REDAC Subcommittee on Airports

FAA – William J. Hughes Technical Center

Building 296 – Main Conference Room

Spring Meeting 2016

March 15 - 16

Meeting Minutes – Erin DeBarth 

Day One

Tuesday, March 15th

Meeting formally started at 12:30 p.m. with opening remarks by Mr. Christopher Oswald, 

Subcommittee Chairperson. Mr. Oswald welcomed everyone and thanked them for attending. 

He also introduced Shelley Yak, FAA Technical Center Director, and thanked her for attending. 

Shelley Yak responded, stating her objectives for this meeting. She would like to find out what 

is working, and what needs improvement. She would like to see how she can contribute to the 

Research and Development Division within her new role. Chris Oswald informed every one of 

the vacancies in the subcommittee and stated that the discussion for recommendations would be 

had at a later time. The meeting proceeded with introductions of subcommittee members and 

attendees. 

Ms. Shelley Yak, FAA Technical Center Director, Ms. Yak continued stating she is 

appreciative of the work REDAC is doing. Ms. Yak informed the Subcommittee that she 

attended a NASOPS Meeting last week and reiterated she is interested in hearing where things

need to improve and what needs to be different. Ms. Yak stated she believes the commitment to 

research has an impact on the Aviation Industry and academia as well. She asked the 

subcommittee to give some insight on what is working and what could be done differently, 

stating that the FAA is open to suggestions. 

Plaque Dedication to Mr. Jeff Rapol, due to unforeseen circumstances, this was rescheduled 

and will be included in the agenda for the Fall REDAC Subcommittee Meeting. 

Dr. Michel Hovan, Airport Technology R & D Branch Manager, began by introducing the 

Subcommittee Members. He proceeded with giving an overview of the budget, stating that he

would like to get input on moving forward. Dr. Hovan explained that in FY16, projects were 

grouped by RPDs, and going into FY17-18 projects will be grouped as RPAs. He stated this 

was something that was discussed at the last REDAC meeting, explaining that the Research 

Program Areas will be grouped based on similar areas, so it will make more sense. Dr. Hovan 

proceeded by reviewing the budget, stating the only difference between FY17 and FY18 is the 3 

percent inflation rate. He stated that otherwise the budget is stable. Dr. Hovan explained the 

breakdown for the new RPAs will be Safety RPAs, Pavement RPAs, and Airport Environmental 

Research RPAs. Dr. Hovan spoke specifically about the budget “above the line” item as a 

potential request. He explained some items will need more internal discussion but he felt it 

should be included. The Subcommittee asked if there was a Master Plan for the Research and 

Development Facility. Ms. Shelley Yak responded, stating the Technical Center has one for the 

entire facility, but not a specific one for the R & D Facility. The Subcommittee inquired if 

funds are carried over from year to year. Dr. Hovan responded stating that all of the funding for 

R & D comes from AIP and it cannot be carried over. He explained further by stating 99.99% 

of the funds are obligated by the end of the year. Dr. Hovan informed the Subcommittee the 
funding comes with a one year obligation and has challenges vs. having an R & D budget over 

multiple years. Eric Neiderman, stated eighty percent of the funding was appropriated until 

December 20, and then there is a bit more flexibility. The Subcommittee asked if the Project 

Managers can start thinking two years down the road in regards to the budget cycle and have the 

numbers ready. John Dermody, AAS-100/HQ, interjected explaining the money is available 

and R&D is in a good position. He explained that while the funding cannot carry over from 

year to year, some projects can and that can help with calculating what needs to be obligated. 

Mr. Dermody stated there are “Pop-Up” projects that occur, using the Trapezoidal Grooving 

project as an example of having no plan for it within the budget process. Chris Oswald 

interjected suggesting knowing when a project is winding down will assist in gaging when it’s 

time to take on additional projects which fall in line with funding. Dr. Hovan responded this is 

one of the reasons it was important to move into the RPA system. He further explained the idea 

behind the RPA system is to gain more flexibility with funding and not be so rigid, as it was 

with the RPD system. The Subcommittee commented as the budget increases the Subcommittee 

should have input as to whether the funding is being spent appropriately. The Subcommittee 

stated they should be able to track the budget by use of the budget cycles at each meeting. Chris 

Oswald added tracking the funding will assist in ensuring the spending is in line with research 

expectations and knowing if the research is providing a meaningful impact. Dr. Hovan stated he 

would like the Subcommittee to review the agenda and provide feedback on which projects need 

“deeper dives” and give the Subcommittee the option to pick and choose which projects they 

need to see. He expressed the need for quality presentations over quantity of presentations. The 

Subcommittee reviewed the RPAs and inquired why noise is not listed under environmental 

research. It was stated the noise project is a legacy project that has been there and there is much 

more involved than just noise. John Dermody, stated there was controversy with the noise 

project. He stated it was only supposed to be a one year project and now it’s on its third year. 

Mr. Dermody explained there is an increased need for further environmental research coming 

out of the Office of Airports. He stated the need for environmental research is growing and 

work needs to be planned. Mr. Dermody continued stating the bulk of the research done at the 

Technical Center R & D Branch is pavement testing and environmental research needs 

resources to expand. The Subcommittee stated the Trapezoidal Grooving project has a sizable 

number in regards to the budget and it is listed as carrying on through FY17. Dr. Hovan 

suggested to wait to hear Joe Breen’s presentation and how the project is broken up into Phase 1 

and Phase 2 and it includes real time testing. Dr. Hovan continued commenting on the EI 

Project informing the Subcommittee R & D is working closely with Office of Airports and AAE 

to get more of a push. Dr. Hovan informed the Subcommittee they will get a closer look into 

the environmental research aspect on Day Two. The Subcommittee asked if they will be 

getting a summary on the line items for the RPAs. Jeff Gagnon informed the Subcommittee as 

he presents he will have the transition from RPDs to RPAs included. Chris Oswald continued 

stating he would like to have a completed list of the RPAs. He explained that the concept was 

introduced and proven to be more flexible and shows a more meaningful grouping. He agreed 

there were no objections and the reasons for reorganizing were sound, but he stated there needs 

to be a discussion on how to track the research. Mr. Oswald stated he would like the 

Subcommittee to be able to see what has been spent overall for a specific project. He believes it 

is beneficial to be able to see the life of a specific project including the spending and the end 

benefit. Mr. Oswald believes this kind of tracking is helpful in determining the need for specific 

research should continue. Dr. Hovan responded the information is not prepared for this 
meeting. Mr. Oswald agreed and stated it would be helpful to have a total picture to better 

understand the focus not only for each fiscal year but overall. Shelley Yak commented she 

thought it was a good idea to look at the cumulative spending. Dr. Hovan continued stating the 

R & D Branch receives its request for research from headquarters and R & D responds to the 

request with a plan including how much the research will cost. Dr. Hovan explained “Pop Up” 

research will not be included in the budget from two years ago and the funding for them has to 

be found in whatever funding R & D has already. He explained the RPA system will be seen at 

a high level due to the line items, and the Subcommittee will be able to see the change from year 

to year. The Subcommittee asked if the budget works the same way within the RPD and RPA 

systems. Dr. Hovan responded that the RPA system will be more flexible than the RPD 

categorizations. Mr. Oswald stated there needs to be prioritization within the RPAs and FY18 

numbers. He explained the allocation should be built off the history of the project and inflation 

rate. Mr. Oswald informed the Subcommittee while looking at the RPAs ask if there is 

something major missing that would change major allocations. The Subcommittee asked if this 

was the strategic meeting and was informed that it is not and the strategic meeting is in 

Summer/Fall. Chris Oswald explained over the day and a half to look to see what’s missing. 

He stated to look at individual projects and see if the Subcommittee gets the overall picture. Mr. 

Oswald suggested possibly scheduling a meeting around RPAs to be able to review activities 

and refine FY18.

John Dermody, AAS-100/Headquarters Update, began by introducing himself. He stated the 

focus is moving toward safety projects.. Mr. Dermody spoke to EMAS and informed the 

Subcommittee there are now two vendors the Legacy Compapacy Zodiac/Esco and the new one 

Runway Safe. He explained the FAA is working both vendors with Cooperating Research 

Development Agreements. Mr. Dermody stated the research is focusing on the longevity of the 

EMAS systems, for example, how to test them on site, how to perform field strength test, 

performance strength tests over time, the effects of moisture, temperature, and analyze the 

effects, knowing when to replace beds. Mr. Dermody stressed this is all research that is taking 

place through the Technical Center. He spoke of the EMAS-Runway Safebed that has been 

installed at Chicago Midway, including it was done without AIP funding. Mr. Dermody 

continued speaking of the Runway Incursion project being started as a request from 

headquarters. He mentioned Project Manager Lauren Collins and what is being looked at 

including the data mining project, pulling accident data from NTSB and seeing where safety 

improvements need to be made and how to make those improvements. Mr. Dermody proceeded

stating in regards to the RIM(Runway Incursion Mitigation) project the Technical Center was 

instrumental in identifying where to focus activities such as Airport Geometry and lighting. He 

stated the project has become very specific to pinpointing where events happened, what has 

been done to alleviate these issues, and what effects have the improvements made. Mr. 

Dermody stated it’s very gratifying to see improved safety as a result of this research. He stated 

he is excited about the new NAPMRC Facility and he’s excited to hear what pavement research 

is being performed there. Mr. Dermody explained that headquarters looks at this avenue and 

relies heavily on the Technical Center to perform this research. He informed the Subcommittee 

Jim Patterson, Safety Area Program Manager, has been assigned to the UAS office for the past 

six months. Mr. Dermody explained this is new research and there has been lots of work on this 

subject at headquarters and Office of Airports. He explained how this will be something that 

needs to be staffed appropriately, and integrated into the research plan. 
Review of REDAC Recommendations – Spring 2015

The Subcommittee reviewed the recommendations. 

P. M. Break - 2:15p.m. - 2:30p.m.

The PEGASUS Staff distributed a brochure and invited anyone who could attend to the annual 

meeting on May 7, 8 and 9 at Iowa State. 

Mr. Jeffrey Gagnon, 2015 Pavement Projects + Plans for FY-17-18, Mr. Gagnon began his 

presentation by giving an overview of the pavements projects and plans presentation. He 

introduced, Ben Mahaffay, who will take over Heated Pavements for the FAA after Charles 

Ishee’s departure. Mr. Gagnon proceeded by giving an overview of the budget and explained 

the transition of RPDs to RPAs, pointing out that the NAPMRC Facility will have its own RPA. 

He explained that funding has been allocated between the NAPMRC and NAPTF facilities, as 

well as the increase in funding from FY17and FY18. Mr. Gagnon informed the Subcommittee

of the upcoming events including a job opening for a new Civil Engineer and the 2017 

Technology Transfer Conference. He informed the Subcommittee that the FAA has been 

working with ASCE on partnering for the conference, which will be held in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania on August 26-30, 2017. Mr. Gagnon proceeded by informing the Subcommittee 

of the International Cooperation Agreements and Papers and Report Publications from the FAA 

R & D Division from 2011- 2015. 

Mr. Ben Mahaffay, Heated Pavements, Mr. Mahaffay began his presentation by introducing 

himself and giving a brief overview of his background and experience. Mr. Mahaffay spoke of 

the funding requirements needed to complete the research, noting that it was stable with no 

change from FY15-FY18. He reviewed the project timeline, materials being used, and the

purpose for the research. Mr. Mahaffay spoke of the partnership with PEGASUS and the grant 

with Christopher Tuan from the University of Nebraska. He continued his presentation

informing the Subcommittee of the latest highlight for the Greater Binghamton Airport was 

connecting the Geothermal System to the Terminal building and presented support pictures. Mr. 

Mahaffay continued with the Energy and Viability overview. He presented the cost breakdown 

vs conventional methods and the benefits. The Subcommittee inquired if injury prevention of 

airport personnel was factored in. Mr. Mahaffay responded that they had factored that in and 

found enhanced safety benefits as a result of the system. The Subcommittee asked if the 

research was looking at the adaptability for each airport. Mr. Mahaffay responded not at the 

present but they are working on getting a baseline and looking at what conditions make this 

viable, so the plan is looking at it generally and not airport specific. Mr. Mahaffay continued by 

giving a review of the Nano Technology objectives and materials being used. He proceeded 

with and overview of FY2017 –FY2018 Plans, commenting that 2018 is very similar to 2017 

including the Electrically Conductive Asphalt Concrete for Heated Airfield Pavements, 

superhyrophobic and Icephobic Materials for Nano-Modified Heated HMA Pavements and Full 

Scale airport heated Pavement Testing. The Subcommittee asked how the Superhyrophobic 

Coating was applied. Mr. Mahaffay explained it was applied by layers and not incorporated 

throughout. The Subcommittee asked if there has been any research done on de-icing chemicals 
or residual from engines damaging the coating. Mr. Mahaffay stated the research is not to that 

point yet. He explained the focus right now is on mass application, stating that the research has 

only been performed on small areas. The Subcommittee asked if the research is focusing on just 

one material and Mr. Mahaffay replied various materials and application processes are being 

looked into. The Subcommittee asked if there was a timeline on resolution and suggested cost 

be looked at first. The Subcommittee commented that this could price itself out and it should be 

the first step, then look at the pros and cons. The Subcommittee explained it’s important to 

know the cost because if it’s not feasible on a larger scale then the project will have to have an 

end date, but suggested putting it out to the industry because if they find it usable they will make 

it work. 

Dr. Navneet Garg, National Airport Pavement Materials and Research Center, Dr. Garg 

began his presentation by reviewing the budget and the research goals for the NAPMRC facility. 

He presented a layout of the Test Cycle performed including Materials, Tire Pressure and 

Binder Type used during the testing. He went over the Deflectometer testing and presented 

pictures and results of the testing explaining they found highest deflection with warmer asphalt. 

Dr. Garg proceeded with his presentation explaining the detail of the traffic testing including 

failure criteria. He spoke on the current testing being performed and stated that failure is 

expected next week. Dr. Garg continued to explain Test Cycle 2 and Future Research Plans. 

He explained the issue is a lack of guidance, standards, and specifications and what they are 

hoping to achieve at the facility is to take the results and make new standards.

Mr. Murphy Flynn, New R & D Facilities Update, Mr. Flynn began his presentation with a 

recap of the last REDAC and presented 2017 and beyond. He explained the need for a 

Photometric Laboratory, NextGen Pavement Lab expansion, expansion of office space, and the 

need for Airport Safety Tech Storage/warehouse, as well as reviewing the Technical Center 

Construction Approval Process. Mr. Flynn presented a site selection slide and explained the 

water, fire, and sewer lines were extended during the current construction for accommodate new 

construction. He informed the Subcommittee the Environmental Assessment was submitted 

February 4, 2016 and returned with comments. Mr. Flynn stated the comments are being 

addressed and was resubmitted March 2, 2016. He explained R & D is hoping to have the 

Environmental Assessment phase completed by June 2016 with a potential award of design 

construction by August 2016 if funding is available. The Subcommittee asked if the design gets 

put out for bid. Mr. Flynn responded explaining the Technical Center has a on-call design 

contract that is used. The Subcommittee asked where the funding for this is coming from. Dr. 

Hovan explained this was the above the line item that was listed on his budget overview. He 

stated the R & D Division needs to have an internal discussion to see if it will fit within the $31 

million budget, can it be justified and does it make sense. Dr. Hovan stated a formal discussion 

had not occurred and that this was preliminary information. The Subcommittee discussed the 

funding for this being Capital vs Project and voiced concerns of taking the funding from AIP 

having an impact on other projects. The Subcommittee stated the goal of keeping testing in 

house is understood but the cost benefit of doing so needs to be evaluated when there are 

commercial labs and universities that are capable of performing the work. Jeff Gagnon 

explained the example of sending asphalt testing to Rutgers University explaining sending 

materials out to be tested slows down the process. The Subcommittee agreed this needed 

further discussion and would be revisited on Day Two.
Dr. Navneet Garg, Full Scale Testing – Perpetual Pavement - Update, Dr. Garg began his 

presentation reviewing of the primary objectives of CC-7 and the definition of Perpetual 

Pavement. He presented a table explaining the test section design details. Dr. Garg explained 

the asphalt is 8 to 15 inches thick and if the model is correct 8 inches should fail in 3,000 passes 

and 15 inches should fail at 30, 000 passes. The Subcommittee asked what the load is and Dr. 

Garg replied the load is 55,000 pound with six landing gear, mimicking a Boeing 777. Dr. Garg 

continued his presentations by reviewing the instrumentation details and data collection. He 

gave a summary of the CC-7 project stating traffic tests will continue through spring 2016.

Dr. David Brill, Full Scale Testing – Overload Update, Dr. Brill began his presentation by 

giving a review of the current ICAO Overload Criteria for flexible and rigid pavements, noting 

the criteria are outdated and conservative. He reviewed the most recent CC-8 test for Rigid 

Pavement Objectives and stated testing began February 22, 2016, continued for two weeks 

ending on March 2, 2016, and will resume in spring 2016 with a date TBD. He presented a test 

area layout explaining the test slabs are 12x12 and 9 inches thick to represent what will be found 

in a light load general aviation facility. Dr. Brill explained what is being looked at is what 

would happen if a larger aircraft was brought into a light load facility. He reviewed the Initial 

Traffic plan including the dates, amount of wanders, and the overload during the wanders. Dr. 

Brill reviewed the initial traffic results and Strain gage date analysis. He continued explaining 

the revised traffic plan with increased loads and reviewed the results. Dr. Brill proceeded with 

presenting the Eddy Current Sensor responses and stated he was pleased with this tool and R & 

D is going to continue to use them. The Subcommittee commented based upon the data 

presented the AC 5% number is incorrect in regards to overload criteria and damage. Dr. Brill 

agreed stating to keep in mind the testing is done in a limited construction area with limited 

variables but believes the 25% number is probably fine. Dr. Brill proceeded with CC-7 

Overload Update stating trafficking is on hold while completing CC–7 north but is planned to 

resume in the spring. He reviewed the preliminary observations from last REDAC Meeting in 

August 2015 and the CC-7 test layout. Dr. Drill presented test items, instrumentation layout, 

general test procedures, and a CC-7 test summary as of March 15, 2016. He proceeded 

explaining the process for Rut Depth and Upheaval monitoring and data analysis. Dr. Brill 

concluded his presentation with Future Testing Plans. 

Mr. Al Larkin, Pavement Roughness, Mr. Larkin began his presentation updating the 

Subcommittee on NDT Pavement Technology highlighting FY2016 Accomplishments. Mr. 

Larkin explained the Research Goals are to develop a new Pavement Roughness Index for inservice airport pavement. He explained the Alternative Profiling Technologies for Airport 

Pavement acceptance and the overview of the research plan including a site visit to Wright 

Patterson Air Force Base and the use of simulators in Oklahoma City. Mr. Larkin stated the 

new index will be developed from data collected from the simulator project because it correlates 

to pilots direct responses. He continued presenting the data collected from the simulators, 

stating it was one pilot’s evaluation. Mr. Larkin proceeded with the overview of the Wright 

Patterson Air Force Base site visit including site numbers, a table of pavement description and a 

table listing profiling devices that will be used. Mr. Larkin concluded with giving an overview

of the Data Analysis Procedure for the site visit data. The Subcommittee asked how many 

profiles will be performed. Mr. Larkin stated it will vary. The Subcommittee asked when the 

site visit is scheduled. Mr. Larkin replied they are shooting for the week of March 28, 2016. 
Day One Presentations –Concluded

The Subcommittee discussed if there were any recommendations needing discussion. The 

Subcommittee agreed all the projects were impressive and on the right track. The 

Subcommittee commented on everything being done in R & D is outstanding but the concerns

are where the funding is going. The Subcommittee agreed a list of activities with the funding 

attached is needed and it will be discussed further at a later time. 

Meeting adjourned 5:20p.m. 

Day Two

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Dr. Hovan gave a brief overview of the topics that will be discussed. He also thanked Mr. Ryan 

King for stepping in and taking on the interim role as Safety Area Manager in Mr. Jim 

Patterson’s absence. Dr. Hovan explained Mr. Patterson was assigned to UAS Research for the 

past six months. 

Mr. Jim Patterson, 2016 Safety Projects + Plans for FY-17-18, Mr. Patterson began his 

presentation by giving an overview of the Safety Projects and Plans and the Safety Budget 

Summary. He presented the new transition from RPD’s to RPA’s, as well as explaining how 

the organization of projects will fall under the new RPAs. He stated some of the budget will get 

allocated to the Environmental Research Project, but the amount has not been decided upon at 

this time. Mr. Patterson continued speaking on personnel and informed the Subcommittee the

R&D Division is looking for new environmental personnel. He gave an overview of the FY16 

projects currently underway, highlighting the new competitor to the market for EMAS, digging 

dirt in Cape May, LED Lighting, and the new ARFF fire truck. Mr. Patterson reviewed the 

Major Cooperative Efforts with PEGASUS, ICAO and the ARFF Working Group. He 

highlighted how positive and successful the PEGASUS program is for R&D. He commented on 

how the PEGASUS program has exceeded expectations and makes it possible to complete quick 

exploratory work when needed. Mr. Patterson continued by reviewing the Report Publications, 

stating there have been five new publications since the last REDAC Meeting. He informed the 

Subcommittee the reports can be accessed via the FAA website in the FAA Library. 

Mr. Robert Bassey, Research Taxiway, Aeromacs, Low Cost Ground Surveillance Radar, Mr. 

Bassey began his presentation with an overview of the budget for the Research Taxiway Project 

for FY16-FY18. He explained there is a drop off in funding from FY17-FY18 due to most of 

the construction for the Cape May project being completed. Mr. Bassey informed the 

Subcommittee the Construction Contract has been awarded to CJS and Atlantic City Electric 

will be installing hardware for the light fixtures. Mr. Bassey stated R&D is anticipating 

completion in the summer 2016 and will be able to provide a demonstration at the next REDAC. 

Mr. Bassey continued by giving an overview of the Innovative Airport Sensor Technologies 

highlighting the installation of non-federal AeroMACs System at Boston Airport and the 

development of the CONOPS framework for Lost Cost Surveillance Systems. He stated the 

need for this research at the larger airports is to improve situational awareness, provide better 

understanding of aircraft movement, and airport personnel. Mr. Bassey stated it will give 

improved real time management. He explained the benefits for the small to medium sized 
airports would be improved effectiveness of personnel. He commented there is a lot of work to 

match the system with the airport. Mr. Bassey presented examples of tracking with the Optical 

System and the Thermal Imaging tracking. He explained the tracking was real time and also 

completed with GPS so result could be compared. Mr. Bassey informed the Subcommittee the 

data between the two tracking systems was less than 10 meters difference. Mr. Bassey informed 

the Subcommittee based on their recommendation a CONOPS document is currently in 

development and will be completed in June 2016. He explained the document will include 

integration of other systems, complexity of airports, technology requirements and costs. Mr. 

Bassey proceeded stating the current work being performed is looking at supporting sensor 

ground radar with the optical system and tracking aircraft. He stated a next step would be 

optimizing systems to make them more accurate. The Subcommittee questioned if the systems 

are all weather compatible, Mr. Bassey replied yes, they have been tested in all weather

conditions. The Subcommittee inquired if the thought has been to integrate this with ADSB. 

Mr. Bassey responded not at this time. He explained the basic idea for this system is to track 

airport operations on ramp area. The Subcommittee asked if this data will go to the tower. Mr. 

Bassey responded it will not go to the tower but to the Airport Operator. The Subcommittee 

asked if potential uses will be included in the CONOPS Document and Mr. Bassey replied yes. 

The Subcommittee commented this could be useful in mitigating runway incursions and Mr. 

Bassey stated if that is so, then you get into Air Traffic and that is beyond the scope at this 

point. Mr. Bassey proceeded with his presentation by reviewing the AeroMACs acronym = 

Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communication System and commented this could be the future of 

communication. He stated this is a protected wireless service to aviation users for specific uses 

in FAA Air Traffic Control, Airlines, and Airport Operators. Mr. Bassey explained this will 

provide ease of optimization and improved security at a lower cost. He presented examples of 

the systems and described operation of them. The Subcommittee suggested painting the cost 

benefit picture more clearly and informing them of what the research is leading to and what the 

end result will be. Mr. Bassey responded stating there will be a generic plan that will have to be 

specified according to airport needs. The Subcommittee discussed the potential of cost savings 

due to not having to run cables. The Subcommittee suggested starting focusing on benefits 

tailored to airports. The Subcommittee agreed there could be a use for this on the airline side, as 

well, but the question is how it will play into standards. The Subcommittee asked if R&D is 

communicating with other players. Mr. Bassey agreed the R & D if effectively communicating 

with other players and at this time light data being shared. He explained they are only testing 

this on non-critical assets, which is why the program is being phased. Mr. Bassey explained as 

the results are satisfactory security, etc. will be added. The Subcommittee commented that 

resiliency is an issue and asked if the station installations themselves need to be resilient. Mr. 

Bassey replied that consideration is being put into the design. 

Mr. Ralph Tamburro and Ms. Emily Stelzer, PANNYNJ, Low Cost Optical System, Mr. 

Tamburro and Ms. Stelzer began their presentation by giving a background and overview of the 

project at Teterboro Airport. They explained this was a collaboration of the Port Authority and 

MITRE, at no cost to the Port Authority. They continued stating MITRE has an internal 

research program looking at similar surveillance systems and the importance of the surveillance

systems. Ms. Stelzer gave an overview of the ASDE-X System and stated that for a small to 

medium airport there might not be a cost benefit due to the 25 million dollars it costs to install.

Ms. Stelzer informed the Subcommittee there has been a reduction of runway incursions due to 
the system. Ms. Stelzer and Mr. Tamburro presented slides on the research and different 

approaches that were taken. Ms. Stelzer the biggest concern was with was the approaches of 

what was being looked at and the accuracy of the results. Ms. Stelzer explained they took 

controllers to a simulator after a prototype was developed. The controllers who participated 

were from Manassas Airport in Virginia. Ms. Stelzer stated they were hoping to see a safety 

benefit from this research and to make sure it is operationally useful and acceptable. Ms. 

Stelzer stated after potential benefits were determined the next stage was a field demonstration. 

She explained cameras were placed at “hotspots” at runway crossings at the departure end of the 

airport. The Subcommittee asked if there was a performance target in mind for this project. 

Ms. Stelzer responded there isn’t a defined target and the concept is to try to keep everything 

low cost therefore, there has been no integration with other airport data. She stated for the 

ASDE-X System second tier, costs 2 million dollars over 10yrs for implementation and 

maintenance. She commented that a basic function of the system could be sufficient for some 

airports and the system could be scaled according to specific airport needs. The Subcommittee 

asked the range for this system. Ms. Stelzer responded it is dependent on the pixel in the 

camera and how it views the distance, but she believes it is less than one mile. The 

Subcommittee asked if the testing was completed with HD Cameras and Ms. Stelzer replied the 

test was completed with FLIR Cameras with a 45 degree field of view. The Subcommittee

asked what the cost of a FLIR Camera is and Ms. Stelzer responded it costs around three 

thousand dollars per camera. She commented the cost estimate would have to be adjusted based 

on airports and the availability of camera locations. Ms. Stelzer reviewed the Airport 

Operations feedback stating it has reviewed both low and high feasibility and they are moving 

forward. She informed the Subcommittee they are in the process of compiling a market 

assessment and they have been speaking with Robert Bassey and NextGen on continuing the 

project. The Subcommittee commented how this might be helpful for pavement inspection and 

maintenance. The Subcommittee agreed they would like to see more of this and know of any 

other research projects currently underway on this subject. 

Lauren Collins, Airport Noise, Safety Database, RIM, Ms. Collins began her presentation by 

reviewing the project updates, highlighting the transition from RPDs to RPAs. She reviewed 

the need for the Noise project stating it has been included in the budget since 2012. Ms. Collins 

reviewed the budget explaining the breakdown in funding in relation to the RPAs. She 

proceeded by informing the Subcommittee that Phase One and Two are completed and Phase 

Three has a goal to receive 10,000 survey responses and make 2,000 phone calls. Ms. Collins 

stated the mail drop began October 13, 2015 and the surveys are confidential, signed by the 

Department of Transportation. She updated the Subcommittee stating the mail drop is 

scheduled in six waves and occurs every two months with the final wave occurring September 

27, 2016. Ms. Collins informed the Subcommittee the response is exceeding expectations with 

4,676 surveys completed to date. Ms. Collins presented future work and informed the 

Subcommittee the purpose of the research is to determine if the current standards need to 

change. The Subcommittee asked if there is a plan to segregate the data to look at where the 

curve of complaints is. The Subcommittee explained airports have changed approaches, etc.

and the complaints may not be linked to decibels. The Subcommittee asked if people were more 

susceptible to noise once they got the survey. Ms. Collins responded no explaining that the 

survey is not labeled as a noise survey. The Subcommittee commented that noise is related to 

perception which is why it can be hard to understand the data. Ms. Collins proceeded by 
moving on to Data Mining Database Project. She began by presenting the transition from 

RPDs to RPAs. Ms. Collins gave an overview of highlights since August 2015 noting the 

database continues to be an asset to the Office of Airports. Ms. Collins gave a short 

demonstration commenting this database is different from ASIS because it has the ability to 

streamline what is being looked for. The Subcommittee asked if the database was public. Ms. 

Collins responded that it was not public but they would like to make it available to airports if 

they asked. She stated in the future they are hoping to pull in more data based on needs. Ms. 

Collins continued by giving a brief background overview of the RIM Project. She informed the 

Subcommittee due to the transition from RPDs to RPAs RIM will be under Airport Planning 

and Design. Ms. Collins gave a review of the research goals including initiating a 10 year 

improvement program to correct high-risk areas at airports with complex non-standard 

geometry, as well estimate construction unit costs for locations identified. She informed the 

Subcommittee of accomplishments since the last meeting in August 2015. Ms. Collins noted in 

September 2015 eight airports received AIP money for RIM Projects and the inventory was 

updated in December 2015. The Subcommittee commented a dashboard tracking system should 

be done for headquarters soon. The Subcommittee asked what the factors are that determine a 

location to be an incursion issue. Ms. Collins responded stating if there were six or more 

incidents from 2007-2013 they were flagged for the RIM list. The Subcommittee asked who 

makes the final determination for the RIM list. Mr. Dermody answered stating the Safety 

Action Teams bring up the issue and if it warrants a request for research it is brought down by 

Runway Safety Office – Office of Airports. Ms. Collins explained next steps of the project are 

to load FY15 incursion data. The Subcommittee asked who is responsible for entering data into 

the database. Mr. Dermody explained each airport involved in this research has a FAA 

employee who is a RIM Contact, and entering this information has been approached as part of a 

normal business day duty. The Subcommittee inquired who has access to the information. Ms. 

Collins stated once it has been finalized, anyone with airport credentials will have access. The 

Subcommittee asked if there was a strategic plan in place to help anticipate needs and stay on 

track. Mr. Dermody answered stating Runway Safety Action teams are ensuring how touch 

points are maintained and there is an RSAT developed at each location. The Subcommittee 

asked how that was being integrated and Mr. Dermody responded it is being integrated 

regionally, and the Office of Airports at headquarters is working on infrastructure. 

Mr.Dermody explained the Airport Operator makes the decisions. He stated the FAA provides 

dates, recommendations, and financial evaluation.

Don Gallagher, Robert Bassey, Rumble Strips, LED Projects, Mr. Gallagher began his 

presentation by reviewing the Rumble Strip Project background and their partnership with 

PEGASUS – Center of Excellence. He explained how the test was completed with temporary, 

thermoplastic, and saw cut strips, and explained installation of each. He reviewed the seven 

different GA Aircraft that were used to perform the tests and presented a graph with acceleration 

data. Mr. Gallagher informed the Subcommittee sensors were placed on the pilot seat and seat 

rails. The findings were significant airframe acceleration must occur for the pilot to feel the 

rumble strip and airframe manufacturers are concerned about the damage the strips could do to 

the gears over time. Mr. Gallagher reviewed the test results from the durability test performed 

in April 2015 stating there are problems with the durability of the ninety degree saw cut strip, 

construability challenges with the forty-five degree bevel saw cut, although it was proven more 

durable than the ninety degree saw cut. Mr. Gallagher explained the thermoplastic strip was 
easy to install and it was installed thicker than a usual strip, but it showed durability issues as it

was removed by a steel blade snow plow. The Subcommittee asked why the Thermoplastic was 

installed thicker than usual. Mr. Gallagher explained it has to be thicker than highway strips 

because a larger vehicle is being tested. Mr. Gallagher explained the temporary strips fared

well, were easy to install and remove, but there is a concern about causing fatigue to the aircraft. 

He proceeded by reviewing the conclusions for the project, noting they found temporary strips 

would not be ideal for preventing runway incursions, but there might be other uses for them. 

The Subcommittee asked if there was a speed threshold for the testing. Mr. Gallagher 

responded they tested at twenty knots however it is the size of the aircraft that matters more than 

the speed. Mr. Gallagher stated it’s hard to classify how each aircraft will respond due to 

manufacturing differences. The Subcommittee asked if the idea of testing a laser strip was ever 

discussed. Mr. Gallagher responded that a laser strip would do essentially what runway lights 

already do. He explained there are different concepts but not addressed in this study. Mr. 

Gallagher proceeded reviewing the LED High Intensity Runway Edge Light Project. He 

explained this is a “Pop- Up” project that was requested by AAS to explore the requirements for 

developing a FAA L-862 (L) (HIRL) with and IR emitter, designation to be L0682(L-IR) and to 

ensure it compatibility with aircraft currently equipped with EFVS. Mr. Gallagher explained 

that in September of 2014 FAA Office of Airports restricted the use of AIP funds for certain 

LED lights. He continued explaining the objectives of the project are to develop IR 

requirements based on legacy L-682 incandescent fixture measurement and use visual light 

requirements from FAA AC 150/5345-46, which is the current version and FAA EB67. Mr. 

Gallagher informed the Subcommittee the Phase 1 – Broad Agency Announcement was posted 

on February 2, 2016 and was closed on February 19, 2016. He stated the evaluation period 

closed on March 10, 2016 and the Phase II Request for Proposals will go out on March 25, 

2016. Mr. Gallagher explained for Phase II proposals, only offers which Technical Summary 

meets or exceeds future program requirements will be considered. He stated the Technical 

Summary must contain; purpose of research, description of research, current state of 

development, estimated time completion, estimated funds required, as well as description of 

testing and evaluation procedures. He explained the proposal submission will start on March 

28, 2016 and end on June 25, 2016. Mr. Gallagher informed the Subcommittee the evaluation 

period will take place from June 27, 2016- July 25, 2016 and Contracts award notification will 

be out on August 25, 2016. Mr. Gallagher stated the completion date for Phase II is projected 

for February 28, 2017. 

Mr. Robert Bassey, Visual Guidance, Mr. Bassey began his presentation reviewing the budget

for FY16-FY17 and explaining the purpose of Visual Guidance projects is to provide better 

visual cues to pilots to reduce the risk of incursion. He continued by giving an overview of the 

LED Lighted “X” testing. Mr. Bassey presented a picture of the lighted X explaining each arm 

is under sixteen feet in length and it has nine light sources. He informed the Subcommittee the 

flight testing is being performed through the PEGASUS Program and they are collaborating 

with the Florida Institute of Technology, Purdue University, and The Ohio State University for 

flight test locations. Mr. Bassey continued by presenting examples of the LED Lighted “X” in 

day and night flight situations. He proceeded with informing the Subcommittee of Milestones 

and a Project Schedule explaining the Performance Standards will be completed by March 2016, 

Photometric Testing will be completed in April 2016, Flight Testing will be completed in March 

2016, with a Final Report completed in June 2016. The Subcommittee agreed this could be 
something that would be beneficial to all airports, but the issue being who is responsible paying 

for it. The Subcommittee asked if the project is tracking how many bulbs need replacement, 

how often, etc. Mr. Bassey replied yes, and it’s a hard issue. Mr. Bassey proceeded with 

explaining the LED Infrastructure Research. He stated the issues resulting from LED 

implementation into the current 6.6A Series Airfield Lighting System are the added complexity 

and cost to the LED fixture due to the addition of electronics to mimic the non-linear dimming 

curve of incandescent lighting. He stated the possible solution to this is using the light only 

when it is needed. Mr. Bassey gave an overview of the different architectures used in the testing 

and presented a road map for the testing phase. He informed the Subcommittee the locations for 

were at the FAATC and PEGASUS Airport. Mr. Bassey stated lights were installed and the 

next phase is monitoring equipment and then continuing on to data collection. Mr. Bassey 

explained data collection will be bi-weekly starting in March 2016 and will continue for six 

months. Mr. Bassey continued with New Technologies, explaining the FAA R & D Visual 

Guidance Program has continued to explore new technologies to increase surface safety and 

reduce the rate of runway incursions. He informed the Subcommittee a literature review was 

completed in November 2015 and one technology that was mentioned in the report that is being 

considered is addressable airfield signage. He reviewed the potential application of LED use on 

signage and the research proposed. Mr. Bassey stated the outcome of this study will be a 

recommendation for standards for addressable signage use and technical specifications. 

Dr. John Cavolowsky, NASA Updates- Webex/Phone, Dr. Cavolowsky began his presentation 

providing the budget requested from OMB is a generous allocation and the opportunities

available in research. He stated his belief is the impact of the research is also relative to the 

airports scope of communication. Dr. Cavolowsky explained to look at the global growth in 

Aviation from both the passenger side as well as the job growth rate, stating it presents 

opportunities as well as challenges. Dr. Cavolowsky stated the challenges are competitiveness, 

environment, and mobility. He stressed that the environmental issues continue to grow. Dr. 

Cavolowsky gave an overview of the projects NASA is working on in collaboration with

airlines such as; American Airlines - weather rerouting and terminal sequence and spacing, 

America Airlines - Surface Management, Southwest Airlines - data mining to improve 

efficiency and safety. He also listed airports NASA is in collaboration with such as; Denver 

International Airport - Efficient Decent Advisor- improving arrival efficiencies and Dallas FortWorth international Airport- precision departure release capability- increasing departure time 

conformance. Dr. Cavolowsky stated this research is part of the reason why the OMB allocation 

is so generous. He proceeded by explaining the NASA Aeronautics Accomplishments and 

Planning. Dr. Cavolowsky stated the N+3 Subsonic and Supersonic concept /technology studies 

and N+2 Environmentally Responsible Aviation (which was ERA implemented) projects have 

made great improvements. He continued explaining FY17 budget is an increase of seven 

percent from FY16 and the 10 year budget plan still has to go before Congress. Dr. Cavolowksy 

explained classically the budget look is five years ahead, but they have provided a ten year 

outlook to be able to see areas of growth and plan research efforts accordingly. Dr. Cavolowsky 

stated the planning efforts should be collaborative with the FAA and believes there is a 

connection with NASA research and airports. Dr. Cavolowsky explained the New Aviation

Horizon Flight Demo Plan stating NASA is researching Hybrid Electric Propulsion 

Demonstrators as well as high speed flights. He communicated the collaborative effort for these 

research topics should be focused on long term. Dr. Cavolowsky explained the research being 
performed with Next Gen is New Trajectory Based Operations looking at Gate to gate 

optimization and complex terminal area trajectory management. He explained the goal is to 

have the systems integrated and demonstrated. Dr. Cavlolowsy reiterated the budget is subject 

to Congressional approval and while there is uncertainty, NASA is remaining optimistic. The 

Subcommittee commented it is important to be aware of the common interest research and 

what’s going on. The Subcommittee commented the surface work being performed is of great 

interest and they agreed it is pretty critical. The Subcommittee agreed the concepts of time 

based operations are useful but concerned what the impact would be on the Operator role. The 

Subcommittee commented the flight efficiencies research can make a difference in the long run 

and benefit the system overall. 

Mr. Nick Subbotin, Arrestor Systems, Mr. Subbotin began his presentation stating the transition 

from the RPD to the RPA. He reviewed the project overview and the need for the research. Mr. 

Subbotin reviewed the FY16 budget stating the project has been busy the past two years. Mr. 

Subbotin informed the Subcommittee Zodiac-Esco is proposing new core materials to replace 

the current. He informed the Subcommittee that fire tests were performed two weeks ago to 

coincide with the Advisory Circular that materials should be fire resistant. A report is being 

compiled and will be sent to FAA Headquarters. Mr. Subbotin reviewed information of the 

Runway Safe beds at Chicago Midway Airport stating the plan is to replace all EMAS beds with 

Runway Safe beds with their own funding. Mr. Subbotin presented an example of the runways 

the beds installed at Chicago Midway and stated Chicago O’Hare Airport is considering 

replacing their beds as well. He informed the Subcommittee he is working with Headquarters 

on report approval for Runway 4-22. Mr. Subbotin stated R & D is waiting on a new CRDA 

with Runway Safe due to the old one expiring. He informed the Subcommittee Runway Safe is 

also proposing a domestic made aggregate to align with AIP requirements. Mr. Subbotin 

continued by presenting future plans including Full Scale Testing for summer 2016, and the 

possibilities of collaborating with three or four new manufacturers. Mr. Subbotin reviewed R & 

D activities informing the Subcommittee of a new Subcontractor ARA –Jim White has joined 

the EMAS Team, and the ARA team was tasked with observing the entire process of installation 

and developing a quality control plan. He explained further research will be looking at 

longevity factors in regards to materials used and environmental factors. Mr. Subbotin stated 

there will also be a focus on maintenance and an inspection regime stating that maintenance is 

an important part of the integrity of the bed. He explained they will be choosing airports with 

beds six years old or older and gather inspection and maintenance reports, as well as costs from 

those airports. Mr. Subbotin stated the goals for the EMAS Project are to make decisions on 

EMAS longevity; find issues with inspection and maintenance, and make updates to the AC. He 

stated the Inspection and Maintenance Plan is due April 2016. Mr. Subbotin informed the 

Subcommittee an early finding is the procedures for inspections and maintenance are not very 

practical. Mr. Subbotin continued presenting FY18 Plans including field testing (location 

TBD), Cost Analysis to include material and labor hours, and to put together better guidance for 

maintenance and inspection. The Subcommittee asked if there is a failure criterion. Mr. 

Subbotin stated that is up to the manufacturer and the issue is the manufacturer won’t certify. 

The Subcommittee asked who is responsible for maintenance and inspection the manufacturer 

or airport. Mr. Subbotin stated the manufacturer does an annual inspection but the airport pays 

for the manufacturer visit. Mr. Subbotin stated part of the research is looking into whether 
maintenance plans differ depending on airport. The Subcommittee commented the long term 

issue is replacement and each manufacturer has its own criteria. 

Mr. Keith Bagot, ARFF Program Updates, Mr. Bagot began his presentation with a review of 

the program needs and research goals. He highlighted the FY16 Accomplishments informing 

the Subcommittee of the delivery of a new ARFF Research Vehicle. Mr. Bagot reviewed the 

FY17 budget explaining the increase is due to the construction of a new fire test building. He 

explained the FY18 budget numbers drop down to more of an operational level. Mr. Bagot 

reviewed the current projects being performed and stated that there are other projects in progress

that aren’t included in the presentation. He informed the Subcommittee he will be happy to talk 

about the other projects if the Subcommittee is interested. Mr. Bagot informed the 

Subcommittee of the trip to the Rosenbauer Plant to perform the truck inspection and 

performance tests that were required to take delivery. He explained the plan for the truck is to 

perform Compressed Air Foam (CAFs) and High Pressure testing. Mr. Bagot informed the 

Subcommittee it is the only truck of its kind worldwide. Mr. Bagot proceeded with an update 

on the new fire test building presenting examples of comparable facilities and examples of the 

testing that will be performed. He explained the need for testing inside vs. outside is because it

takes away some environmental concerns, weather issues, and gives the ability for the 

repeatability of testing which is needed. Mr. Bagot informed the Subcommittee the FAATC 

MPSB approval was received in May 2015 and the obstruction evaluation was approved in July 

2015. He explained the current efforts have been the study on potential emission control levels 

and state permitting. Mr. Bagot explained they are waiting on NJ DEP ruling on emission 

control requirements. Mr. Bagot informed the Subcommittee R & D is preparing a SOW and 

other contract documents and designs. Mr. Bagot proceeded giving a brief review of the 

Thermal Imaging and FLIR projects presenting examples of the key functions and ranges. He 

continued his presentation with a review of the fire testing/FLIR radiant panel testing with the 

L1011. He commented they had more success with this test determining hot spots vs what the 

findings were from the testing performed in California. Mr. Bagot presented New Research 

Projects for FY16/FY17 Alternative Clean Agent Evaluation, input based foam proportioning 

system testing technologies. He also presented new research for FY17/18 being Military

Specifications vs ICAO Test Protocols. The Subcommittee commented there are pros and cons 

to both technologies ( Military vs ICAO) on an industry level and believe there is a sense of 

urgency to revise ARFF Operations for aircraft. The Subcommittee discussed the issues of 

larger aircraft and the limitations it puts on what airport that airplane can fly into. The 

Subcommittee agrees this is an opportunity for the FAA to contribute to modification studies, 

due to the fact that there aren’t many ARFF experts out in the industry to speak on this. The 

Subcommittee agrees there is good testing that is being performed. John Dermody interjected 

agreeing stating the work the Tech Center is doing is great and needs to continue. 

Lauren Collins, Kent Duffy, Airport Planning and Design, Ms. Collins began the presentation 

giving an overview of the re-organization of RPDs to RPAs. She explained the FY16 RPD 

encompassed Airport Design (RPD 133), Complex Geometry (RPD 142), and Airport Planning 

(RPD 132). Ms. Collins explained for FY17 under the new RPA those projects will all fall 

under RPA S1 - Airport Planning and Design. Ms. Collins added Trapezoidal Grooving will 

also fall under Airport Planning and Design S1.4 and it is accounted for within the three million 

for RPA FY17. Ms. Collins commented to the FY18 budget being blank because R & D isn’t 
sure of the priorities at this time. Kent Duffy introduced himself and Dr. Michel Hovan 

introduced Mike Heinz from the Office of Airports. Mr. Duffy proceeded by presenting the 

FY16 budget and the REDIM Replacement Project. He explained the REDIM is outdated and 

the objectives are to develop a tool that is compatible with current software, provide estimates 

of runway exit probability for aircraft location and geometry of runway exit and input for 

capacity simulation software. Mr. Duffy explained the methodology for this will be using the 

ASDE-X data and or update the REDIM database with updated manufacturer data. Mr. Duffy 

reviewed the FY16 GA Runway Length tool stating the issue is aircraft performance data 

availability and the objective is to develop a web-based tool that makes use of the statistical 

dataset develop in previous phase to allow for streamlined runway length needs assessment. He 

continued with FY17 Plans including Runway Simulator development and integration of aircraft 

datasets. Mr. Duffy explained with the development of the web- based tool it would require 

industry outreach to ensure data is being used correctly. He explained for the GA Runway 

Length Tool the lift off point can be calculate from the ASDE-X and there would be a small 

number of aircraft types that data would be needed. The Subcommittee commented that using 

ASDE-X is fitting a situation into what has already been proven. Mr. Duffy responded stating 

there is probably an issue using that data exclusively for what is trying to be accomplished. He 

proceeds with FY17 Plans for runway simulator highlighting quarterly training sessions, stating

they have had 90 people complete the training. Mr. Duffy informed the Subcommittee there is 

an academic version coming soon for use at universities, as well as added functionality with the 

delay module. 

Dr. Jim Hileman, Airport Environmental Research, Dr. Hileman began with an overview of 

his presentation. He explained the Aviation Environmental challenges noting Noise to be the 

most immediate issue. Dr. Hileman stated there has to be a multiple prong approach to site the 

challenges and then to mitigate those challenges. He explained in 2012 the FAA put out an

Aviation Environmental and Energy Policy Statement with the vision and guiding principles.

Dr. Hileman reviewed the statement stating the goal being increased mobility with less 

environmental impact and enhanced energy availability and sustainability. Dr. Hileman 

presented the environment and energy goals stating the noise research goal are to reduce the 

number of people exposed to significant noise around U.S. airports in absolute terms, 

notwithstanding aviation growth, and provide additional measures to protect public health and 

welfare and our national resources. He explained the overall vision is the next level of safety. 

Dr. Hileman reviewed the Five Pillar Approach to research and the collaboration with other 

agencies. Dr. Hileman continued with an overview Airport Environment research objectives 

that are performed with AIP funds. Dr. Hileman stated a focus on research is Evaluating Fixed 

dB Values used in Determining Noise Level Reduction Requirements [with sound insulation 

programs] Noise Dispersion with ELSO PBN departures, Develop air quality screening criteria 

for airport actions, Review of Airport Guidance for Climate Adaptation and Resiliency, as well 

as Research on Airport Environmental Concerns and Mitigation Measures. He believes this 

research will be a tremendous help to airport communities as well as give better integration 

knowledge and help with the overall planning processes. Dr. Hileman’s summary included the 

collaboration between the Technical Center, ARP, and AEE and explained five new projects 

being started this year with FY16 funds. He reviwed FY17 budget stating current efforts are 

directed to FY17, FY18 and beyond. Dr. Hileman commented the plans will include reducing 

aviation noise and improving air quality impacts, sustainability in regards to water and energy
use, and climate change and adaptability, as well as enhancing analytical abilities and land use 

planning using AEE for ground support and modeling. Dr. Hileman stated there needs to be an

improvement on the ability to model and more database development in sharing information. 

He informed the Subcommittee there needs to be a long term research plan. 

Due to time constraints Mr. Chris Oswald, Chairperson, had to omit the question portion of the 

presentation. Some Subcommittee Members had to leave due to travel arrangements. Mr. 

Oswald stated he would prepare recommendations and send them to all members, asking for 

feedback after they have been reviewed. He reminded all members the next meeting will be 

August 16 and 17 2016 and the first day meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. 

The Subcommittee continued the discussion on Dr. Hileman’s presentation stating a concern 

that the FY18 sleep study/noise will be more than what the budget entails. The Subcommittee 

agrees there is a need and a lot can be done to be sustainable and reduce the environmental 

impact. The Subcommittee stated they are looking forward to the FY18 plan and commented 

the plan should include plan outside the research budget. The Subcommittee agreed AEE has a 

large, broad portfolio and the research topics being concentrated on are airport centric PBN 

work. The Subcommittee questioned whether it is reasonable for compiling a 10 year plan. The 

Subcommittee agreed to put this discussion on hold until the Summer/Fall Meeting. They 

agreed there has to be assurance that efforts aren’t being duplicated or repeated and they agreed 

more discussion is needed to be able to structure. The Subcommittee voiced a concern that 

money is being borrowed from one side to another. The Subcommittee discussed if it was 

practical to present a ten year plan at the full meeting. 

Mr. Joe Breen, Trapezoidal Grooving, Aircraft Braking, In- Pavement Light Bolt 

Frangibility, Mr. Breen began his presentation by explaining the FY17 RPA for Trapezoidal 

Grooving. He gave a brief review for the reason for research and testing methodologies 

discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Breen reviewed the project objectives and project plans. He 

explained the plans are divided into Phase I and Phase II. He explained Phase I will consist of 

ACY runway 4-22 evaluation and grooving test bed design, evaluate condition of planned PCC 

test bed, calculate impact of reducing pavement thickness, evaluate load carrying capacity and 

remaining life, develop design for construction of test bed and plans, including specifications, 

schedule, and cost estimate. Mr. Breen added Runway 4-22 has a combination of different test 

grooving from the 1980’s so the plan has to include demolishing the old grooving and 

reconstructing the test bed. He proceeded with explaining Phase II plans to be construction and 

full scale performance testing, including construction of grooving test bed, obliterate existing 

grooving, machine trapezoidal shaped and FAA standard grooving, regrind half depth grooving

sections, and machine new FAA Standard Full Depth Grooving. Mr. Breen continued with

giving an overview of testing plans as well as reviewing aircraft parameters. Mr. Breen 

highlighted the recent project progress informing the Subcommittee Phase I has received 

approval by ACY Management and there is a meeting scheduled for March 17, 2016 for 

contractor proposal. He explained they are expecting a four month completion date and the 

results of Phase I will be presented to ACY Management. Mr. Breen stated that Phase II will 

begin after the successful completion and ACY Management approval of Phase I. Mr. Breen 

reviewed the FY16 and FY17 budgets explaining R & D was hoping to have this project 
completed in FY16. He informed the Subcommittee due to the fact that approval was just 

granted from ACY to begin Phase I this project is going to flow into FY17. The Subcommittee

asked what the parameters for testing were. Mr. Breen responded they are planning a couple of 

tests; a baseline, two full depths on one side and half depth grooving on the other side. Mr. 

Breen continued with presenting the Aircraft Braking Friction Project by reviewing the FY17 

budget and RPD and explaining the transition into the FY17 budget and RPA S6.1. He 

reviewed the purpose of research as well as the methodology used. Mr. Breen informed the 

Subcommittee this was established by a NTSB recommendation after the 2005 Chicago Midway 

Aircraft Accident. He continued by reviewing the unique capabilities of the B727-25C Test 

Aircraft. Mr. Breen highlighted recent progress including the installation of the operable

programmable braking system, trial runs on runway 4-22 at ACY, trial runs on FAA Ramp at 

ACY, installation and operation of new data acquisition and display systems, and the trial runs 

of both of those systems on runway 4-22 and the FAA Ramp. He informed the Subcommittee 

the trial runs for winter weather test operations were performed on manufactured and natural 

snow, and the two test series were performed with main gear brakes using a single four hundred 

foot test strip and dual four hundred foot test strips. Mr. Breen provided examples of essential 

measurements and explained there are five parameters to assess during testing to come up with 

algorithm for aircraft braking when landing. Mr. Breen presented video and pictures of testing. 

The Subcommittee asked what the reason was to test on manufactured snow using one strip and

dual strips. Mr. Breen responded they wanted to be able to validate during the snow. The 

Subcommittee asked if the ramp was graded. Mr. Breen responded no. Mr. Breen explained the 

testing strips are eight feet wide and there was a consistent fuel level throughout the testing 

procedure. The subcommittee agreed they were not enthusiastic about this project when it first

started and commented that this is a proud moment and they enthusiastically support this. The 

Subcommittee was asked what made them turn the corner. The Subcommittee responded the 

return on investment. The Subcommittee explained the airplane was purchased without a 

defined project and now there is a defined project with defined goals and agreed there is 

nowhere else to get this information. The Subcommittee asked when this will be completed. 

Mr. Breen responded he is hoping to have fully developed analysis by June. He presented the 

data display and explained the process noting the data being presented is real time data. Mr. 

Breen presented future project test strategy stating he would like to give balance to testing on 

manufactured snow by using chipped ice machine and runway 4-22 would be included in the 

validation process. Mr. Breen stated there also needs to be development of data and validation 

could be on our aircraft. The Subcommittee agreed there is a need and value to have this on 

actual flying aircraft. The Subcommittee asked what the timing is for validation. Mr. Breen 

responded to finish all winter testing for 2016 and 2017, convert the data to algorithm, test on 

the 727, then move to test on flying aircraft. He commented that could probably start as early as 

October 2016. The Subcommittee asked if the algorithm could be started now. Mr. Breen 

responded he would look at that. 

Due to time constraints, Joe Breen did not present on In-Pavement Light Bolt Frangibility.

Mr. Jim Patterson, Updates on UAS, Mr. Patterson began his presentation explaining the 

Technical Center developed a UAS R & D Team and he was asked to serve on the team. He 

explained it was six month assignment and presented the topics to be covered during his 

presentation. Mr. Patterson continued stating the reasons for the research and the development 

of the research team are due to the expansion of UAS Systems and the amount that are being 

sold. Mr. Patterson gave an overview of the Technical Center UAS Laboratories and the work 
that is performed. He presented highlights of the UAS R & D efforts noting the Pathfinder 

Program. Mr. Patterson explained how the FAA is working with industry partners on focus 

areas: Pathfinder 1 – Visual line of sight operations in urban areas- how to use UAS safely for 

news gathering in populated areas; Pathfinder 2 – Extended visual line of sight operations in 

rural areas – this involves UAS flights outside the pilot’s direct vision. UAS Manufacturer 

Precision Hawk is exploring how this might allow greater UAS use for crop monitoring in 

precision agricultural operations; Pathfinder 3 – Beyond visual line of sight in rural/isolated

areas – BNSF Railroad will explore command and control challenges of using UAS to inspect 

rail system infrastructure. He also explained Pathfinder 4 – CACI UAS Detection Technology 

– this is the ability to detect the presence of a UAS and its operator through the use of radio 

frequency geolocation. Mr. Patterson showed the sensor configurations and locations placed at 

the Technical Center. He presented the map that is a result of the sensors “talking” to each other 

and then mapping out the locations of the UAS. Mr. Patterson added the range is about two 

miles for this system. He highlighted milestones and commented on the fast pace of the 

research noting the kick off meeting was in October 2015 and moved to flying UAS in January 

and February 2016. Mr. Patterson explained the research team worked with ACY Airport and 

Air Traffic Operations. He also mentioned collaboration with the University of Maryland due to 

the fact their researchers are certified to be able to fly the different variations of drones being 

used for testing. Mr. Patterson presented and operations view of the CACI display noting the 

confidence eclipse which is a blue dot that gives you the location of the UAS. Mr. Patterson 

informed the Subcommittee of Future UAS work siting the plan to deploy Detection 

Technology at five airports in eighteen months, noting JFK is in cooperation with FBI Blackbird 

System and DFW has been suggested by Gryphon Sensors. He explained three additional 

airports still need to be selected. The Subcommittee asked how long it takes for the detection 

system to identify a UAS. Mr. Patterson replied that it is almost instantaneous, commenting the 

FBI stated they can get the person before the system is even deployed. He continued stating 

there will be a system at Lexington Airport in summer 2016. Mr. Patterson explained other 

future work being performed is Counter UAS – meaning several technologies that exist have the 

capability to take over control or disable airborne UAS. He explained most are developed and 

used by the military and operate under top secret security classification and the FAA has an 

interest in this technology. Mr. Patterson also explained there are issues with responsibility for 

regulating these systems and their use. He spoke on possible other uses for these systems such 

as: a way to deter wildlife, airport surface safety inspections, EMAS Beds inspections, Aircraft 

Rescue Firefighting, and Airport Security. The Subcommittee commented who controls the 

airspace and the authority over vehicles operating in the air space. The Subcommittee discussed 

there regulations already in place and wondered why there was no line funding for this research. 

Recommendations of the Day

Airport Planning – the Subcommittee discussed and agreed to close the spring 2015 

recommendation and it would be re-visited if necessary. Chris Oswald, Chairperson stated the 

Subcommittee will review again at the Fall Meeting and he will send the budget request and 

would like feedback. He also stated a breakdown of the budget is needed as well as a deeper 

dive into the planning. Dr.Hovan agreed that at the present time there is no plan, but added that 

can change. He explained there are constraints on budget request approval for FY18 and agreed 

with the Subcommittee’s need to understand projects that are seeking the money in 2018.
RPA Project Level Budget - the Subcommittee discussed the need for project level budgets as 

well as asking Dr. Hovan if environmental shouldn’t be included in noise. Dr. Hovan responded 

that noise is specific to annoyance. 

The Subcommittee discussed the need for a deeper dive into airspace maintenance, industry 

involvement and 10 year plan. Dr. Hovan stated he is comfortable with the FY18 budget and he 

would like to ask for additional funding to expand the lab areas. He explained if he doesn’t 

receive additional funding the other options is to have the research programs absorb the costs or 

don’t expand the labs. The Subcommittee suggested looking at the legitimate function 

expanding the labs will provide, and suggested it should be looked at to provide something that 

is not commercially available. The Subcommittee asked if the FY17 budget can be changed 

explaining there are no subject matter expertise to know what is needed. The Subcommittee 

asked if there was year-end money available and is this something to use the year end money 

for. Dr. Hovan responded his plan for FY17 and FY18 is to expand the Pavement Lab and then 

the Photometric Lab and it needs support. He explained that money becomes available July 1st

and not everything on the list is a priority. Dr. Hovan continued that first we see if the need is 

there and then we determine how we pay. He expressed this is something that cannot wait until 

FY18- FY19. The Subcommittee suggested waiting for FY17 end of year money to proceed 

with design or construction stating the documentation has already been submitted to the 

Subcommittee. The Subcommittee asked Dr. Hovan if there was another way to address this 

need, such as looking at the budget and seeing where it can fit. The Subcommittee also 

suggested a separate capital budget might need to be figured in so money isn’t being taken away 

from the research budget. The Subcommittee asked Dr. Hovan to look at the possible impacts 

and scenarios if the funding doesn’t come through and if the scenario doesn’t look that bad then 

it may not be a priority right now. Dr. Hovan stated the Photometric Lab is a priority. The 

Subcommittee asked what the design cost is. Dr. Hovan stated it is ten to fifteen percent of the 

total cost and it can be under the umbrella of the Technical Center. The Subcommittee asked 

Dr. Hovan to provide justification to get a consensus of support. They are aware it might not be 

within the timeline but explained it does not fall under research programs, as it is an upgrade to 

facility. In addition, the Subcommittee asked Dr. Hovan to provide in depth budgets for 

projects to include POPs. 

The Subcommittee agreed they would review the budgets and look for anything that could be 

missing. The Subcommittee agreed on the pressure to find finding for UAS Research and 

questioned if that is FAA Responsibility or R & D Airports responsibility. The Subcommittee 

agreed it was a big budget issue and there should be an agency wide strategic plan for each line 

of business, including funding for respective areas. The Subcommittee recommends exploring 

allocating of funding and where it would need to be for the Safety and Surveillance RPAs going 

into 2018. The Subcommittee discussed whether it is appropriate to ask for a plus up in 

consideration of including UAS into the FY18 budget. 

ARFF Guidelines – the Subcommittee agreed this is not really R & D but more of policy 

guidelines under ICAO. 

RIM – the Subcommittee agreed at some point this should transition out of research, the data is 

out there and there is awareness about it. The Subcommittee discussed there should be meeting 

on mechanisms of training for databases and the issue of coordinating Runway Safety 

infrastructure under it. Dr. Hovan informed the Subcommittee of a new awareness requirement 

as of January 2016, called Data DMPS which came from DOT and the White House. He 
explained that after every project is completed the FAA has to provide a DMP to the public. He 

stated there are still discussions as to how long to keep data and length of data. 

The Subcommittee discussed the venue for the next meeting and agreed it will be in the 

Technical Center Director’s Conference Room (Bldg. 300). The Subcommittee agreed it will be 

two full days with both days stating at 8:30a.m and the second day ending by 3pm. Due to the 

fact that the FAA Shuttle arrives at 9a.m., a soft start for 8:30a.m.was discussed. The 

Subcommittee also agreed that fifteen minutes for presentations is not feasible. The 

Subcommittee stated they would like to see three or four presentations with the ability for deep 

dives, if necessary. Dr. Hovan stated he will draft the agenda and send a month before and 

would like feedback from the Subcommittee before it is finalized. The Subcommittee gave a 

brief overview of what they would like the agenda to encompass as follows:

Day One

Summary of RPAs with initial report

Reserve time for review of recommendations in the afternoon

1-2 deep dives

Day Two

Safety RPAs

3-5 presentations

Reserve time for discussions and recommendations in the afternoon

A reminder that the Summer/Fall Meeting is strategic focus 

Meeting adjourned 5:30p.m. 
REDAC Subcommittee on Airports

Spring Meeting 2016

March 15-16

Action Items

Airport Planning – the Subcommittee agreed to close the recommendation from spring 2015 

and discuss this further at the fall 2016 meeting. Mr. Oswald asked for the budget request to 

include the budget breakdown and be sent to him. He stated he will distribute to Subcommittee 

members and would like feedback. Mr. Oswald informed Subcommittee members the need for 

a deeper dive. 

RPA Project Level Budget – the Subcommittee requested Dr. Hovan supply them with more 

detailed budgets for all projects, including Period of Performance. 

Discussion on fall 2016 Meeting – Dr. Hovan agreed to draft and agenda and distribute one 

month prior to scheduled meeting. The Subcommittee agreed to review and send feedback 

before the agenda is finalized. 

Remaining Action Items – Mr. Oswald informed attendees he would compile a list of items he 

felt needed priority attention and distribute to the Subcommittee members for review, feedback, 

and approval. If a conference call is needed to discuss he will send an invite via email in the 

near future.

 
List of Attendees

Day One:

FAA – WJHTC

Jim Patterson

David R. Brill

Murphy Flynn

Ryan King

Karen Mercer

Shelley Yak

Eric Neiderman

Michel Hovan

Car Coleman

Jeff Gagnon

Benjamin Mahaffay 

Navneet Garg

Peter Sparacino

CSRA

Bill Allen

Jerry Connelly

Eric Plyler

Kent Hauser – NAPA

Mike Maas – ALPA

Rich Speir – ARA

Halil Ceylan –Iowa State University

John White – ALPA

Doug Johnson – FAA AAS-100

Grege Cline – FAA AAS- 100

John Dermody – FAA AAS – 2- HQ

Chris Oswald – ACI-NA

Jaime Figueroa – FAA HQ

Monte Symons – Montista Consultants

Gary L. Mitchell – ACPA

Steve Jangelis – ALPA

Barb Busiek – NWARA - XNA

Scott Marsh – Port Authority of NY&NJ

Sarah Brammell – ERS

Sarah Hubbard – Purdue University

Shailesh Gongal – Massport
Day Two:

FAA – WJHTC

Holly Cyrus 

Peter Sparacino

Shelley Yak

Ryan King

Robert Bassey

Michel Hovan

Eric Neiderman

Keith Bagot

Karen Mercer

Xiaogong Lee

CA Roundtree – Coleman

Joe Breen

David R. Brill

Mike Maas – ALPA

Rich Speir – ARA

Shailesh Gongal – Massport

Kent Hauser – NAPA

Sarah Hubbard – Purdue University

Gary L. Mitchell – ACPA

Monte Symons – Montista Consultants

John White – ALPA

Jim White – ARA

Jaime Figueroa – FAA – HQ

Ralph Nicosia – Rusin – FAA ANE-610

Chris Oswald – ACI- NA

John Dermody – FAA – HQ AAS – 2 – HQ

Ralph Tamburro – Port Authority of NY& NJ

Chris Bartone – Ohio University

Halil Ceylan – Iowa State University

Mike Hines – FAA – HQ

Tom Cuddy – FAA – HQ

Kent Duffy – FAA HQ

Doug Johnson – FAA – AAS 100 – HQ

Scott Marsh – Port Authority of NY& NJ

Eduardo Juranovic – Boeing

Barb Busiek – NWARA - XNA

Sarah Brammell – ERS 

Steve Janguelis – ALPA

Chris Seher – ARA

Eric Plyler – CSRA

Emily Stelzer – MITRE

Larry VanHoy – LVH Aviation, LLC

Katrina Warren – Zodiac Arresting System
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee

PPT Briefing to Sub-committee on Airports:

March 15 – March 16 - 2016

Building 296 Conference Room

DAY 1 – March 15, 2016

12:30 pm Mr. Christopher Oswald Introduction

ACI-NA, Subcommittee Chairperson

12:45 pm Ms. Shelley Yak, William J. Hughes Technical Center Updates

FAA Technical Center Director

1:00 pm Mr. Jeff Gagnon, Mr. John Dermody Plaque Dedication to Mr. Jeff Rapol

and Christopher Oswald

1:30 pm Dr. Michel Hovan Welcome New Members

Airports Technology R&D Branch Manager Budget Updates

1:45 am Mr. John Dermody AAS-100/HQ Update

Deputy Director, FAA Office of Airport

Safety and Standards, AAS-2

2:00 pm Subcommittee Members and Others Review of REDAC Recommendations

2:30 pm Break

2:45 pm Mr. Jeffrey Gagnon 2016 Pavement Projects + Plans for FY-17-18

3:00 pm Mr. Ben Mahaffay Heated Pavements

3:15 pm Dr. Navneet Garg National Airport Pavement Materials and Research Center 

3:30 pm Mr. Murphy Flynn New R&D Facilities Update

3:45 pm Dr. Navneet Garg Full Scale Testing – Perpetual Pavement Update

4:00 pm Dr. David Brill Full Scale Testing – Overload Update

4:15 pm Mr. Al Larkin Pavement Roughness

4:30 pm Adjourn

6:00 pm Hors D’oeuvres at Eric’s Beach House – All are invited
DAY 2 –March 16

 

8:30 am Mr. Ryan King 2016 Safety Projects + Plans for FY-17-18 Acting Airport Safety R&D Section Manager 

8:45 am Mr. Robert Bassey Research Taxiway

 Aeromacs

Low Cost Ground Surveillance Radar

9:15 am Mr. Ralph Tamburro PANYNJ/Mitre Low Cost Optical System

9:35 am Ms. Lauren Vitagliano Airport Noise

Safety Database

RIM

10:00 am Mr. Don Gallagher /Robert Bassey Rumble Strips

 LED Projects

10:15 am Break 

10:30 am Mr. Nick Subbotin Arrestor Systems

 

10:50 am Ms. Lauren Collins and APP Airport Planning and Design

11:20 am Dr. John Cavolowsky NASA updates (Webex – Phone) 

11:40 am Mr. Keith Bagot ARFF Program Updates

12:00 pm Lunch 

 

1:00 pm Mr. Joe Breen Trapezoidal Groove

 Aircraft Braking 

 In-Pavement Light Bolt Frangibility

 

2:00 pm Dr. Jim Hileman/Mr. Ryan King Airport Environmental Research 

2:30 pm Mr. Jim Patterson Updates on UAS 

3:00 pm Sub-Committee members Recommendations of the day

3:30 pm Adjourn