R. John Hansman 

T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

Director, International Center of Air Transportation 

Aeronautics and Astronautics 

May 30, 2018 

The Honorable Daniel Elwell 

Acting Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue , SW 

Washington , DC 20591 

Dear Administrator Elwell : 

Attached below please find the findings and recommendations from the Safety, Airports, Environment and 

Energy, Human Factors , NAS Operations subcommittees from their Spring meetings. 

The full committee also identified several cross cutting observations , which should be considered in Research 

Engineering and Development planning. 

- The integration of emerging new entrants into the NAS including UAS, Commercial Space Operators , 

and Urban Air Mobility will be a challenge and require research and development investment to guide 

integration decisions and prevent unnecessary delay that could damage U.S. competitive positions in 

these emerging industries. 

- Research is needed to support certification criteria for emerging technologies including advanced 

avionics and automation and electric propulsion systems . 

- There is a concern with the ability of the FAA to maintain and attract skilled and experienced workforce 

in the face of research budget cuts included in the proposed FY2019 budgets that the REDAC reviewed . 

We appreciate the opportunity provide feedback and support the FAA in promoting the safety , efficiency and 

effectiveness of our national aviation infrastructure as well as the competitiveness of the U .S Aerospace Industry. 

I would be happy to meet to provide further _insight on these observations or explore ways in which the REDAC 

can more effectively support you and the FAA mission . 

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute. 

Sincerely, 

1•1 ir 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

/ , 

R. John Hansman 

Chair, FAA Research , Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Enclosure 
1

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC)

Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2020 Research and Development Portfolio

Subcommittee on Human Factors

Finding: Important areas for continued research and development - The Subcommittee was 

pleased to learn the FAA FY2020 Human Factors Core and NextGen research requirements 

include the areas of:

 Certification criteria for advanced avionics technologies and vision systems such as 

Combined Vision Systems and head worn displays. 

 Evaluation of fatigue mitigation in flight operations.

 Evaluation of training effectiveness including new training paradigms such as distant 

learning and virtual/augmented reality, and training methods for the next generation of 

pilots.

 Validation of pilot training and procedures for Next Gen integration.

 Human Factors guidelines for designing advanced instrument procedures.

These areas were identified by the Subcommittee as significant areas of research in either their 

emerging issues list or as areas the Subcommittee believes requires continued early stage 

research. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee believes these are high priority areas that should remain 

consistently funded despite proposed budget reductions. The Subcommittee recognizes the FAA 

has many competing priorities to balance, however, the FAA should review the Human Factors

areas identified above to ensure that they remain included in the research portfolio and if any of 

these areas are not funded the Subcommittee would like to review the rationale for those 

decisions and the shift in priorities. 

Consequences:

 The consequences of not funding research in these areas would limit the design, 

development, and implementation of innovative advancements. The evaluation of new 

technologies, training, and procedures requires a balance between innovation and safety 

and without adequate evaluation and certification methods, the FAA may limit the 

introduction of important features, functions, and concepts and negatively impact safety 

and operational efficiency. 

 The consequences of not funding training research would delay the evaluation of 

innovative training technologies, such as AR/VR, and training methods, such as distance 

learning, for their effectiveness. Implementation of standards to define the effectiveness 

of these approaches for training would also be delayed. The emerging pilot 

demographics are changing and research is needed to understand emerging pilot 

expectations, knowledge and skill needs, and whether current training will effectively 

prepare them. 
2

 Human Factors guidelines are needed to design advanced instrument procedures that can 

be flown with old and new vehicles with variable installed technologies and performance 

capabilities. Without design standards and guidelines, the use of advanced procedures 

will become more challenging as new types of operations (such as increased reliance on 

performance based navigation) are introduced.

Finding: Research gaps that are not well represented in the current funded portfolio - A 

number of very important Human Factors research areas were identified by the Subcommittee

that have not been included as part of the proposed FAA FY2020 Human Factors Core and 

NextGen research requirements. However, in order to provide the insights and guidance 

necessary to achieve the intended improvements in safety and efficiency promised by future 

developments in the operation of the NAS, there are a number of additional research areas that 

must be supported.

The following three areas are considered particularly urgent:

1. Understanding and addressing Human Factors issues associated with integration of UASs 

into the NAS. This includes defining standards to ensure safe and efficient integration 

with other air traffic and needs to encompass both small and large UAVs. Some unique 

challenges that such vehicles introduce include: support of situation awareness, piloting 

and decision making by remote pilots, coordination with visual observers, new ATC 

paradigms to manage rotorcraft, as well as contingency planning and interactions with the 

automation providing sense and avoid functions. 

2. Managing increased complexity in airspace operations. This introduces a number of 

Human Factors issues due to the need to integrate and transition to new NextGen 

concepts, technologies and procedures within and across domains. This is made even 

more challenging by the expected variations in the performance capabilities of old and 

new vehicles and the introduction of new types of operations such as increased reliance 

on performance based navigation and the use of remote towers. 

3. Supporting effective information management. Information access in the flight deck is 

accelerating. Some information is embedded in certified systems while other information 

is available through less formally controlled resources. The integration and display of 

these information sources makes it challenging for pilots to know the information 

integrity. Without Human Factors research to guide decisions regarding information 

automation, integration, certification, and design, unintended risk may be introduced into 

the system. Information overload, confusion, cumbersome and inconsistent interface 

designs, stove-piped information sources (such as the use of an electronic flight bag as a 

source of information rather than displays integrated with the flight management system), 

and poorly conceived interactions with information automation are all potential barriers 

to achieving desired improvements. 
3

In addition to these three broad topics, two other very important Human Factors research focus 

areas requiring attention were identified by the Subcommittee.

1. Increased introduction of automation and autonomous systems/subsystems. As 

manufacturers design and develop increased automation and more autonomous systems, 

the Human Factors issues associated with designing and certifying them need to be 

understood. Concepts for effective human-machine teaming and software mediated 

human-human coordination and collaboration need to be developed, evaluated, and 

certification criteria established. Research is needed to understand how different 

underlying technologies, such as machine learning, can be successfully integrated into 

safe and effective human-machine systems that can respond effectively to both routine 

and anomalous scenarios as well as provide guidance on how to assign roles and 

responsibilities to both humans and machine agents.

2. Transition to Trajectory Based Operations (TBO) and Performance Based Navigation. A 

basic assumption underlying NextGen is that the NAS will evolve into a system based on 

the 4-D management of aircraft trajectories. The importance of this evolution is further 

supported by the central role that TBO plays for the U.S. to comply with upcoming ICAO 

requirements for trajectory synchronization in 2025 and beyond.

Recommendation: The FAA should review the Human Factors areas identified above for 

inclusion in its research portfolio in order to ensure that these issues will be addressed in a 

sufficient and timely manner. The Subcommittee further requests that the rationale for the 

resultant decisions and any new priorities regarding these research areas be presented to the 

Subcommittee at its next meeting, along with an analysis of the expected consequences if they 

are not supported.

Consequences:

 The consequences of not addressing these Human Factors research issues in a proactive 

manner will introduce barriers to achieving the goals of NextGen in a safe, timely and 

effective manner. 

 Without this research, the planned increases in efficiency and capacity will not be 

achieved in a timely manner and the U.S. will not be able to comply with expectations 

established by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 

 Experience to date with the introduction of Trajectory Based Operations into enroute 

operations, as well as with the introduction of RNAV SIDs and STARs, has been mixed. 

Without research on Human Factors issues associated with the design, introduction, and

management of advanced operations and procedures, the anticipated operational 

efficiencies may not be achieved. 
4

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy 

Finding: Alternative Jet Fuels - The elimination of funding for the Alternative Jet Fuel (AJF) 

Program (including efforts in the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI), 

CLEEN and ASCENT) will have a catastrophic effect on the maturation of this fledging 

industry. This research has helped with the creation of a number of companies that will benefit 

the rural economies of some states and the U.S. Aviation industry. It is the position of this 

Subcommittee that the work on Alternative Jet Fuels is critical to the U.S. industry and should 

not be eliminated. Having the FAA maintain a leadership role in the development of AJF will 

also ensure that the rules that are developed internationally will benefit the U.S. industry. It is 

our view that these new companies and the industry that is being created will not be able to 

continue the work on AJF without government funding and the policies and procedures that are 

currently in place. Alternative fuels are a critical component of the industry’s emissions 

reduction strategy and must be developed if industry is to get to their carbon neutral growth goals 

after 2020 and their emissions reduction goals in 2050. 

Recommendation: Since the maturation of the Alternative Jet Fuel program will be a major 

environmental benefit for the public, will create a new industry within the U.S. that benefits rural 

America, and will benefit the U.S. aviation industry, we strongly recommend that either RE&D

A13.a or A13.b budget line items have an allocation for the continuation of research on AJF. 

Finding: Public Private Partnerships - The Office of Environment and Energy (AEE) have 

proven over decades to be very good stewards of taxpayer money. They have used their 

budgeted amounts to conduct and coordinate the research necessary to produce informed 

policies, facilitate technological advances in the aviation industry, and produced models and data 

that have positioned the U.S. as both a State leader at ICAO CAEP and on the global aviation 

stage. This has been accomplished by working collaboratively with private industry, major 

universities through the Partner and ASCENT Centers of Excellence, other Federal Departments 

and Foreign Governments. Three quarters of Environment and Energy research funds generate 

100% plus cost matching from non-federal partners (CLEEN, CAAFI, and ASCENT). These 

programs leverage scarce FAA R&D funds to accomplish significant advances and 

improvements. In addition to the Alternative Jet fuels described in Finding 1, above, the CLEEN 

program has resulted in a number of technological advances that will reduce noise and 

emissions. For example, the GE Twin Annular Premixing Swirler (TAPS) II combuster, matured 

under the CLEEN program has entered into service in a CFM International engine. This engine 

is being used on the B-737 MAX and Airbus 320 aircraft. It reduces landing and takeoff 

emissions by 55% relative to current standards and reduces particulate matter by 90% relative to 

the current international visibility limit. In addition, government funding has been used 

effectively to lower the risk of new and emerging technologies such that they can be adopted by 

industry. The maturation of environmental technologies that deliver improved environmental 

performance allows aviation system growth and associated positive economic impacts. 

 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee continues to endorse Public Private Partnerships like the 

CLEEN, CAAFI and ASCENT programs to leverage resources and recommends that FAA 

should continue to prioritize robust funding for these programs. At the very least, the FAA 
5

should ensure that none of these programs are completely eliminated to enable the Agency to 

continue work on them, even if such work is at a reduced level.

Finding: Noise Research - The Subcommittee realizes that there is much research that is still 

necessary to address the ongoing topic of aviation noise. There are increased noise complaints 

from individuals outside of the day-night noise level (DNL) of 65 dB. The increase in 

complaints is paired with an increase in public opposition which is resulting in growing political 

pressure on the FAA as well as litigation in many areas, which is delaying NextGen Deployment. 

AEE has a number of research projects that are looking at the impacts of noise on children’s 

learning, sleep impacts, community annoyance and cardiovascular health. AEE is looking at the 

certification requirements for supersonic aircraft as well as UAS that are larger than 55 pounds. 

AEE is also examining how to reduce the noise from commercial aircraft and helicopters through 

changes in operational procedures. Finally, AEE is working with industry to accelerate the 

development of technologies that reduce noise through the CLEEN Program. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee strongly supports the prioritization of the noise research 

that will support informed decision-making and enable NextGen Deployment. The FAA should 

therefore aggressively move forward with its research efforts to review and understand current 

community noise concerns and to take appropriate action when conclusions are reached. 

Finding: Global Leadership - Through the FAA’s ability to influence the establishment of 

international standards at ICAO, the U.S. aviation industry has been able to maintain its 

competitiveness throughout the world. Examples of recent successes include the setting of a 

particulate matter standard and the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International 

Aviation (CORSIA). Absent this leadership, there is a significant possibility that actions will be 

taken that are adverse to U.S. aviation interests and will place U.S. industries at a competitive 

disadvantage vis-à-vis their foreign counterparts. The Subcommittee therefore believes that 

maintaining the U.S. global leadership position at ICAO CAEP is essential. The draconian 

reduction in funding of approximately $95 million (more than 50%) in 2019 and subsequent 

years drastically inhibits the FAA from being able to meet its goals and from being able to 

maintain current research or evaluate the impact of future entrants on the environment. 

Decreased funding will undoubtedly reduce the FAA’s ability to respond to domestic needs, such 

as those regarding noise, and seriously jeopardize the U.S. global leadership position at ICAO 

CAEP. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends the prioritization of all research 

efforts/programs that will allow the FAA and the U.S. to maintain its current global leadership 

position at ICAO CAEP. It is the belief of the Subcommittee that if the FAA/U.S. does not 

maintain its leadership position at ICAO CAEP, it will not be able to influence 

policy/rulemaking and this could have a significant negative impact on the U.S. aviation 

industry. 

Finding: Staffing - The Subcommittee is very supportive of the work that AEE does and 

believes that E&E is well managed and has a well balanced portfolio. The proposed budget cuts 

would require a reduction in staffing of approximately 50%. Staff will be required to maintain 

the same level of research to inform decision making and advance solutions such that the FAA 
6

can attain its goals. The loss of skilled staff could further delay the completion of critical 

projects. Sufficient financial and personnel resources are required. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends the FAA place a high priority on filling 

staff vacancies to manage the E&E R&D portfolio and support the expanding workload within 

AEE.

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety

Finding: Research Prioritizations - SAS appreciates the FAA providing the opportunity to 

comment on the impacts of the proposed 2019 research budget reductions and notes the 

flexibility of the AVS staff to quickly provide the SAS with requested insight into the 2019 

financial planning. While it is not standard practice for SAS to comment on budget matters we 

did want to provide the “sense of the committee” as it relates to impacts from the FAA’s 

prioritization of items to be cut. We would encourage, in this limited funding environment, that 

the FAA consider not simply just deferring future or emerging issue research in favor of existing 

research but rather consider the pace of industry development in new technology and evolving 

areas. Overall we feel there has been a greater emphasis placed on continuing existing research 

versus investing in the future. 

Recommendation: FAA should consider cancelling some of the ongoing research programs in 

favor of starting some focused work on the identified research priorities and emerging issues. By 

not investing in the future the FAA will not keep pace with industry and will be at risk of failing 

to serve the countries’ technology development needs. 

Recommendation: In order for the SAS to be able to better provide input we recommend that 

FAA provide to the SAS: 

a. The programs, projects, and personnel being ‘deferred,’ and an explanation of the 

process used to determine which research programs would be deferred. 

b. The impact of deferring the research and losing the personnel on aviation safety.

c. The resulting complete waterline (or Mendoza) listing of all research programs

Recommendation: The FAA is encouraged, in light of the 2019 R&D funding environment, to 

seek expanded opportunities for partnerships and collaboration with industry and other 

governmental organizations in support of certification and operation of systems incorporating 

emerging technologies.

Specific Comments by BLI

A.11.e – Continued Airworthiness - Proposed deferred activities include “Determine the safety 

of new electric aircraft”. The industry is moving forward with these products at a rapid pace 

supported by the convergence of technology advances in the field of electric propulsion and 

autonomous systems. Additionally the REDAC, in recognition of this industry trends, has 

specifically tasked the SAS to stay abreast of electric aircraft technology including dispatch 

requirements, energy state management and battery protection schemes. The SAS is concerned 
7

that the FAA may not keep pace with these developments and fall behind in their ability to 

support certification and regulatory efforts with these new aircraft. 

A11.h – System Safety Management /Terminal Area Safety - The SAS notes that the items in 

this area related to Safety Oversight Management System and Integrated Domain Safety Risk 

Evaluation Tool are closely related to, and in support of, the SAS-identified emerging issue of 

Real Time System –Wide Safety Assurance. Additionally Real Time System-Wide Safety 

Assurance has been defined as one of NASA’s strategic thrusts. The SAS has been jointly 

briefed by NASA and FAA on the Research Transition Teams (RTT) related to this subject. 

There may be further collaboration opportunities between the FAA and NASA which will allow 

this important subject to proceed.

A.11.I – Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research - The 2019 budget identifies that $73M will be 

spent on UAS in the areas of Operations ($51M), Facilities ($18M), R&D ($3.3M) and Grant in 

Aid for airports ($1M). Any matching spending through the COE / ASSURE would be 

incremental to this plan. A continued lack of clarity on the overall UAS plan makes it difficult to 

assess if the RE&D spend will be meaningful in the context of the overall plan. Based on the 

stated scope of the 2019 research activities (Literature search and review in support of future 

regulation) it seems likely that the research activity will be overcome by the pace of “industry” 

development in the UAS space. At minimum, the research plan should be assessed in the 

broader context to assure that the research is timely and will add value to the overall effort. 

A.11.J – Aeromedical Research - The SAS noted in the 2014 ‘emerging issues’ that, 

“Biomedical research is also needed to develop the psychological and physiological measures 

from the human operator that will inform the automation system,” and “... to ensure that 

automation on the flight deck and other safety critical applications is designed and implemented 

in a way to complement the strengths and weaknesses of the human operator.” Gene expression 

research, which feeds into biomonitoring technology, is currently deferred. Other physiological 

monitoring research has not yet been planned. The SAS is concerned that the FAA will not be 

able to fund safety-related operator state monitoring research in the short- and long-term, leaving 

certification and regulatory issues lagging development in the commercial and government 

sectors. The projected reductions in spend and staffing at CAMI appear to be disproportionate 

and significant. Cuts of the magnitude proposed could result in the complete loss of capabilities 

that do not exist elsewhere. This is worthy of additional discussion within the FAA. 

The SAS notes that several topics related to this ‘emerging issue’ are cancelled in FY19 because 

of funding cuts; for example, a) Impact of BASICMED regulation on safety; 2) Gene expression 

research; and 3) Novel pharmacology research. To ensure defensible practices, FAA medical 

certification policies must keep pace with developments in science. The SAS is concerned that 

without funded aeromedical research in these areas, medical standards will fall far behind current 

medical practice, exposing the Agency to legal challenge and inflicting outdated medical 

standards on pilots. 

A11.n – Commercial Space Transportation - While not a BLI responsibility area of the SAS we 

note that commercial space safety is a topic that we defined in 2014 as an emerging issue. We 
8

also note that there are deferred safety topics related to developing safety models to reduce 

overly conservative airspace restrictions for commercial aviation and developing and 

demonstrating innovative analysis to automatically declare aircraft hazard areas for launch/reentry. This subject is impacting commercial aviation airspace today and with the planned growth 

to include many more space launch locations the impact is likely to grow. Also deferred is 

research into radiation hazards, which will leave unanswered questions about exposure limits for 

commercial space travelers. SAS believes this issue musty be addressed in FAA planning, 

sooner rather than being deferred.

General Concerns Regarding Research Budget Cuts:

a. Much of the deferred research is in-house labor and projects, meaning that the cuts will 

result in the loss of uniquely experienced FAA professionals who will be, in some cases, 

impossible to replace. There may be areas of research around the FAA that are extramural and 

much more able to pause/restart without significant disruption.

b. CAMI and Technical Center experts are often international leaders in their field, and their 

loss will leave a void potentially affecting international policy and the national interest. 

c. Much of the deferred research capability is unique to the FAA, meaning that there is no 

alternative source for the expertise in the private sector or government. For example, the 

genomic research at CAMI, which is leveraged by the DOD, will be lost.

d. It is noted that $10M is planned to be spent on Cyber within the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation. As this had been identified as an emerging issue by the SAS it would be 

worthwhile for the SAS to understand the extent to which this funding will be dedicated to safety 

related threat research.

Finding: Electric Aircraft Systems - The SAS was requested to consider electric aircraft 

systems to consider items such as dispatch requirements, energy state management and battery 

protection schemes. The SAS appreciates the presentation of a “Path to Electric and Hybrid / 

Electric Engine Regulation” as an initial topic in what is expected to be a much broader 

conversation of electric aircraft systems. It was noted in this briefing that the FAA is currently 

involved in several industry committees in this regard. The current view of more electric aircraft 

or aircraft powered by electric or hybrid-electric propulsion systems is that there will be much 

more integration of these systems within the aircraft including propulsion systems providing 

primary flight controls in e-VTOL configurations. This will result in increasingly complex 

systems and systems of systems (ref 2014 SAS emerging issues) requiring alternate V&V and 

certification compliance methods. 

Recommendation: FAA should consider proactively developing a national plan or roadmap 

describing the research required in the area of electric aircraft systems safety to be better 

prepared for future applications of this technology. 
9

Subcommittee on Airports

General Observations:

The Subcommittee felt that good progress had been made across the Program’s portfolio of 19 

research project areas (RPAs) as shown below.

Safety & Planning RPAs Pavement RPAs

S1 Airport Planning & Design

S2 Airport Safety Data Mining

S3 Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting

S4 Wildlife Hazard Mitigation

S5 Visual Guidance

S6 Runway Surface Safety Technology

S7 Airport Safety & Surveillance 

Sensors

S9 Airport Research Taxiway

S10 UAS Integration at Airports

P1 National Airport Pavement Testing Facility

P2 National Airport Pavement Materials 

Research Center

P3 Field Instrumentation & Testing

P4 Advanced Materials

P5 Pavement Design & Evaluation

P6 Non-destructive Testing Technologies

P7 Software Program Development and 

Support

P8 Extended Pavement Life

Airport Noise & Environmental RPAs* New/Enhanced Facilities

N1 National Noise Survey

N2 DNL & Metrics Evaluation

N3 Sleep Disturbance

N4 Noise Mitigation

N5 Operations

E1 Environmental Tools and Guidance

Fire Safety Building

Pavement Lab Extension

Photo Laboratory

* Airport noise and environmental RPAs are being co-managed by the FAA Offices of 

Airports and Energy & Environment.

The Subcommittee remains supportive of the program’s ongoing work and future research 

directions, which continue to emphasize foundational research to support (1) advisory circulars 

and design guidance promulgated by the FAA Office of Airports, (2) airport infrastructure 

enhancements currently eligible or prospectively eligible for federal grant funding under the 

Airport Improvement Program, and (3) U.S leadership in areas of airport safety, planning, and 

infrastructure. 

The Subcommittee agreed that all of its prior open recommendations from the spring and fall of 

2017 can be closed presuming that the draft responses to them are approved by the FAA Acting 

Administrator.

The Subcommittee was alarmed by the drastic reduction in FAA research and development 

funding that appeared in the White House’s FY2019 budget. Although the Airport Technology 

Research Program would not be directly affected by these reductions—given that its funding is 

provided under the Airport Improvement Program, the drastic R&D funding cuts would have 

negative indirect impacts on the Airport program and significantly harm all of the FAA’s other 
10

R&D programs. We are pleased that the Administration and the U.S. Congress decided followed 

a different course with passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. No. 

115-141), which did not include these cuts. We are hopeful for longer-term R&D funding 

stability via multi-year FAA reauthorization legislation.

Finding: Commercial Spaceport Standards - The Subcommittee is pleased that Program staff 

have begun researching safety and design standards for commercial spaceports. We believe that 

this research should be coordinated with the recently-established and rapidly-moving commercial 

airspace aviation rulemaking committees (ARCs), principally the Spaceport Categorization 

ARC.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the Airport Technology Research 

Program staff coordinate with the Office of Airports to ensure that other FAA Stakeholders are 

aware of the ongoing ATR research project and that relevant information be shared with those 

stakeholders

Finding: Future Research and Facilities Prioritizations - As was the case at our Fall 2017 

meeting, the Subcommittee placed a high priority on research into new categories of aeronautical 

vehicles--UAS and commercial space vehicles specifically--and their potential impacts on airport 

safety, operations, and infrastructure. Other high priority research areas are (1) pilot perception 

of light emitting diode (LED)-based airfield lighting systems (RPA S5), (2) aircraft rescue and 

firefighting (ARFF) agents (RPA S3), (3) runway incursion prevention technologies (RPA S1), 

and (4) noise standard development/refinement based on the Findings of ongoing noise 

annoyance data collection (RPAs N2-N5). In order to facilitate ARFF research and store 

valuable ARFF test equipment and vehicles, the Subcommittee also finds construction of the fire 

safety building to be a high priority.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee continues to recommend that the FAA Office of Airports 

place a high priority on research and facilities noted in Finding 2.

Finding: Collaborative Aircraft Braking Research - The Subcommittee remains pleased by

the FAA’s involvement of a Working Group of subject matter experts (SMEs) to reassess aircraft 

braking research. Given that the Working Group’s efforts span multiple subcommittees’ areas of 

expertise, it will be important to coordinate its work across relevant subcommittees.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the Findings and proposed approach to 

future braking research developed by the Aircraft Braking Working Group be coordinated with 

relevant Subcommittees, namely Human Factors, Aircraft Safety, and NAS Operations. This 

coordination can take the form briefings to each of these Subcommittees at their Summer/Fall 

2018 meetings if time permits.

Finding: Trapezoidal Runway Grooving - The Subcommittee understands that safety, 

technical, and operational issues may preclude effective testing of trapezoidal runway grooving 

in a worn configuration (e.g., grooving “worn” to a half-depth condition) at Atlantic City 

International Airport. These issues, which include challenges in getting the Tech Center’s B727 

aircraft braking test bed to a high enough speed to appropriately simulate landing aircraft braking 
11

performance, concerns on the part of the airport operator that half-depth grooving could 

compromise actual aircraft landing performance, and limited test durations driven by these 

concerns.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA reconsider ways in which the 

performance of worn trapezoidal grooves—both in terms of drainage and effects on aircraft 

braking—can be evaluated, including through cooperation with other countries’ Civil Aviation 

Authorities where trapezoidal grooves have been installed on active runways (e.g., Singapore).

Finding: National Airport Pavement Testing Facility - The National Airport Pavement 

Testing Facility (NAPTF) in Atlantic City, a proven national aviation asset, requires maintenance 

investments—specifically a roof replacement--to ensure its continuing functionality. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends moving forward with plans to replace the 

roof of the NAPTF as soon as practicable.

Subcommittee on NAS Operations

General Observation:

During the spring 2018 NAS Operations REDAC meeting, the Subcommittee committee was 

briefed by the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) on the FY2020 proposed 

portfolio for Budget Line A.11N Commercial Space Transportation (CST). AST regulates the 

civil, military, and commercial sectors of the space program to ensure the protection of the 

public, property and national security and to encourage, facilitate, and promote U.S. commercial 

space transportation. 

This R&D portfolio addresses four research areas: (1) traffic management and spaceport 

operations, (2) space transportation vehicles, (3) human spaceflight, and (4) industry viability.

Within the first research area, the program places an emphasis on safety to the public through 

effective airspace integration and spaceport interoperability, which is accomplished through the 

use of models and predictive capabilities, mission planning tools, regulations, and safety 

analysis. The research area assumes an integration of space traffic into NAS operations through 

the use of trajectory-based operations (TBO) automation and procedures.

Finding: Commercial Space Transportation - Today’s commercial space traffic (CST) 

operation is based primarily on airspace segregation and has significant impact to airspace use by 

other NAS users. The feasibility applying future TBO automation applications as the primary 

way to integrate commercial space operations into the NAS is unknown and requires careful 

study the extension of TBO methods for CST requires an understanding of the ramification of 

space operations to all NAS users.

Recommendation: The NAS Operations Subcommittee recommends that scheduling and causal 

factor analysis to all NAS operations be included to the research and development portfolio. 
12

Further given the number of space ports that are under the certification process and the forecast 

of demand for increased number of launches, analysis is needed before an assumption that TBO 

will mitigate CST on the NAS.

General Observation:

The NASOPS Subcommittee was briefed on the ATDP project at its March 2018 meeting. The 

Subcommittee has, over the past, been extremely interested in FAA work in this area and has 

always been of the view that this work is critically important. The Subcommittee believes that 

insufficient work in operational concept development and validation significantly increases the 

risk of operational problems after implementation. Since the budget for such work was moved 

from the NEXTGEN Office (ANG) to the ATO there has been an increase in concept 

development and validation focus on projects closer to implementation. When this shift 

occurred, we were told that work on concept development in earlier stages of R&D would be 

done by ANG portfolio managers.

Finding: ATDP - Operations Concept Development and Infrastructure (BLI 1A01C)

The ATDP presentation did not address how FAA decides which concepts will be studied with 

the limited ATDP budget. It was not clear what criteria are used to select and to prioritize 

concepts for concept development and validation. 

Recommendation: The FAA should develop clear criteria for selecting and prioritizing concepts 

to be evaluated. They should identify potential implementation risks for concepts that are not 

selected for study or concepts that are subjected to only limited validation.

General Observation:

At its spring 2018 meeting, the NAS Operations Subcommittee appreciated the opportunity to 

review the FY2020 proposed portfolio for A11.i Air Traffic Control / Technical Operations 

Human Factors. This program addresses R&D needs in five focus areas: human factors 

standards; workforce optimization; improved safety; human factors in NAS technology 

integration; and human performance enhancement.

Maintaining an effective air traffic controller workforce is critical toward ensuring the continued 

safety of the NAS and enabling increased efficiencies capitalizing on NextGen investments and 

future concepts such as Trajectory Based Operations (TBO). The importance and challenge of 

workforce stewardship has also been raised recently in forums including the RTCA NextGen 

Advisory Committee.

The NAS Operations Subcommittee notes that in addition to tactical air traffic control functions, 

strategic traffic flow management (TFM) is also a critical component of NAS efficiency. 

Without effective TFM, traffic flows may be mismatched against available capacity, leading to 

significant delays, congestion, and additional workload for tactical controllers. The skills needed 

to perform effective TFM are different than those typically required for tactical control, with the 

former tending to involve longer-term strategic collaborative decision-making under significant 

uncertainty and without immediate feedback on the outcome of the decisions that are made. The 
13

evolution toward TBO will necessarily shift the type of TFM information, procedures, 

collaborations, and decisions that are required, necessitating a corresponding evolution in TFM 

workforce training and skills.

Finding: NextGen ATC/TechOps Human Factors - The current A11.i portfolio and proposed 

R&D roadmap focuses solely on tactical air traffic control and technical operations personnel. 

The portfolio does not include any research requirements related to strategic TFM Human 

Factors issues. In contrast, the NAS Operations Subcommittee finds that there are significant 

Human Factors R&D requirements specific to TFM involving human factors standards, 

workforce optimization, NAS technology integration, and human performance enhancement.

Absent any R&D investment addressing these issues, the TFM workforce will continue to have 

significant challenges both in today’s environment as well as when transitioning toward TBO, 

jeopardizing the expected benefits possible from new technologies and procedures.

Recommendation: The NAS Operations Subcommittee recommends that TFM workforce 

Human Factors considerations be directly included in future R&D portfolio planning. 

Representatives from the TFM stakeholder community should be included in the ATO R&D 

Requirements Roundtable and research requirements specific to the TFM workforce should be 

identified and included in the planning process. These requirements should consider both the 

current TFM environment as well as the planned evolution of systems including TFMS, TBFM, 

TFDM and the transition to TBO.