Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Aeronautics and Astronautics 

Engineering Systems Division 

77 Massachusetts Avenue, Building 33-303 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139–4307 

R. John Hansman

T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

Director, International Center of Air Transportation

Phone 617–253-2271 

Fax 617–253-4196 

Email rjhans@mit.edu 

October 19, 2009 

The Honorable J. Randolph Babbitt 

Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dear Administrator Babbitt: 

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

recommendations from the fall meetings of the standing REDAC Subcommittees (Aircraft Safety, NAS Operations, Environment and 

Energy, Airports, and Human Factors). 

The full committee also made the following general observations: 

Excessive Safety Standards for New Systems - The safety standards and target levels of safety being applied to new systems, technologies, 

or demonstrations appear to be overly conservative. While it is important to maintain and improve the high level of safety in the system, 

excessive safety requirements put NextGen at risk and can actually degrade safety through increased complexity, cost, delay, and 

uncertainty in gaining operational approval. The responsibility for safety assessment is distributed throughout the agency and there does 

not appear to be a clear system level process for managing risk and arbitrating safety requirements for new systems or new procedures such 

as reduced separation standards. The REDAC recommends an independent review of the safety standards and processes being applied to 

new systems and recommendations for a balanced approach to safety. 

Growing Importance of Environmental Issues - Environmental issues, particularly those relating to green house gas emissions, are 

emerging as key constraints on the air transportation system. The REDAC urges that environmental issues be given the same consideration 

as capacity issues in research and strategic planning as they are just as significant a risk to the future viability of the air transportation 

system. 

NextGen Research Requirements - The REDAC was encouraged to see the beginning of a well defined process for generating NextGen 

research requirements from the Enterprise Architecture. The REDAC is concerned that the architecture may be more complex than 

necessary and cautions that the process could become unwieldy or intractable if not carefully managed. 

Software and Digital Systems - The FAA has a unique need for expertise on critical software and digital systems both for it’s certification 

and acquisition responsibilities. The REDAC reiterates its concern that there has been inadequate progress in developing the core 

competency and technical workforce in this area. The REDAC recommends that this be given urgent priority. 

Unmanned Air Systems - There continues to be pressure to develop a long term Con-Ops for UAS operations in the NAS for DOD and civil 

users. The current Certificate of Authorization processes are short term solutions and are unable to keep pace with the demand. While 

there has been some progress, the REDAC considers the current approach inadequate to meet the needs of government and industry. 

Weather in the Cockpit Research Program - The recently formed Weather in the Cockpit research program was found by several REDAC 

subcommittees to lack a clear mission, goals or connection to NextGen requirements. The program should be focused or terminated. 

We hope that these observations are useful to you and the agency. The REDAC stands ready to assist if there is any way we can help in 

our common objectives of improving the safety, efficiency and capability of the air transportation system. 

Sincerely, 

R. John Hansman 

Chair, FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Enclosure 
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Guidance on the FY 2012 R&D Portfolio

Subcommittee on Human Factors

Finding (1): In the previous cycle, the REDAC Human Factors Subcommittee had expressed some 

concern regarding the extent to which human factors was “being adequately addressed in NextGen 

programs beyond the efforts of AJP 61”. On the basis of the Administrator’s response to those 

concerns, released on 9/22, we were quite gratified with the extent to which attention is given to these 

issues. We also feel confident that this attention will be enduring as NextGen progresses, given the 

criticality of avoiding major human factors bottlenecks that have caused substantial setbacks in some 

previous FAA developmental efforts (e.g., the STARS system and the AAAS system in the 1990s). The 

briefing given by Kathy Abbott, CSTA for flight deck Human Factors, which the subcommittee received 

in our September meeting provided compelling evidence for the high priority offered to human factors 

in some units outside of 

AJP61. Furthermore, we are quite gratified with the appointment of the Chief Systems Engineer for 

Human Factors within the NextGen I&I program, which we assume will be a permanent position with 

the authority to properly influence NextGen decisions as required. In order to facilitate this influence, 

we would also hope that this would grow into a full-time position. 

Recommendation (1a): Continue to place strong emphasis on human factors issues, as reflected 

in the Human System Integration Roadmap. 

Recommendation (1b): Assure in particular that human factors issues related to levels of 

automation in decision aiding, such as out-of-the-loop performance degradation, and human operator 

response to unexpected off-nominal events (e.g., automation failures) receive utmost priority and 

sustained funding, for both flight deck and air traffic research. 

Recommendation (1c): Following the excellent briefing from Flight Deck Certification, the 

subcommittee wishes to continue to receive briefings from other program elements within the FAA, 

which have direct human factors components, or involve human-in-the-loop simulation. These include, 

in particular, planned and completed simulations of concepts of operation within AJP66, and on all 

research on weather displays, and weather-related decision aids. 

Finding (2): The subcommittee was very impressed with the proactive efforts made by AJP61 to 

understand and collaborate with NASA human factors programs and harness NASA research expertise. 

We understand that the memorandum of agreement is about to be finalized and that efforts are already 

underway within the NASA Aviation Safety Program to develop research products of use for the FAA 

NextGen program. We observed that both flight deck and air traffic (within the FAA) have harnessed 

research within NASA’s Aviation Safety Program (specifically the Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck 

project, regarding which we were well briefed). We were however less certain of the degree of 

collaborative involvement of NASA’s airspace program in the FAA work. 

Recommendation (2a): Continue the excellent progress of collaboration with NASA’s 

Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck project, within the Aviation Safety Program. 

Recommendation (2b): Try to further engage human factors research within NASA’s Airspace 

Systems program in collaboration, particularly with regard to the work carried on by this group in airground integration and collaborative decision making. 
Subcommittee on Airports

Finding (1): The subcommittee is pleased with the progress shown by FAA on the projects that are 

currently underway. The Subcommittee is likewise pleased to see that the Airport Cooperative Research 

Program (ACRP) program is well established, fully funded, and is achieving the goals that were hoped 

for when it was initiated. We see no redundancies between the two programs as they are proving to be 

complimentary to one another. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA reach out to other Lines of 

Business for consideration of the inclusion of other lines of business (such as ATO) on appropriate 

ACRP project technical panels. 

Finding (2): The Technical Center’s research into bird radar systems, as part of the Wildlife Hazard and 

Mitigation research area, is progressing steadily. 

Recommendation: As other detection sensors and technologies are being explored (such as: 

laser; optical; thermal imaging; and sound, etc.) the subcommittee recommended that coordination be 

pursued with MIT Lincoln Lab on radar research and development, and also that the research team 

initiate coordination with ATO researchers to explore the integration of avian radar research with 

terminal surveillance activities into a concept of operations to communicate bird hazards identified by 

avian radar. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee is pleased to see the continuing R&D activities on Aircraft Rescue and 

Fire Fighting (ARFF), especially the efforts on composite material fire fighting, improved RFF 

equipment and agents, and work regarding the operation of new large aircraft. 

Recommendation: Continue this research with a high priority. 

 

Finding (4): The Subcommittee continues to have keen interest in the progress of research in the 

NextGen area. 

Recommendation: Keep the Subcommittee informed of NextGen tasks, especially as they 

relate to airports and airport issues. 
Subcommittee on Environment and Energy

Finding (1): The issue of global climate change is becoming a major driver of environmental policy. In 

spite of its importance, there is a lack of understanding of aviation’s impact on climate change, 

especially in the area of non-CO2 pollutants. A more robust research effort with respect to climate 

change is necessary to develop reasoned policy on this subject. 

Recommendation: Current Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) funding 

appears to be inadequate to fully study the non-CO2 impacts of aviation. The Agency should therefore 

ensure that future funding requests contain the resources necessary for emerging global climate change 

research. 

Finding (2): Alternative aviation fuels are probably the most promising near-term tools for managing 

aviation’s impact on the environment. The CAAFI project to develop and certify such fuels represents a 

significant research effort and reflects the necessary industry/government and intra-government 

cooperation necessary to address this issue. 

Recommendation: Continued funding and support for the CAAFI initiative is absolutely 

necessary, as is the continuing partnership between industry and government and between the FAA and 

partner government agencies. To the extent possible, the FAA should ensure that efforts by other public 

entities (such as the military) are included in research efforts to avoid an unnecessary duplication of 

effort. 

Finding (3): On the local level, the issue of aircraft noise remains a major priority for many citizens. In 

addition, the nature of noise-related complaints has somewhat shifted its focus to areas well beyond 

traditional areas of substantial impact. 

Recommendation: The Office of Environment and Energy has embarked on a major new 

research effort to define the current noise landscape and to develop the actions needed to address any 

identified concerns. The Agency should endorse and encourage this effort by requesting adequate 

funding to continue this project. 

Finding (4): The PARTNER Center of Excellence continues to occupy a central role in environmental 

research activities. 

Recommendation: The FAA should continue to request the funding necessary to support 

PARTNER activities. (Note: There was some concern expressed by Subcommittee members over the 

fact that current versions of the pending FAA Reauthorization bill include the formation of a new Center 

of Excellence for Alternative Aviation Fuel, when research in this area can be accomplished through 

PARTNER). 
Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety

Finding (1): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted that AVS FY 2012 Strategic Guidance requires 

that each Research Requirement describe the expected outcome desired by the sponsor and include an 

implementation plan describing how the outputs of the research will be used and implemented by the 

sponsoring organization in support of the desired outcome. The subcommittee noted that posing the 

research question is a best practice and an essential starting point for all projects. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the AVS FY 2012 strategic guidance 

referenced in the above finding be retroactively applied across the entire AVS Research Portfolio. 

Adoption of this recommendation will ensure that research projects start with a desired end state in 

mind. The Subcommittee recommends that the research question for each project be carefully posed by 

the researcher in close coordination with the sponsor. 

Finding (2): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee found the Fire Research and Safety Program to be 

relevant, well managed and directly responsive to aircraft safety requirements. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA ensure the Fire Research and 

Safety Program continue to be adequately staffed and funded. 

Finding (3): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee again noted the lack of a comprehensive and integrated 

Software and Digital Systems Project Plan and noted little progress in acquiring the specialized 

expertise required to support this critical research program. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee again recommends that a comprehensive and integrated 

program be developed and appropriate specialized expertise be acquired to spring board the FAA to a 

leading position in complex software and digital system safety. Inability to attract specialized talent 

should no longer be an acceptable excuse for lack of progress in establishing a core capability. 

Finding (4): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee found the Aviation Safety Information Analysis Sharing 

(ASIAS) project is directly responsive to the need of safety analysts within the FAA and aviation 

industry to understand emerging risks before they become potential safety issues and applauds the 

progress made in increasing the number of airline ASIAS participants. The Subcommittee notes that the 

ASIAS program does not address general aviation at the present time. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recognizes that the attempt to automatically monitor for 

unknown risk based on complex data mining capabilities and seamless data sources is in fact the most 

difficult challenge in ASIAS and recommends that parameters be developed to indicate when the quest 

to accomplish this objective should be re-examined. 

Finding (5): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee expressed concern about the realism of wake vortex 

and wind shear characteristics being used for research in advanced maneuver capable flight simulators. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA take particular care in validating 

wake vortex and wind shear models with real world aircraft response data. 

Finding (6): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted and applauds the progress made in achieving a 

limited amount of F&E funding in support of the Aerospace Medical Research Program. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee encourages the other research laboratories to pursue 

similar funding options applying the aeromedical approach. 
Finding (7): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted that the Volcanic Ash Project under the Aviation 

Weather Research Program is not consistent with previous SAS recommendations. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee again recommends that research be limited to a very 

focused approach on how to detect and avoid a volcanic ash encounter. The Subcommittee does not 

believe the research related to the development of onboard technologies to detect or harden an aircraft 

against volcanic ash is warranted. The Subcommittee recommends that the research be limited to the 

development of procedures for getting tactical information to flight crews so they can effectively avoid 

the hazardous areas. Finally the Subcommittee believes that even this limited scope for research is 

relatively low priority in the broad research portfolio. 

Finding (8): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee expressed concern about the apparent lack of a 

comprehensive and integrated program plan for the NextGen Weather Technology in the Cockpit 

Program. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the REDAC NAS Operations 

Subcommittee do a “deep dive” review of the Weather in the Cockpit Program at their next review 

meeting. 

Finding (9): The NextGen Self Separation and Air Ground Integration Human Factors Program was 

briefed at a macro level. As a result the Subcommittee was unable to determine whether the program 

was focused on very specific and real research requirements. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the REDAC Subcommittee on Human 

Factors do a “deep dive” review of the NextGen Self Separation and Air Ground Human Factors 

Program at their next review meeting. 

Finding (10): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted the positive progress made in the Unmanned 

Aircraft System (UAS) Research Program related to UAS regulations and standards. 

Finding (11): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted good progress by the System Safety 

Management Team in the development of prognostic safety assessment models intended to predict the 

safety impact of proposed improvements to the NAS. When completed and validated, it is essential that 

FAA use the tools to guide NextGen implementation. 

Finding (12): Under the Flight Deck/Aviation Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors 

Program, the SAS found the 30 plus projects to be responsive to the research questions posed by the 

sponsor, but did not find a documented basis for the research questions. The Subcommittee also noted 

the lack of a priority process related to current projects in the program. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA perform a gap analysis of the 

current projects against data driven requirements for increased safety. 

Finding (13): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted the good work being performed under the 

Maintenance and Inspection (M & I) Program and looks forward to the results being transmitted into 

practice. 

Finding (14): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee found the research conducted by FAA in cooperation 

with industry, under the Transport Structural Integrity Metallic R & D Program, to be relevant and a 

good example of self funding through industry cost sharing and engineering support complemented by 

the benefits from commercialization. 
Finding (15): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee found the Electrical Systems Program to be a practical 

approach to advance the knowledge of FAA in anticipation of the introduction of new technology. The 

Subcommittee looks forward to seeing this knowledge translated into regulatory guidance. 

Finding (16): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee fully supports the FAA taking advantage of the 

Rotorcraft research work being done by the Department of Defense related to Health Usage Monitoring 

System. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA stay in lock step with the outputs 

of the U.S. Army rotorcraft R&D program. It is essential that FAA not fall behind. 

Finding (17): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee appreciated the Propulsion Research Program review, 

particularly the field event history that provided the motivation for the research portfolio. The data 

presented shows a significant reduction in the number of aircraft threatening 

non-contained rotor fracture events over time. It is evident that the FAA team has formed a strong 

partnership with industry to develop and enact effective improvements in the design, manufacture and 

inspection methods for engine rotors. 

Finding (18): The Flight Controls and Mechanical Systems (FC&MS) activities presented had a clear 

focus with relevant objectives. Specific findings were as follows; 

The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee did not review the results of the FAA Rudder Study. However, it 

was presented as a FY09 accomplishment with the final report due in FY09. The Subcommittee is 

anxious to receive copies of the final report when available and believes it will provide useful training 

guidance to the transport pilot community. 

The General Aviation Basic Envelope Protection effort was reported as completing phase 1. The concept 

has the potential of protecting against GA loss of control in flight. However, the Subcommittee believes 

there are significant human factors issues that must be initially considered before designing a GA 

envelope protection system. For example, how does the system account for pilot in the loop control 

inputs when an automatic control device is also attempting to recover the aircraft from an upset? Under 

what circumstances should control be taken from the pilot? Should the automatic recovery system 

provide guidance cues to the pilot who then implements the recovery maneuver? 

The Fly-by-Wire Research is long past due given that fly-by-wire aircraft have been certified and in 

operation for several years. The focus of this activity is documenting what has already been done, rather 

than new research. The output from this activity will enable future designs to not require certification 

under special conditions. 

Recommendation: The General Aviation Envelope Protection activity must include human 

factor/performance issues, in particular pilot in the loop scenarios, when developing design and 

performance requirements for a GA Basic Envelope Protection Concept. 

Finding (19): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee was impressed with the research activities underway 

at the Centers of Excellence for: Airliner Cabin Environment; Advanced Materials and; General 

Aviation Research. The subcommittee believes that when complemented with FAA management 

competence and leadership, these cost sharing arrangements represent cost effective ways to conduct 

relevant research and advance the knowledge of FAA. The subcommittee found that to be the case in the 

programs reviewed. 

Finding (20): The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee noted the good work being performed under the 

Aircraft Icing Program and looks forward to the research results being translated into regulatory 

guidance. The subcommittee does however question the operational benefit related to 3D icing studies. 
Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA review the 

requirement to generate 3D ice shapes. 

NAS Operations Subcommittee

Finding (1): (Modeling and Simulation) The NextGen design still (see last year’s findings) appears to 

be based largely on intuition and consensus, rather than modeling, analysis, simulation, and 

demonstration or testing. The FAA needs both a facile high level analysis tool (such as NASPAC and 

its derivatives) and a detailed modeling and simulation capability to support detailed system design 

trade studies to inform the NextGen design, both mid-term and far-term. 

Recommendation (1a): Utilize the capabilities of NASA, JPDO and other government or 

private partners to achieve the modeling and simulation capability needed to support detailed system 

design studies for all phases of NextGen. 

Recommendation (1b): The FAA should brief the plan to achieve the needed modeling and 

simulation capabilities to the REDAC NAS Operations Subcommittee.

Finding (2): (Weather Program) The subcommittee was pleased with the first version of the ATMWeather Integration Plan. Integration is now happening, with a good example being an Integrated 

Departure Reroute Planning (IDRP) by CAASD / MIT LL, but it is still a significant challenge. 

Recommendation: The FAA Plan should become an ATM-Weather Integration R&D Program

with ATO, CAASD, and FAA ATM research components, and the use of modeling and simulation to 

understand the benefits. The subcommittee encourages the FAA to be expeditious in this development. 

Finding (3): The Weather-in-the-Cockpit program was recently formed as RED program in ATO. 

Subcommittee found that it lacks a clear mission, goals, or a connection to NextGen requirements. In 

addition, weather information is already reaching many GA cockpits, and the connectivity to existing 

technology was not clear. 

Recommendation: The FAA should review this program with lead weather researchers to 

establish clear objectives consistent with other activities, the FAA mission, and Next Gen objectives. 

An example goal might be to consider an aircraft role as airborne weather sensing node feeding NNEW. 

Finding (4): (Concept Development ) While the subcommittee was pleased with the substance and 

format of the Concept Development briefing, there is still a need to better understand the overall context 

of the research needs and fit of the work being done into a plan for NextGen development. 

Recommendation (4a): Provide the subcommittee future briefings on context and fit between 

the concept development and exploration research and the NextGen plans and Enterprise Architecture. 

Specific focus on the open and yet unanswered research questions in the context of connecting the 

research to the solution sets and OI’s is needed. 

Recommendation (4b): As was recommended by the NAS Operations Subcommittee 

previously, more resources should be devoted to this activity in order to understand other NextGen 

drivers (e.g. UAS, see below). 
Finding (5): (Staffed NextGen Tower) The subcommittee recognizes the need for a Staffed NextGen 

Tower capability to improve safety in an affordable way and was pleased to learn of the FAA’s plans. 

The operational concept and demonstration plan could benefit from further development of details. For 

example, it appears that undue emphasis may be placed on using only certified ASDE-X data for the 

surveillance source when other options (e.g., non-certified ASDE-X, ADS-B, MLAT, radar) may be 

better suited for particular applications. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the business case for SNT be 

strengthened with the value of additional operational efficiency and safety improvements. The 

subcommittee recommends that the use of other forms of surveillance should be explored (e.g., noncertified ASDE-X, ADS-B, MLAT, radar). These alternatives need to be considered in the context of 

how SNT might roll-out into the NAS (e.g., whether starting at smaller airports or larger airports first or 

timing relative to aircraft equipage). 

Finding (6): (Environment) It was excellent for the subcommittee to be brought up to speed on the 

environmental tool AEDT. FAA is to be commended for developing this tool, and particularly for 

assisting in its use in the NASA NRA examining the impact of new vehicles in the NAS—this is a 

model of how the use of such tools can be accelerated and improved to provide one input into decision 

making and system design. Without significant changes to NASPAC, however, AEDT and NASPAC 

are inconsistent tools, which may hinder their use together. 

Recommendation: The AEDT tool could be used in an iterative fashion in the FAA design and 

decision-making process to ensure that environmental issues are assessed early, rather than in an “ex 

post facto” fashion to assess the impact of previously developed routes, procedures, etc. 

Finding (7): (UAS Integration in the NAS) A number of projects and demonstrations with various 

elements of DOD were presented. These evaluations and demonstrations did not appear to flow from 

any top-down research and development plan for UAS integration. While encouraged that the FAA is 

beginning to address UAS integration in the NAS, the subcommittee considers the current approach 

inadequate to meet the outcomes needed and timing requirements of both government and industry. 

Recommendation (7a): Establish, in partnership with DHS and DOD, a Government internal 

civil-military concept of operations for UAS, as a prelude to developing public-private partnering 

relationship strategies for incremental implementation. 

Recommendation (7b): Establish a partnership design process, with industry and the 

appropriate FAA, DOD, and DHS organizations to produce a relationship strategy. Focus the initial 

stages of the design process on (1) reaching a shared view of demand, and (2) establish a shared concept 

of operations, and (3) decide on best approaches to the partnership design, implementation, and 

operation. 

Finding (8): (Demonstrations) The FAA presentation on Govt-Industry partnerships for demonstrations 

highlights the FAA’s early efforts to increase the level of accountability and management across 

activities that involve the more highly visible collaborative projects. This is a very positive step towards 

improved management of the FAA’s research portfolio. The subcommittee looks forward to receiving 

updates in this area. 

Recommendation: The FAA should document and publish the specific research objectives 

associated with each demonstration and report regularly to the subcommittee the performance of the 
demonstrations against the previously-defined objectives, including measures of positive outcomes as 

well as shortfalls in meeting those objectives. 

Finding (9): It is a clear intention of the FAA to invest in laboratory infrastructure that can be used for 

future collaborative efforts in a broad set of NextGen areas. Subcommittee has some concerns, 

however, on whether this additional infrastructure is a cost-effective use of government resources. 

Recommendation: FAA should examine the proposed new laboratory capabilities against other 

capabilities to which the Agency has access, and should identify the anticipated utilization of this new 

investment as well as the level of sustained use of present capabilities. 

FAA UPDATED RESPONSE TO THE SEPARATION STANDARDS WORKING GROUP 

REPORT

Finding (10): It was reported that the target level of safety has been increased to 10-E9. This level does 

not appear to be statistically achievable to the NAS Operations Subcommittee. 

Recommendation: The target level of safety needs to be reassessed for its reasonableness and 

applicability. Safety levels of new systems should be compared against a baseline which is defensible 

based on current operations and statistical analyses. 

Finding (11): The NAS Operations Subcommittee ascertained that the responsibility for separation 

standards in the FAA was not clearly defined. While ATO apparently has the ultimate responsibility, 

coordination with AVS was unclear. 

Recommendation: Given possibly different operating paradigms in NextGen, the FAA should 

have clear points of responsibility for the development and implementation of separation standards.