It is recommended that the FAA 

and NASA do so. 

2. The FAA and NASA, through their roles in JPDO, should assure that the JPDO R&D plan, as 

coordinated through the OMB, will serve as an actionable de-facto guide to their respective 

research initiatives for NextGen. If the FAA wishes REDAC to weigh in on the JPDO research 

requirements, a formal means of review with adequate time for review and JPDO feedback 

should be instantiated. 

3. FAA should continue to find ways to report on research related to NextGen in ways that are 

consistent with understanding both the research and the budget associated with it. Recent efforts 

to relate the work to the OEP solution sets appears to be step in the right direction. Adopting a 

common format for reporting on research projects (similar to what had been used by the REDAC 

in previous years) would aid in project evaluation. 
Attachment 3 – Continued

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety – Dr. Michael Romanowski, Chair

FAA REDAC Safety Subcommittee Observations and Recommendations 

October 3, 2007 

Subcommittee Focus: 

The Safety Subcommittee has undertaken a strategic approach to reviewing the FAA’s safety 

research portfolio. The subcommittee has defined the following priorities to guide its reviews, 

observations, and recommendations: 

• Research linked to the development and implementation of the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen). 

• Research addressing currently identified safety issues that are substantiated by data 

characterizing the level of risk associated with the particular issue. The subcommittee is 

especially concerned with those research needs identified by the Commercial Aviation 

Safety Team (CAST), General Aviation Joint Safety Committee (JSC), and the 

International Helicopter Safety Team (IHST). 

• Research aimed at improving the identification and assessment of emerging safety issues. 

• Research aimed at enabling the insertion of new technologies into certified civil aviation 

products and their operations. 

Strategic Guidance: 

The Safety Subcommittee applauds the FAA’s Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety 

(AVS-1) for developing and issuing strategic guidance for the development of the aviation safety 

R&D portfolio. We believe this type of guidance is instrumental for achieving the proper 

alignment and prioritization of the R&D, especially in light of limited resources. The 

subcommittee reviewed the July 24, 2007 guidance memo for FY 2010, as well as the process 

that will be used to develop the FY 2010 safety R&D portfolio, and offers the following 

observations and recommendations: 

• The contents of strategic guidance memo are generally aligned with the Safety 

Subcommittee’s focus and priorities that are outlined above. However, it takes some 

analysis of the memo’s contents to reach this conclusion and the subcommittee is 

concerned that critical direction may be lost as technical teams work to develop an 

integrated portfolio. For example, by its structure, the memo outlines detailed 

programmatic guidance in advance of the strategic thrust supporting NextGen. Although 

no priority may be intended, this approach could be interpreted to list NextGen-related 

R&D as the lowest priority item in a listing of twelve items. The subcommittee believes 

this would be an unfortunate result. The subcommittee believes the strategic thrusts for 

AVS R&D priorities should be clearly articulated in advance of the detailed 

programmatic guidance. As a result, we are concerned that the synergy that could be 

possible and the alignment that is necessary for the tailored, integrated R&D portfolio 

may not occur. Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the 

Strategic Guidance Memo be clarified to highlight the critical strategic thrusts for FAA’s 

safety R&D portfolio (along the lines articulated above for the Safety Subcommittee’s 

focus and priorities), and that this guidance also be supplemented with the detailed 

programmatic instructions outlined in the July 24 memo. 
• The Safety Subcommittee received a briefing of the FAA’s OEP planning process and the 

timeline to receive REDAC/subcommittee review of the FY 2010 NextGen/OEP plan. 

The subcommittee also received a briefing of the AVS safety R&D planning process and 

timeline. The subcommittee is concerned that the OEP activity and AVS activities may 

not be linked or phased appropriately to achieve effective results. The subcommittee is 

also concerned that there is continued lack of integration and communication of the 

NextGen/OEP R&D needs for use in driving the contents of the safety R&D portfolio. 

The exception appears to be the ASIAS program. However, in all other cases, in 

response to subcommittee queries, research program managers stated they did not have 

adequate visibility to the NextGen/OEP needs for use in program planning and conduct. 

Furthermore, during a review of the anticipated FY 2010 safety portfolio development 

process, the subcommittee observed that the mechanisms for providing this input 

appeared to be lacking. For example, the roles and interface points for identified 

NextGen/OEP points of contact could not be clearly articulated, and there is no clear 

process-defined linkage or visibility of the Technical Committee Representative Groups 

(TCRGs) to the JPDO’s Working Groups or its Concepts of Operations (ConOps), 

Integrated Work Program (IWP), or other NextGen/OEP-related planning or activities. 

The subcommittee recognizes that many of the detailed R&D requirements still must be 

identified. However, it is clear that there are several areas beyond safety information 

sharing, such as complex software digital systems, systems integration, human factors, 

and automation where key research issues will need to be resolved and it is not premature 

to conduct R&D in these areas – in fact it is critical for timely NextGen/OEP 

development and implementation. 

Recommendations: 

– The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA ensure that the OEP 

planning timelines are consistent with the AVS planning timelines. 

– The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA modify its safety R&D 

portfolio development process to clearly identify the linkage between 

NextGen/OEP planning activities, planning documents and any identified 

R&D needs, and their incorporation into the detailed AVS planning activities 

and the resulting R&D portfolio. The roles and engagement of AVS focal 

points supporting NextGen/OEP planning should be clearly articulated. 

– The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA begin to realign the 

thrust of its activities in critical research areas that will be necessary for 

NextGen/OEP implementation and certification of advanced technologies as 

soon as practicable, including FY 2008 and FY2009 activities. In advance of 

detailed NextGen/OEP R&D requirements, preparatory research should be 

conducted as expeditiously as possible in areas such as advanced software 

digital systems, complex systems integration, human factors/automation, 

enabling enhanced crew situational awareness and assessing potential air crew 

or air traffic controller responsibility changes, etc. 

Facilities & Equipment Concerns 

• The Safety Subcommittee noted that many of the FAA’s facilities and/or personnel are 

truly world-class and deliver outstanding results. However, there is concern for the 

future: the FAA needs to make sure that its research capability is not diminished by loss 

of key personnel or degradation of its facilities. The impressive research facilities need 

continued F&E support to maintain serviceable or replace obsolete equipment and instead 

seems to rely on RE&D funds. Unfortunately, there was no evidence that the research 

community either has access to the F&E funding streams, or that it understands how to 

access any available F&E funding streams to make adequate use of these processes. 
Recommendations: 

– The FAA should make every effort to assure that F&E funding is available to 

sustain critical R&D capabilities, that the R&D community knows how to 

access F&E funding, and that needed equipment upgrades are obtained in a 

timely manner. 

– The FAA should ensure that critical R&D facilities, such as its fire test 

facilities, are identified as national assets and that they are included in the 

National Aeronautics R&D facilities plan to protect their long-term vitality. 

Specific Programmatic Observations and Recommendations 

The Safety Subcommittee noted a wide range of approach and effectiveness across the safety 

research portfolio. Many of the programs, such as weather, icing, and fire protection, were 

forward looking and providing positive results for both government and industry. However, the 

subcommittee was quite concerned that other components of the program that appeared to be 

unfocused, retroactively focused, or conducting work that did not appear to be appropriate or 

meaningful for a research effort. The subcommittee believes that programs of this variety must 

immediately begin to redirect their activities to align with the strategic focus for safety R&D, 

rather than continuing to perform lower-value R&D with scarce, limited funds. Virtually all of 

the program areas will benefit from increased alignment with NextGen/OEP objectives and from 

increased program integration and communications across the safety R&D portfolio. Also, with 

some notable exceptions, few of the research program managers presented, or were able to 

discuss, compelling accident/incident data to support the need for the safety research they were 

performing. As noted above, the safety subcommittee will continue to emphasize the need to 

link the research program contents and priorities to safety data. Specific observations and 

recommendations for some components of the safety R&D portfolio are outlined below: 

• Aging Aircraft/Continued Airworthiness 

• Flight Controls & Mechanical Systems

The Safety Subcommittee is concerned that the Flight Controls & Mechanical 

Systems R&D program does not appear adequately focused or impactful, and appears 

to be examining old technologies, instead of conducting the R&D that will be 

necessary to enable certification new concepts and technologies. This is illustrated by 

the current plan to embark on R&D into fly-by-wire concepts, despite the fact that 

fly-by-wire systems are now common place, having been certified in aircraft for 

approximately 20 years. Meanwhile, there was no planned activity on technologies 

like fly-by-light, which is likely to be introduced into products in the foreseeable 

future. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends an immediate redirection 

of the Flight Controls & Mechanical Systems program to align with the four areas of 

focus outlined above, or a redirection of the program’s funding to other higher 

priority activities. 

• Electrical Systems

The Safety Subcommittee is concerned that the Electrical Systems R&D program is 

unfocused and lacks a sound means to prioritize its resources, as is illustrated by the 

fact that in FY 2007 it is conducting 25 distinct projects with its $2.4 million funding. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends an immediate redirection 

of the Electrical Systems program to align with the four areas of focus outlined 

above, or a redirection of the program’s funding to other higher priority activities. 
• Other Aging Aircraft/Continued Airworthiness Program Elements

The Safety Subcommittee endorses continued efforts aimed at advanced inspection 

techniques and their applicability to a broad range of products. This is a proactive 

activity consistent with identifying emerging safety issues. However, the 

subcommittee is concerned about the amount of continued activity across the program 

aimed at fatigue and damage tolerance of well characterized materials such as 

aluminum, and does not believe additional investment is warranted in this area. This 

view is strengthened by a lack of activity on more advanced materials such 

composites, metal matrix materials, or advanced polymers. The subcommittee feels it 

is important that the FAA remain forward looking and obtain a more thorough 

understanding of the behaviors and issues involving these materials to promote safe 

insertion of these technologies into certified products. The subcommittee noted 

research program managers’ statements that the FAA may have insufficient technical 

expertise in many of these advanced materials to conduct appropriate research, and 

believes this is a situation that must be rectified. Improved integration between the 

Continued Airworthiness R&D program and the Advanced Materials Structures R&D 

program is a potential solution. 

Recommendations: 

– The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA take advantage of all 

the previously conducted fatigue and damage tolerance work done with 

classic metallic materials, such as aluminum, and that their funding for FY 

2008 and beyond redirected to higher priority areas. 

– The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA increase the 

technical capability available to the Continued Airworthiness R&D 

program to include composites and other advanced material expertise. 

The FAA should explore improved integration between the Continued 

Airworthiness R&D program and the Advanced Materials Structures R&D 

program as a potential solution. 

– The Safety Subcommittee endorses the FAA’s non-destructive inspection 

(NDI) R&D and recommends that the FAA safety R&D managers take 

steps to ensure that there is full integration and communications of plans 

and results between all elements of the portfolio conducting NDI 

technology development to maximize synergy and effectiveness. 

Advanced Materials & Structural Safety 

• The Safety Subcommittee believes the Advanced Materials program is producing timely 

and relevant composites guidance data. As noted above, under Continued Airworthiness, 

the FAA should explore increasing the linkage between this program and the Continued 

Airworthiness R&D program. The subcommittee also recognizes the transition of the 

Crashworthiness program towards analytical modeling and endorses this redirection. 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention 

• The Safety Subcommittee believes that the Catastrophic Failure Prevention program is 

substantiated by data and is progressing well. However, the subcommittee believes that 

the program should clearly articulate a goal of supporting the development of means to 

enable analytical certification of containment. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the R&D on containment 

support a goal of developing technology to enable the analytical certification of 

containment capability. 
Aviation Weather 

• The Safety Subcommittee believes that the Aviation Weather research program is an 

excellent example of research coordinated with and in collaboration with industry. The 

subcommittee believes that the program is making a contribution to safety with its 

products that are made available to the dispatchers and meteorologists via the web. 

However, the subcommittee needs to better understand the full range of users and 

customers of the Aviation Weather research program’s products. Also, the subcommittee 

needs to better understand the Aviation Weather research program’s linkage with ATM 

and other elements of the federal community conducting weather-related R&D or 

defining R&D requirements, particularly those agencies that will participate in 

forthcoming Joint Weather Office and with the JPDO. The subcommittee strongly 

believes that the Aviation Weather research program will benefit from improved clarity 

of R&D needs from the JPDO. Aviation Weather research is an area where the 

subcommittee believes 100% alignment between this program and NextGen needs; 

however, the program indicated it is receiving little guidance from JPDO or OEP. This is 

especially apparent with the Weather in the Cockpit Research Program. Also, the 

Weather in the Cockpit program will benefit from pursuing the type of collaborative 

partnership with NASA that is evidenced in the ASIAS program, where a clear roadmap 

for development and transition of technologies to FAA and the private sector was defined 

and implemented. 

Recommendations: 

– The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA ensure full alignment of 

all its aviation weather-related research with NextGen R&D needs. FY 2008 

and FY 2009 program adjustments should be made as necessary. 

– The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA work with NASA to 

develop an agreed-to roadmap for weather in the cockpit-related R&D along 

the ASIAS model. 

Airliner Cabin Environment 

• The Safety Subcommittee believes the Airliner Cabin Environment program is 

appropriately structured and that it will provide useful results that will help the FAA and 

industry understand and appropriately resolve the controversial and emotional issues 

surrounding the airliner cabin environment. 

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

• The Safety Subcommittee believes the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute program is 

appropriately structured and that it is providing useful results. 

Flight Deck/Aviation Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors 

• The Safety Subcommittee is concerned over the lack of focus and clarity for the human 

factors R&D program. The program does not appear to be well integrated into other 

portions of the safety R&D portfolio or into NextGen/OEP needs. Furthermore, the 

program appears to lack a data-driven focus. As human factors considerations are going 

to be key for both NextGen development and enabling the insertion of new technologies, 

it is too important not to focus the program contents on critical issues. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends an immediate redirection of 

the Human Factors R&D program to align with the four areas of focus outlined above. 

Enhanced priority should be assigned to those areas directly supporting NextGen 

development and implementation and those areas that directly support CAST, JSC, and 

the IHST initiatives.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

• The Safety Subcommittee is very concerned over the lack of focus of the Unmanned 

Aerial Systems R&D program. The program is hampered by a lack of any clear goals 

and objectives that will result in few meaningful products coming from the program if it 

is allowed to continue as it is constructed. It also is apparent that the research-value of 

much of the program’s contents is questionable, and is better and more efficiently 

performed by other elements of the FAA. Furthermore, there is a glaring lack of 

integration with other related elements of the safety R&D portfolio. This is clearly 

illustrated by the fact that the UAS program is not conducting R&D into UAS 

maintenance issues at this time (the subcommittee believes this is appropriate). However, 

the Human Factors program is conducting R&D in UAS maintenance issues, with little 

clear benefit that could be seen by the subcommittee. It is clear to the subcommittee that 

an effective UAS R&D program must be constructed and executed in the near future to 

ensure safe introduction of unmanned system into the NAS. Critical questions must be 

answered. To develop an effective program, the UAS R&D program, and other UASrelated R&D, must be integrally linked to the UAS roadmap that is under development 

and NextGen/OEP planning. Unfortunately, to date the UAS R&D program has had no 

visibility to the draft UAS roadmap; the subcommittee believes this must be rectified as 

soon as possible. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends the FAA immediately realign 

the UAS R&D program, and other UAS-related R&D, to the UAS roadmap that is under 

development and with NextGen/OEP planning. FY2008 and FY2009 R&D plans should 

be adjusted as necessary. 

Aviation Safety Risk Analysis/ASIAS 

• The Safety Subcommittee believes significant progress has been made over the past year 

in defining the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing Initiative (ASIAS) 

program and its execution. The subcommittee especially notes and credits the personal 

leadership of Nick Sabatini and Jay Pardee of the FAA and Lisa Porter of NASA for 

driving a well integrated plan that will form the basis for proactive risk identification and 

assessment in the future. The subcommittee supports ASIAS and believes ASIAS will be 

an important link in the overall industry safety system. It provides perhaps the most 

potential for safety improvements, if pursued correctly and vigorously, with active 

support from all stakeholders. 

Propulsion 

• The Safety Subcommittee is generally aligned with the FY 2008 and FY 2009 turbine 

research program, noting that its work on cold dwell fatigue is slated to end by FY 2010. 

• The subcommittee noted that there was no apparent safety community linkage to the 

alternative fuels initiative that is underway in the environmental community. 

Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA develop clear 

program linkage between its safety-related fuels program and its environmental 

alternative fuels initiative. 

• The Safety Subcommittee notes the valiant efforts of the Unleaded Fuels program aimed 

at finding a suitable, lead-free alternative to 100LL aviation gas. The program has 

reached a key decision point. The program has achieved an important result by assessing 

over 70 alternate formulations tested and finding them unsuitable for use as a 100LL 

replacement: it is safe to conclude there is no readily available solution to remove lead 

from the fuel. Given this, it is an appropriate time to redirect the FAA’s Unleaded Fuels 

R&D program away from further pursuit of alternates under FAA sponsorship. These 
results of the Unleaded Fuels program should be collated and clearly communicated to 

the aviation and petroleum industry. Furthermore, the subcommittee is concerned over 

FAA’s plans to “begin research into the modification of general aviation piston engines 

to run properly on lower octane fuel.” The subcommittee believes that this work crosses 

into detailed design and development work that is well beyond the FAA’s responsibility, 

and is instead, the responsibility of industry. However, the subcommittee also believes 

that the general aviation piston engine-fuels test facility should remain available as a 

resource for the private sector as it continues work on either new fuel mixtures or 

potential modifications to engines to accommodate lower octane fuels. 

Recommendations: 

– The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA collate the results of its 

Unleaded Fuels program and that the FAA transfer these results to the aviation 

and petroleum industry for the private sector’s use in any additional efforts 

aimed at developing alternatives to 100LL aviation gas and modifications to 

piston engines to accept lower octane fuels. 

– The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA realign the resources 

targeted to the FY 2008 and FY 2009 Unleaded Fuels program to higher 

priority areas, while ensuring that the general aviation piston engine - fuels 

test facility remain available as a resource for the private sector as it continues 

work on either new fuel mixtures or potential modifications to engines to 

accommodate lower octane fuels. 

 

Fire 

• The Safety Subcommittee believes that fire facility and personnel at the William J. Hughes 

Technical Center are truly world-class, and that they continue to provide meaningful benefits 

to the FAA, industry, and traveling public. The Safety Subcommittee believes that the FAA 

needs to ensure that this research capability is retained in the future and that its facilities are 

identified and maintained as critical national resources. The Ultra-fire Resistant Polymer 

program appears to be producing amazing results for very little resource expenditure. This is 

an excellent example of a proactive research approach and capability development. 

• Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA ensure that its fire 

test facilities be identified as national assets and that they are included in the National 

Aeronautics R&D facilities plan to protect their long-term vitality. 

Software & Digital Systems Safety 

• The Safety Subcommittee was unable to gain a clear view of the Software & Digital Systems 

Safety R&D program contents, goals, and objectives. However, the subcommittee believes 

that a well-constructed and well-executed program is critical for the development and 

implementation of NextGen, and for the insertion of new, enabling technologies into civil 

aviation products in general. It is not clear that the current program has any visibility to 

NextGen needs. However, the subcommittee strongly believes that the Software & Digital 

Systems Safety program is one of the areas where 100% alignment is required between the 

program and NextGen needs. 

Recommendations: 

– The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA ensure full alignment of 

its Software & Digital Systems Safety R&D with NextGen R&D needs. 

– The Safety Subcommittee recommends that in advance of commencing any 

FY 2008 or FY 2009 activities in this area, the FAA immediately conduct a 

thorough review of the goals, objectives, and content of the FY 2008 and FY 

2009 Software & Digital Systems Safety R&D program, with budget, program 

and other adjustments being made as necessary. The subcommittee requests 

that the results of this review be shared with the subcommittee before the 

subcommittee’s February meeting. 
Icing 

• The Safety Subcommittee believes that the Icing Research program is well-constructed, 

based on data and known technical knowledge gaps, and that it is producing relevant results 

for the FAA and industry. Due to the positive impact of applied icing-related research on 

safety, operational efficiency, and NextGen, the subcommittee believes the program should 

be supported as a priority. The FAA Icing R&D program has benefited tremendously by 

cooperative research between the FAA and NASA. However, the subcommittee is concerned 

that this linkage does not exist any longer, and that the FAA is relying on experimental test 

capabilities that have been provided by NASA, but are no longer in NASA’s plans. To 

insure there is no disruption in this critical research, the Safety Subcommittee strongly 

believes that the nation will benefit substantially from the development and implementation 

of an ASIAS-like roadmap for icing research. 

• Recommendation: The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA work with NASA to 

develop an agreed-to roadmap for icing-related R&D along the ASIAS model. 

 

Request to FAA - Content of Future Subcommittee Meetings 

The Safety Subcommittee appreciates the openness and candor provided during the safety 

program briefings and believes this constructive engagement provides a solid basis for moving 

forward. The subcommittee is currently planning to hold its next meeting in the February 2008 

timeframe, at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City. To foster 

increasingly effective reviews and feedback, the subcommittee requests the following support 

from the FAA and its personnel at future meetings: 

• Participation from both R&D program managers and their FAA-management sponsors. 

The subcommittee believes this is especially important to understand both the program 

content and the associated drivers and priorities. 

• The FAA R&D management sponsors and R&D program managers provide the 

subcommittee a summary matrix of 

– Proposed research requirements and associated program plans against the 

elements contained within the AVS strategic guidance and the Safety 

Subcommittee focus points defined at the beginning of this document. 

– The priority ranking of the R&D research requirements and the associated 

program elements that are proposed for inclusion in the safety R&D plan, as 

well as those that are not proposed for inclusion in the plan. 

• During briefings associated with each research requirement/program element, please 

identify: 

– Which of the subcommittee’s “focus point(s)” the research 

requirement/program element aligns with, and details supporting that 

alignment. That is, 

• For NextGen/OEP, please state which elements of the plan(s) the R&D 

supports; 

• For identified safety issues/risks, please cite relevant data, and/or linkage 

to any CAST, JSC, ISHT R&D recommendations; 

• Identification of emerging risks; 

• Enabling insertion of new technologies. 

– If a research requirement/program element is driven by a Congressional 

mandate or is intended to enable the FAA’s formal response to NTSB 

recommendations, please identify the relevant mandate/recommendation. 

– The expected R&D deliverables or products from each research 

requirement/program element. 

• Please provide copies of all summary information, background materials and planned 

briefings to the subcommittee at least two weeks in advance of the meeting. 
Attachment 4 

T. WILSON PROFESSOR OF ROOM 33-303 

AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS 77 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE 

DIRECTOR CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139 

 INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION (617) 253-2271 FAX (617) 253-4196 

 E-MAIL: rjhans@mit.edu 

November 7, 2007 

The Honorable Robert Sturgell 

Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dear Administrator Sturgell: 

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

summary observations and recommendations of the standing REDAC Subcommittees (Aircraft Safety, NAS 

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

The REDAC has been working with the ATO to develop a process to provide input earlier in the research 

requirement generation process through the Operational Evolution Partnership. We will protoype this process in the 

coming year and believe that it will be a mechanism for more effective advisory input. 

As you know, the REDAC has also been addressing specific topics of identified importance to the agency. Recent 

studies include: “Weather-ATM Integration”, “Separation Standards”, “Financing the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System” and “Controller Training”. We would look forward to discussing with you other topics 

where the REDAC could provide advice or input which would benefit the mission of the agency. 

One of the congressionally mandated tasks of the REDAC is to advise on the relationship between the FAA research 

activities and those of other government agencies. In this regard, the REDAC has responded to several requests 

from the JPDO and received several briefings on JPDO and NASA research activities and plans. 

With the refocusing of the NASA Aeronautics efforts to be more fundamental and thus less directly implementable, 

there has been a change in the relationship of FAA and NASA research efforts. This has, and will, require the FAA 

to adjust and expand some of its efforts. However the REDAC was pleased to observe that there does appear to be 

growing collaboration between the FAA and NASA in areas such as safety data analysis (ASIAS) where there is 

collaboration at the senior level and a clearly defined fundamental technology need which NASA can address. 

In order to frame the FAA and NASA research efforts in the context of NextGen, the REDAC had requested 

briefings on the NextGen plan and was also asked to provide input into the NextGen R&D planning document. The 

REDAC was disappointed and concerned with the lack of substance in the briefings and lack of specifics in the 

planning documents. The JPDO has agreed to provide a more substantive briefing at a future meeting and the 

REDAC hopes that this will be at a level sufficient to justify the enormous trust the FAA must put in this planning 

process. 

The challenges of implementing and receiving operational approval for the unprecedented scope of proposed 

changes in technology and procedures is a critical area which has emerged in the NextGen discussions. The initial 

NextGen implementation steps (eg ADS-B and SWIM) illustrate the challenges of transition. We must find 

innovative approaches to accelerate the modernization process while maintaining the safety and capability of the 

system. This may be a topic for a more focused REDAC study. 

The REDAC and the communities which the members represent are committed to maintaining the health and 

viability of our air transportation system as we face the technical, operational and financial challenges ahead. We 

stand ready to help in this regard. I, and the other members of the REDAC, are available if you would like to 

discuss these, or other, issues in more detail. 

Sincerely, 

R. John Hansman 

Chair, FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Enclosure 
R&D Guidance for FY 2010 

Subcommittee on Airports

With regard to specific topics the Airport Subcommittee recommends: 

1. Continued close cooperation between the FAA Technical Center and the Airports Cooperative 

Research Program. 

2. That the highest of priorities be placed on testing with the new large aircraft fire mock-up at 

Tyndall AFB in Panama City, FL so as to gain a clearer understanding of the quantity of fire 

fighting agent that will be needed to successfully deal with such events should they occur. Note 

should be taken that commercial operations by the Airbus A380 in the United States will 

commence within months. 

3. Among the many projects that the Technical Center is carrying out, the Subcommittee 

especially supported the proposed research tasking on: 

 a) Foreign Object Damage (FOD) detection radar, 

 b) The development of light emitting diode technology for airport lighting (cooperative 

effort with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), 

 c) The study of Engineered Material Arresting System material behavior due to 

prolonged exposure to freeze / thaw cycles, 

 d) Continued development of the capabilities of the pavement test facility to mimic 

complex wheel arrangements, and 

 e) Expedited design and construction of a laboratory to support the pavement research. 

4. Among the topics that the Airport Subcommittee would like to see added to the research that is 

already in progress are: 

 a) A consideration for the Airport Technology Branch to possibly take on the most 

promising of the pending projects of the Innovative Pavement Research Foundation (IPRF) and 

the Airfield Asphalt Pavement Technology Program (AAPTP) should there be no funding 

approved in upcoming legislation for these programs, 

 b) The FAA should initiate a study of the affects of runway de-icing fluids on surface 

friction, and 

 c) The FAA should consider starting a research project on the design of the location of 

exit taxiways, as a possible means to reduce runway occupancy times. 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy

The subcommittee identified the following specific issues as matters to bring to the attention of 

the Administrator. 

Issue 1: The subcommittee feels that developing solutions (technology/fuels, operations) to limit 

or mitigate environmental impacts is critical to the future of the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen). The maturing of technologies will have the greatest impact 

on future environmental advances and is therefore the most critical component. 

Recommendation 1: For environmental solutions to become viable, sufficient additional 

resources will be required. The FY09 budget as proposed in the NARP is the minimum 

investment required from the agency. 
Issue 2: The OEP briefing was critical since it ties research to implementation. Research in a 

vacuum does not solve problems; therefore, tying research to operational implementation is 

absolutely essential. 

Recommendation 2: Developing a robust R&D plan for enabling the OEP transformation is 

critical. It is also important that environmental concerns be identified as a major priority along 

with capacity, efficiency, safety, security. 

Issue 3: The subcommittee felt that the Office of Environment and Energy needs to reevaluate 

its strategic priorities. 

Members view NextGen efforts as equal in importance, if not more so, than efforts focused on 

the International Civil Aviation Organization Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

(ICAO/CAEP). While members felt that both activities important and must be supported, 

emphasis should be driven by the change in importance of NextGen. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the Office of Environment and Energy 

consider the following priorities in its future efforts: 

• #1 Applied Solutions such as technology development, alternative fuels, operational 

improvements and maturation of the CLEEN program should be the top priority. 

• #2 Modeling should focus on NextGen as the #1 priority, although continued work on 

CAEP remains critical. 

• #3 Research on understanding the various elements of aviation environmental challenges 

(climate, local air quality, noise and water quality) continues to be critical, with climate and 

water quality identified as the areas that need to be accelerated. 

• #4 Research to support regulatory work must continue, but the subcommittee felt that 

the other priorities listed above are more important. 

Continuing to mature Centers of Excellence (COEs) and the CLEEN consortium are business 

priorities, not program priorities, but clearly need to continue. 

Issue 4: The National Airspace System (NAS) enabled by NextGen will have a number of new 

aircraft and systems. It is critical to determine the environmental impacts of these new aircraft 

and systems. Research to determine these impacts should be part of the NextGen R&D plan. 

Recommendation: Ensure that determining the environmental impacts of new aircraft and 

systems (including developing appropriate analytical tools) is considered in building the FY10 

FAA R&D budget. 

Issue 5: The scope of the environment and energy program has grown to meet needs. Budget 

requests should include resources for additional personnel to address developing issues (while 

keeping to the principle of maintaining a lean organization). 

Recommendation: Ensure that resources for additional personnel are part of future budget 

requests. FAA also needs a robust recruiting strategy to attract qualified personnel to execute the 

NextGen R&D efforts. 

Issue 6: The committee was supportive of the CLEEN implementation briefing. 

Recommendation: FAA and NASA should start working the details of CLEEN, even if 

establishing the program is reauthorization/appropriations dependent. The subcommittee should 

be briefed on progress/status at Feb 2008 meeting. 
NAS Operations Subcommittee

Findings: 

NASA’s foundational research in ATM automation technologies is addressing long-term issues 

in automation, but it is not clear that the FAA is tracking it or assessing its connection to their 

needs. NASA’s human factors work should be addressing foundational issues in humanautomation interaction or air-ground roles and responsibilities in the context of FAA NextGen 

design, and that connection was not clear from the briefings. 

The final version of the JPDO R&D Plan needs to identify priorities in research, responsible 

parties for conducting the research, and estimated resources and timeframes (the committee saw 

only working drafts of the document which were lacking these important details). 

Review of FAA’s ATM and Next-Gen related research by the NASOPS subcommittee has 

continued to be confusing by virtue of incomplete or obscure financial and research information, 

and providing recommendations based on the level of detail that has been presented is difficult. 

Recommendations:

The FAA and NASA signed a new MOU (Feb 2006) that stipulated the formation of an 

Executive Research Steering Committee to coordinate research and development activities 

between the two agencies, but this has not been implemented. It is recommended that the FAA 

and NASA do so. 

The FAA and NASA, through their roles in JPDO, should assure that the JPDO R&D plan, as 

coordinated through the OMB, will serve as an actionable de-facto guide to their respective 

research initiatives for NextGen. If the FAA wishes REDAC to weigh in on the JPDO research 

requirements, a formal means of review with adequate time for review and JPDO feedback 

should be instantiated. 

FAA should continue to find ways to report on research related to NextGen in ways that are 

consistent with understanding both the research and the budget associated with it. Recent efforts 

to relate the work to the OEP solution sets appears to be step in the right direction. Adopting a 

common format for reporting on research projects (similar to what had been used by the REDAC 

in previous years) would aid in project evaluation. 

Subcommittee on Human Factors

Summary Organizational Issues:

The FAA has undergone significant organizational change in ATO-P supportive of JPDO and its 

research requirements. 

Finding 1: The committee finds that Human Factors research and human-system integration is 

well aligned into the ATO-P processes and supportive of the JPDO research program, as well as 

the Operational Evolution Partnership 

Recommendation: The subcommittee urges that the Human Factors Research and Engineering 

Group maintains its centrality in human-system integration research and attend to cross-cutting 

research issues in the ATO-P organization. Overall, the organizational structure, along with 
current and anticipated budgetary increases, bodes well for the appropriate level of concern for 

human-system integration. 

Finding 2: The subcommittee feels that cross cutting areas of applied Human Factors research 

(specifically, in the areas of safety, human error and modeling) provide an opportunity for 

assuring that “human factors” concerns become an integral system engineering element in both 

the ATO and AVS research and development processes. 

Summary Budget Issues:

A significant increase in funding for fiscal year 2008 and a further increase in 2009-2010 are 

anticipated. The subcommittee concludes that the combination of significant increase in budget 

and major organizational changes offer significant opportunity for development and integration 

of human factors research in support of: decision-making in procurement issues, development of 

near and midterm flight deck and ATC workstations, development and convergence of ATC 

procedures and training, and support of flight deck and ATC JPDO research requirements. 

The subcommittee finds that the Human Factors office is responding to these and other specific 

areas of research development integration. 

Finding 3: There is a convergence of conditions that the subcommittee feels provides the 

Human Factors Research and Engineering Group with an opportunity to redefine itself at a 

national level within the Human Factors research community. The new organizational structures 

in ATO, the significant proposed increase in budget and the likely increase in the breadth of 

demand for applied human factors research, given changes in NASA’s roles and responsibilities 

in applied Human Factors research, remind the subcommittee of the opportunities and motivation 

provided for the National Plan for Aviation Human Factors. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends revisiting and updating a national Human 

Factors research plan, with the FAA taking the lead in applied aeronautical Human Factors 

research to address and define current gaps in support of JPDO research requirements. 

Summary Integration of Research with NASA 

It was a goal of this subcommittee meeting to have the Human Factors Subcommittee advise the 

FAA of the adequacy of its research portfolio given changes in NASA Aeronautical Human 

Factors research. It was, however, difficult to make an assessment of the NASA Human Factors 

research portfolio with respect to the FAA HF program. The subcommittee was provided 

presentation of specific research projects but did not receive information about the breadth or 

extent of NASA’s investment in aeronautical Human Factors. 

Finding 4: The committee did not feel it was in a position to make a comparison, or gap analysis, 

between NASA’s response to JPDO Next Generation research requirements in Human Factors 

and that work being performed by the FAA. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that an interagency programmatic exchange 

be undertaken with respect to applied aeronautical Human Factors and that the Human Factors 

Research and Engineering Group take the lead in this effort. 
Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety

The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA take the necessary actions to ensure its 

safety R&D portfolio, including the FY 2008 and FY 2009 program elements, are fully aligned 

to the following priorities: 

– Research linked to the development and implementation of the Next Generation 

Air Transportation System (NextGen). 

– Research addressing currently identified safety issues that are substantiated by 

data characterizing the level of risk associated with the particular issue. The 

subcommittee is especially concerned with those research needs identified by the 

Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST), General Aviation Joint Safety 

Committee (JSC), and the International Helicopter Safety Team (IHST). 

– Research aimed at improving the identification and assessment of emerging safety 

issues. 

– Research aimed at enabling the insertion of new technologies into certified civil 

aviation products and their operations. 

The Safety Subcommittee has provided AVS management with detailed observations and 

recommendations related to each of its specific program elements. 

• The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA ensure that the OEP R&D planning 

timelines and the AVS R&D planning timelines are consistent. 

• The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA modify its safety R&D portfolio 

development process to clearly identify the linkage between NextGen/OEP planning 

activities, planning documents and any identified R&D needs, and their incorporation into 

the detailed AVS planning activities and the resulting R&D portfolio. The roles and 

engagement of AVS focal points supporting NextGen/OEP planning should be clearly 

articulated. 

• The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA begin to realign the thrust of its 

activities in critical research areas that will be necessary for NextGen/OEP implementation 

and certification of advanced technologies as soon as practicable, including FY 2008 and 

FY2009 activities. In advance of detailed NextGen/OEP R&D requirements, preparatory 

research should be conducted as expeditiously as possible in areas such as advanced software 

digital systems, complex systems integration, human factors/automation, enabling enhanced 

crew situational awareness and assessing potential air crew or air traffic controller 

responsibility changes, etc. 

• The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA make every effort to assure that F&E 

funding is available to sustain critical R&D capabilities, that the R&D community knows 

how to access F&E funding, and that needed equipment upgrades are obtained in a timely 

manner. 

• The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA ensure that critical R&D facilities, such 

as its fire test facilities, are identified as national assets and that they are included in the 

National Aeronautics R&D facilities plan to protect their long-term vitality. 

• The Safety Subcommittee recommends that the FAA develop clear program linkage between 

its environmental alternative fuels initiative and its safety-related fuels program to ensure any 

potential safety-related implications are identified and addressed. 
• The Safety Subcommittee notes the positive impact of close FAA –NASA collaboration on 

ASIAS, where a joint FAA-NASA roadmap was developed and implemented for research 

development and transition from NASA to FAA and then the private sector. The 

subcommittee believes other program areas will benefit from the development of similar 

FAA-NASA collaborative roadmaps. Therefore, the subcommittee recommends that, at a 

minimum, the FAA and NASA pursue joint roadmaps related to weather in the cockpit and 

icing R&D. 

Observation on the ASIAS Program 

The Safety Subcommittee believes significant progress has been made over the past year in 

defining the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing Initiative (ASIAS) program and 

its execution. The subcommittee especially notes and credits the personal leadership of Nick 

Sabatini and Jay Pardee of the FAA and Lisa Porter of NASA for driving a well integrated plan 

that will form the basis for proactive risk identification and assessment in the future. The 

subcommittee supports ASIAS and believes ASIAS will be an important link in the overall 

industry safety system. It provides perhaps the most potential for safety improvements, if 

pursued correctly and vigorously, with active support from all stakeholders.