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 
RE: CHAUDHRY PAGE 2 OF 7 

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. 
RE: CHAUDHRY PAGE 3 OF 7 

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. 
RE: CHAUDHRY PAGE 4 OF 7 

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 
RE: CHAUDHRY PAGE 5 OF 7 

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. 
RE: CHAUDHRY PAGE 6 OF 7 

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. 
RE: CHAUDHRY PAGE 7 OF 7 

• 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.