Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) MINUTES

Meeting Date and Time: 10/7/2015, 9:30am – 4:30pm Meeting Location FAA –

McCracken Room, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington DC

Purpose REDAC Guidance on the FY 2018 Research and Development Portfolio and 

Special Task Discussions on Emerging Issues and Future Opportunities

Facilitator Dr. John Hansman, REDAC Chairperson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

(MIT) 

Note 

Takers

Lisa Dawson (morning session)

Mervette Saadia Abdu (afternoon session) 

Ms. Shelley Yak, the FAA Research and Development Executive Director, opened the meeting 

by welcoming all attendees and reading the public meeting announcement. 

Presentation: Welcome Address and Opening Remarks Presenters: Dr. John Hansman, 

Ms. Shelley Yak 

After reading the public meeting announcement, Ms. Shelly Yak informed the committee that 

Mr. Dennis Filler retired and stated that she would assume the role of acting FAA Research and 

Development Executive Chair. She expressed her great appreciation and respect for the 

REDAC Chairman and communicated that her focus will be to continue to leverage the subject 

matter expertise from the professionals at these meetings. She indicated that she looks forward 

to working with the Committee. Dr. John Hansman provided an overview of the agenda and 

noted that there will be some changes to the schedule for the day. NAS Ops and Environment 

and Energy would be trading timeslots to support the schedules of participants. 

Presentation: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Overview Presenter: Chris Swider

Discussion: Mr. Chris Swider began his presentation by thanking the REDAC for the

opportunity to provide a briefing on UAS research. Mr. Swider stated that he recognized the

significance of UAS research and proceeded to highlight recent changes in the FAA’s program 

organization. He reported that the UAS program has two newly appointed executives. Mr. 

Marke “Hoot” Gibson, Senior Advisor on UAS Integration, who reports directly to the Deputy 

Administrator on external outreach and education; interagency initiatives and enterprise level 

approach to UAS integrations efforts. The second person is Mr. Earl Lawrence, the Director of 

FAA’s UAS Integration Office, who reports directly to the FAA Office of Aviation Safety 

1 | Page
(AVS) Associate Administrator. Mr. Lawrence leads FAA’s efforts to safely integrate UAS

into the NAS with goals to define clear paths for UAS manufacturers and operators. 

Mr. Swider highlighted key topics areas that underlie the scope of future unmanned aircraft

research. He noted three categories of user groups—Public Operations, Civil Operations, and 

Hobbyists— each of which has distinct needs, considerations, and rules to enable safe 

operations.

Mr. Swider reported on the status of the proposed small UAS rule and indicated that the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which was published on February 23, 2015, resulted in more 

than 4500 public comments. The FAA is working diligently to adjudicate all the comments 

received and expects to finalize the rule in 2016.

He also noted that FAA is continuing to process Section 333 exemption requests to enable a

bridge for commercial UAS operations before finalization of the small UAS rule. FAA has a 

good track record for new and existing exemptions. More than 4,000 petitions received to date

more than 1,800 exemptions granted. The FAA has improved processing of these requests 

including issuance of a Blanket COA for operations below 200 feet within visual line of sight 

during daylight hours and certain distances away from airports and heliports.

Mr. Swider discussed the Pathfinders initiative. He indicated that the FAA has three initiatives 

that were announced at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) 

in May 2015. The purpose is to identify the safety mitigations that can lead to expanded access 

for UAS and inform future rulemaking. The three current Pathfinder initiatives and their 

objectives are:

• CNN – UAS in visual line of sight, urban areas over people

• Precision Hawk – UAS extended visual line of sight, rural areas

• BNSF Railways – UAS beyond visual line of sigh, rural areas.

Mr. Swider also reported on the efforts of the UAS Center of Excellence Program (COE). He 

and the FAA UAS COE Manager, Sabrina Saunders-Hodge, have worked very closely together 

since the inception of the COE University Team and expect to be fully executed by January. In 

his briefing, Mr. Swider listed a wide range of current and future research areas the COE will 

be supporting.

Questions and Comments

Jack Blackhurst asked what the UAS office was doing to educate the public. Mr. Swider 

responded that there are many education and outreach efforts underway but acknowledged that 

more can be done. He cited as one example, the UAS public service announcements.

Dr. Hansman inquired about the process for selecting focus groups Mr. Swider responded that 

the selection of the focus groups is a five to six month process and the three currently selected 

core areas were found to be the most responsive to current FAA needs.

2 | Page
John Dermody inquired about research on geo fencing both horizontally and vertically from the 

runway. Chris Swider responded that there is currently no ongoing research in this area.

Dr. Hansman asked if there is on-going research into tracking unauthorized users. Mr. Swider 

replied that the program office is trying to collect credible data that can be provided to local 

enforcement authorities.

Presentation: Subcommittee Report: NAS Operations Presenter: Dr. Steven Bussolari

Discussion: Dr. Bussolari began by stating the Subcommittee’s summary will be based on two 

parts; General Observations and Findings and Recommendations. For the general observations, 

Dr. Bussolari stated that the Subcommittee had an extended session during the summer 

meeting. The Subcommittee recognizes the significant effort and substantial progress that the 

FAA has made in establishing a Concept of Operations for routine UAS access to the NAS. 

The Subcommittee was very pleased to see the degree to which the FAA has demonstrated 

significant flexibility in its concepts for small UAS certification and segregation of airspace for 

operations. 

The Subcommittee found that the FAA has yet to substantially engage the UAS stakeholder 

community on the development of the vision and expectations for operating in the NAS. As 

UAS markets continue to emerge and technology capabilities accelerate, it becomes 

increasingly important for the FAA to reach out beyond their capable set of internal subject 

matter experts and include these new airspace users.

Three focus areas are chosen for exploration and prototyping (i.e. small UAS within visual line 

for sight, extended visual line of sight in rural areas, and beyond visual line of sight in rural 

areas). All contain significant limitations (i.e. through the amount of air space that can be 

allocated to these operations and the number of UAS that can simultaneously operate with that 

airspace). 

Recommendations – During the budget process, the FAA should articulate the relationship 

between research and development associated with UAS platform safety and certification and 

the development and validation of operational concepts, procedures, and systems required for 

UAS integration in the NAS. This should be presented as an integrated program to enable 

budget decision makers to avoid potential budget disconnects that could unintentionally delay 

this integration.

3 | Page
Runway Incursion Reduction Program 

It was noted that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations often fail 

to address the cost/benefit assessment that should be considered in any investment decision.

The FAA has not performed a benefit analysis of either the Small Airport Surveillance Sensor

(SASS) or Runway Safety Area (RSA) project and cannot accurately estimate the potential 

safety or efficiency benefit pool available to offset the life cycle cost of the SASS or RSA 

projects. The decision to not include an estimate for safety benefit in the Low Cost Ground 

Surveillance Radar (LCGS) investment decision appears inconsistent with the investment 

decision associated with other safety systems such as Runway Status Lights or Airport Surface 

Detection Equipment, Model X (ASDE-X), where benefits were largely attributed to safety.

Recommendations – FAA should establish and consistently apply a clear policy with regard to 

investment decisions on airport surveillance and safety systems that establish what benefits will 

be included and how those benefits will be calculated. The FAA should use this policy to 

estimate the benefits pool available for RSA and SASS projects and compare this to a life cycle 

cost estimate of the RSA and SASS technologies.

Presentation: Subcommittee Report: Environment and Energy Presenter: Dr. Mahendra 

Joshi

Discussion: Dr. Joshi reported on the Subcommittee’s session conducted in Washington DC on 

August 6th and 7th 2015. The Subcommittee’s first finding reiterates that noise continues to be a

significant challenge for the implementation of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) for

operational efficiency improvements, which are a critical element of NextGen. The

Subcommittee recommends that the operational procedure development and implementation

work be continued but noted that effective community and airport engagement techniques are an

essential part of the implementation. He pointed out that in addition to the recommendations

made at the March 2015 Subcommittee meeting, the Subcommittee recommends the FAA

initiate research to understand the additional annoyance due to the noise focusing aspects of

PBN.

In its second finding, the Subcommittee commended the FAA/AEE for vigorously

leveraging the efforts and working with other divisions of the FAA, other government

agencies, (e.g., EPA, NASA, DOE, DOD), and industry and for utilizing available

databases to advance the Environment and Energy R&D portfolio. A recent example is

their use of the Medicare and Women Health Initiative medical databases to understand if

there is a correlation between aircraft noise exposure and health impacts. The

Subcommittee recommends the FAA continue to seek additional collaboration

opportunities. With regard to using databases from other fields of study, the

appropriateness and limitations of the databases to support the objectives of the study

should be considered.

Dr. Joshi noted that the Subcommittee was very pleased with the successes from the

Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) Program in achieving the

4 | Page
maturation and validation of a wide suite of technologies that will reduce noise, emissions

and fuel burn from the aircraft fleet. The Subcommittee recommended the FAA continue to

implement and execute the second phase of CLEEN (known as CLEEN II) to mature

technologies as they will enable the achievement of the CLEEN II goals for noise, emissions,

and fuel burn reductions.

The Subcommittee’s third finding detailed that the Environment and Energy R&D portfolio

delivered significant results and the FAA has made progress in communicating these

successes, however, the Subcommittee recommended that these successes be highlighted in 

public communications to ensure broad visibility.

Based on the information presented by the FAA at the Subcommittee meeting, they felt the

Environment and Energy R&D portfolio is reasonably balanced in terms of the resource

allocation among technologies, tools, policy / standards development, sustainable alternative

fuels, and Air Traffic Management (ATM) and operationsimprovements.

The Subcommittee encouraged the FAA to leverage efforts with Airport Cooperative Research 

Program (ACRP) studies such as enhanced data gathering on noise and emissions impacts.

The regular evaluation of the Environment and Energy R&D portfolio should be continued

with consideration of a view toward desired outcomes in 2025 and beyond.

Finally, Mr. Joshi stated that environmental impacts of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

are going to be a growing issue and the Subcommittee recommended that the FAA start plans

to assess and understand the noise impact of UAS. This would include development of

assessment tools and impact mitigation concepts.

Presentation: NextGen Organization Update Presenter: Pam Whitley

Discussion: Ms. Whitley began her presentation with an overview of NextGen improvements

to date. She described the distinction between foundational, transformational, and 

implementation programs. She went on to describe how network enabled weather platforms 

integrate information from different sources which are now available on System Wide 

Information Management (SWIM). She also spoke about the voice switch and functional 

prototypes developed to date. 

Ms. Whitley stated that the data communications program is moving along on schedule. The 

FAA is working with the airlines to test the initial data communications services and 

preliminary data suggests air carriers are beginning to accrue benefits. She also spoke about 

the Collaborative Air Traffic Management – Technologies (CATM-T) program and described it 

as more about strategic activities aimed at balancing traffic flow demand with available 

capacity.

5 | Page
Questions and Comments

Mr. Blackhurst asked where we were with avionics equipage, and if there were indications that 

the airlines were willing to cooperate.

Ms. Whitley replied that the airlines are indeed willing and she mentioned that they have 

visited with every airline to discuss the matter. 

Dr. Hansman commented about NextGen’s accomplishments, noting that there’s a natural 

tendency to think that with NextGen, the story gets muddier.

Presentation: Subcommittee Report: Human Factors Presenter: Jack Blackhurst

Discussion: Mr. Blackhurst began by stating that there is not enough time to cover all projects

in depth and thus, his goal was to provide baseline information for everyone. He stated that the

Subcommittee had two findings.

With respect to Aerospace Medicine Research, the Subcommittee found that there are many 

advances in the field with potential aviation implications but not as much research funds

available. New medical devices and treatments such as synthetic biology and biometric 

monitors are vulnerable to cyber-attacks. The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA closely

track advances in air/space medicine and the extensive research in the field. The Subcommittee 

believes the FAA can leverage this research and use relevant findings in aviation operational

applications.

Finally and related to a Winter 2015 finding on NextGen implementation, the Subcommittee 

recommends continuation of Human Factors work focusing on design and implementation of 

effective flight deck procedures for Performance Based Navigation (PBN), and on associated 

implications for design of automated flight-path management systems. 

Presentation: Subcommittee Report: Aircraft Safety Presenter: John White

Discussion: Mr. John White represented Ken Hylander, Subcommittee Chair, at the meeting

and presented the Subcommittee’s report. The Subcommittee met for two days at the FAA 

William J. Hughes Technical Center to continue to build on the work of prior Aircraft Safety 

(SAS) meetings. Program officers presented approximately seventy (70) research “quad” 

charts detailing research requirements, desired sponsor outcomes, FY15 research, and 

upcoming critical milestones and more. They also presented deep dives in various topics

including certification of advanced materials and structural technologies, dependability of 

increasingly complex systems, mixed UAS and manned aircraft operations, and real time 

system-wide safety assurance.

6 | Page
One of the presentations was from a European group on the Future Sky Program and it was 

noted that the FAA participates on their Advisory Board. They recommended that the FAA take 

more of a leadership role in collaboration with the European group on Aviation Safety research. 

Additional findings and recommendations addressed immediate needs for Additive 

Manufacturing Certification Support.

The Subcommittee also found there is a need for research to mitigate the impact of cockpit 

laser strikes. Mr. White noted that the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) has been

addressing this issue.

Remarks

Dr. Hansman stated that while Mr. White had just mentioned the deep dives, the 

Subcommittee’s written report did not reflect this. He suggested that the Subcommittee needs 

to include this in their report so that it does not fall off the radar. When making 

recommendations to the Administrator, it is helpful to report on the full scope of the 

Subcommittee’s discussion 

Presentation: Subcommittee Report: Airports Presenter: Alfred Pollard

Discussion: Mr. Al Pollard represented Mr. Chris Oswald, Airports Subcommittee Chair, at 

the meeting and presented the Subcommittee report. The Subcommittee met on August 25 -

26, 2016 at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ. Mr. Pollard 

noted the accomplishments that Airports branch staff on the varied airport safety, planning, 

design, and pavement projects within the research portfolio, reviewed the proposed FY2016-

2017 budget and discussed potential additional work for FY2018.

Mr. Pollard summarized the four findings resulting from the Subcommittee meeting. First, the 

Subcommittee found that the Airport Technology Research Program is on a solid footing and 

supports the proposed allocations of program funds for FY2016 and 2017. The Subcommittee 

also believed that FY2018 project priorities are appropriate, excepting the minor comments

contained in subsequent findings and recommendations in this report.

The Subcommittee recommended that the Branch staff expedite their efforts to classify projects 

by Research Program Areas (RPA) and provide budget and spending reports using these 

classifications well in advance of the Subcommittee’s Spring 2016 meeting so they have ample 

time for review and comment. 

Based on its review of the long life pavement design project, the Subcommittee found that 

local materials—especially aggregates—can meet FAA specifications but may result in a wide 

range of resulting performance. As the system moves towards more engineering based designs

understanding this variability and accounting for it in the design process is critical in providing 

consistent long-life pavements. Thus, the Subcommittee recommends that a study be initiated 

to look into the variability of asphalt and concrete mix designs that meet FAA specifications. 

7 | Page
Special attention should be paid to a range of local materials—especially aggregates—that meet

national specifications that are known to have marginal performance.

Mr. Pollard reiterated the support the Subcommittee expressed in their Spring 2015 report 

regarding the low cost ground surveillance system (LCGSS) technology being pilot tested at 

Seattle-Tacoma International. He pointed out, however, that given the ongoing development of 

alternative surface surveillance systems, continuing reductions in the costs associated with 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) transponders, and the oncoming 2020 

ADS-B equipage deadline, the Subcommittee is interested in understanding the role LCGSS are

likely to play at airports if and when they are available for implementation before significant 

additional research into these systems is conducted. 

The Subcommittee thus, recommends that the Branch staff develop a Concept of Operations 

(CONOPs) that defines the roles and applications of the LCGSS in the National Air 

Transportation System given other surface surveillance programs and technology deployments 

that are underway, particularly surface surveillance systems that rely on ADS-B technology. 

The Concept of Operations should consider what unique capabilities or deployment 

opportunities would exist for LCGSS as well as those capabilities that are likely be duplicated 

by ADS-B based surface surveillance systems. Mr. Pollard stated that the Subcommittee

strongly recommends increased collaboration among the FAA’s research programs with 

NASA regarding both surface surveillance and airport surface management.

Lastly, the Subcommittee found that research is needed to develop rational overload criteria 

for flexible pavements (e.g., asphalt concrete pavements). The current ICAO overload 

criteria for flexible pavements limits overload to 10 percent above the reported pavement 

classification number (PCN) for rigid pavements (e.g., Portland cement concrete), the limit is 

five percent (5%) above the reported PCN. The research shows that the ten percent (10%)

flexible pavement overload may be overly conservative for thin flexible pavements. 

The Subcommittee recommends that the overload project be expanded to reevaluate the five 

percent (5%) overload criteria for rigid pavements and ten percent (10%) overload criteria for

flexible pavements.

Questions and Discussion

Mr. Bussolari asked if there is a methodology to test local aggregates and what the end result 

will be. Mr. Pollard answered that he did not know. 

Michel Hovan commented that they are moving to extend the life of the pavement and are 

aiming to expand the life of pavement to 40 years. He stated that they are looking at 

performance based specification on which to base additional testing.

Mr. Bussolari stated that the NAS Ops Subcommittee observation is that there is a long history 

of low cost airport surveillance plans but they usually end up being too expensive. The 

recommendation is to do the benefits analysis up front instead of focusing on the costs only.

8 | Page
Final Remarks 

Dr. Hansman summarized the action plan and schedule for preparing and delivering the report 

to the Administrator. He commented that other than UAS there did not appear to be any major 

burning issues. Recognizing that this is a high priority issue for the Agency, Dr. Hansman said 

that for the next six (6) months, the Subcommittees will focus on UAS. 

Members in Attendance

Jack Blackhurst

John Hansman (Chair)

Mahendra Joshi

Al Pollard

John White

Steve Bussolari

Others in Attendance

Shelley Yak, FAA

Chris Swider, FAA

Mervette Saadia Abdu, FAA

Dan Brock, FAA

Jimmy Bruno, FAA

Nancy Clarke, FAA

Lisa Dawson, FAA

John Dermody, FAA

Jaime Figueroa, FAA

Mike Gallivan, FAA

Michel Hovan, FAA

James Knight, FAA

Ralph Nicosia Rusia, FAA

Paula Nouragas, FAA

Kerin Olsen, FAA

Lee Olson, FAA

Mark Orr, FAA

Bob Pearce, NASA

Al Pollard, MAA/AAAE

Chinita Roundtree-Coleman, FAA

Rachel Seely, FAA

Chris Seher, ARA

John White, ALPA

Frank Wondolowski, FAA

Amer Younussi, FAA

9 | Page
Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory

Committee Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) FAA

Headquarters, 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington,

DC – 10th Floor Round Room

October 07, 2015

Agenda

9:30 am Welcome Address and Opening Remarks John Hansman

Shelley Yak

Chairman’s Overview John Hansman 

10:00 am UAS Overview Chris Swider

10:30 am Subcommittee Report – NAS Ops Steve Bussolari

11:00 am Subcommittee Report – Environment and Energy Mahendra Joshi

11:30 am Break

11:45 am NextGen Update Pamela Whitley

12:15 pm Lunch

1:00 pm Subcommittee Report – Human Factors Jack Blackhurst 

1:30 pm Subcommittee Report – Aircraft Safety John White 

2:00 pm Subcommittee Report – Airports Alfred Pollard

2:30 pm Committee Discussion

- Recommendations

- Future Committee Activities

John Hansman

4:00 pm Adjourn

10 | Page