REDAC - NAS Operations Subcommittee

MEETING MINUTES

Meeting Date March 5-7, 2013 | Meeting Location Washington, DC

Purpose NAS Operations

Guidance review for FY 2015 

R&D Budget

Facilitator Eric Neiderman, DFO

Note taker Eric Neiderman

Presentation Welcome | Presenter Steve Bussolari- Subcommittee Chair, and 

Eric Neiderman, FAA, DFO

Discussion - Dr. Steve Bussolari, the new NAS Operations Subcommittee Chair welcomed 

everyone to the meeting. He encouraged members to read the budget justifications that were 

provided in advance. The justifications provide the research objectives and research priorities –

even if there are no firm budget numbers.

Dr. Bussolari commented that there are a couple of spots on the agenda to discuss the roles of 

the REDAC.

Dr. Eric Neiderman, FAA, DFO, thanked Victor Lebacqz and Aaron Gellman for years of 

service on the Subcommittee. He reviewed the agenda and discussed possibilities for weather 

delays on day two.

Presentation Welcome – REDAC Vision | Presenter John Wiley

Discussion - John Wiley, Acting Director of the Technical Center welcomed everyone. He 

described his role as the Chair of Research Executive Board (REB) and as Acting Director of the 

Technical Center, the Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the REDAC Safety Subcommittee 

(SAS). He offered thanks for the work that the members do on the Subcommittee – this provides 

good feedback for the Agency. He also thanked Steve Bussolari, for stepping up and taking on 

the lead for the Subcommittee.

Mr. Wiley described what he sees as REDAC’s role and provided questions below for members 

to consider throughout the meeting.

- Laying out the research – are we doing the right thing?

- What is industry doing that we don’t know about?

- Do we have the right priorities?

- Are we coordinated with other government agencies?

- Do we have the right expertise?

Mr. Wiley encouraged the Subcommittee to allow time to write up findings and 

recommendations. He asked the Subcommittee to make sure the findings/recommendations are
Page 2

clear so that the Agency can execute against them. The Agency needs focused outputs – what 

should the FAA be doing different? The goal is to make recommendations actionable.

Mr. Wiley commented that the Administrator would be attending the REDAC meeting on April 

24. He asked members to provide questions that the Administrator may be able to address 

during the meeting.

Dr. Dres Zellweger asked about the balance of the research portfolio – short, long and how it 

relates to other agencies. Mr. Wiley replied that the long term plan in safety is an example of a 

balanced portfolio and so is the National Aviation Research Plan (NARP). He also indicated that 

this is a good topic to address during the briefings by Steve Bradford, Paul Fontaine, and Karlin 

Toner.

Dr. Mark Weber inquired about how the role of Technical Center has changed. Mr. Wiley 

commented that on March 24 Dennis Filler would be starting as the new Center Director. There 

will also be more alignment with the DOT and Dr. Mike Romanowski at the White House. He 

highlighted the idea of the REB being more strategic and looking all across the parts of the 

Agency. The key is determining if the FAA is getting the research implemented in a timely 

manner and identifying the research that we cannot implement.

Action – Members should provide questions for the Administrator and the senior executives to 

discuss at the April 24 REDAC meeting. Due to Gloria Dunderman by April 1.

Presentation Role of the REDAC | Presenter Cathy Bigelow

Discussion – Ms. Cathy Bigelow presented an overview of the role of the REDAC. US Code 

established the REDAC to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator for the 

research program. Based on legislation there are two sets of meetings each year. The first 

meeting is strategic guidance on FY+3 research portfolio. The FAA provides input so the 

Committee can provide the advice. The second meeting (winter/spring) is to review the 

portfolio.

Dr. John Cavolowsky asked about the role of the REB. Ms. Bigelow explained that they oversee 

the research portfolio. The REB hears the proposed portfolios from the Product Planning Team 

(PPT) leads and has a more strategic point of view across the agency. They take the Agency 

perspective and try to balance and make sure the areas are connected. Once they are satisfied 

with the proposed portfolio, they approve the budget. Question was raised if NASA should 

provide briefings to the REB.

Action – The FAA should describe how recommendations from REDAC impact the REB. 

Cathy Bigelow will provide briefing at the next Subcommittee meeting.

Presentation Writing Findings and Recommendations | Presenter Cathy Bigelow

Discussion - Ms. Cathy Bigelow presented a “tutorial” on writing findings and 

recommendations. She indicated that findings set the stage for the recommendation. 
Page 3

Recommendations tell the Agency what to consider, or do, or present. The Agency only 

responds to recommendations (not findings). She urged the Subcommittee to be straightforward 

and concise. The audience is more than the researchers you are hearing from. She encouraged 

the use of action verbs - what action you want from the FAA.

Presentation Budget Overview | Presenter Mike Gallivan

Discussion - Mr. Mike Gallivan updated the members on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 budget, 

status of the FY 2014, and targets for the out years. He stated we have a current authorization 

through 2015 and that it is unclear regarding the future funding levels given sequestration.

Members had a discussion with Mr. Gallivan on the impact that may occur due to sequestration.

Presentation NAS Operations PPT | Presenter John Marksteiner

Discussion - Dr. Bussolari indicated that the Subcommittee had given the recommendation for a 

multi-year plan for ops concept and validation work. The draft plan is a list of multi-year 

research activities used to develop a portfolio and then to prioritize them.

Mr. John Marksteiner presented an overview of the NAS Operations PPT and the Advanced 

Technology Demonstration Program (ATDP). He indicated that all of the funds are F&E (not 

R&D). Also, within the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) there is an Air Traffic Ops Concept 

Development and Validation Group. ATDP is no longer under the program in FY 2015. In FY

2013 and FY 2014 the ATO will decide how the money is spent.

Mr. John Cavalowsky commented that the NASA Smart NAS initiative is still early on. He 

suggested that this could be a topic for NASA at a future FAA REB meeting.

Mr. Marksteiner presented the ANG-C4 Research Plan – 25 research areas. He indicated it is a 

working document. It will be updated on a regular basis. He is looking for input from many 

sources. He talked to lifecycle management, MITRE, etc. This document casts a net for new 

research requirements (also coordinating with Rob Hunt who works for Rich Jhelan –

requirements). It was suggested to try to get Rob Hunt for a future briefing.

The Subcommittee pondered if there was anything missing or that they did not agree with? It 

was commented that there was no research on datalink or second human factors (of interest to the 

carriers). Subcommittee concluded that it does not seem like anything is really missing. The 

challenge is to make it more agnostic to the agency – the operators, infrastructure investors

(states).

Subcommittee Discussion - Good presentation, content, and organization. The Subcommittee 

thinks this work is very important. Realize it is all a zero sum game. Within the portfolio is 

there a trade between the number of projects, funding, and ready for implementation. What is 

realistically going to increase capacity for an airline? Right now the airlines will only buy ABSB out. The Agency should think through the organizational implications of trying to leverage 
Page 4

state investments. There could be 50 states that want to be involved. Maybe use collaborative 

bodies like the COEs.

Action/Homework – Members to consider the $5M budget and look at the projects that were 

deferred. Focus on mid-term: 2018-2020. Looks like this may be 2025 time frame. Reduced 

budgets may impact how these things are implemented (the timelines). Members will discuss 

more as they draft any findings or recommendations.

Presentation New Air Traffic Management Requirements| Presenter Steve Bradford

Discussion - Mr. Steve Bradford presented an overview of the New Air Traffic Management

(ATM) research which is in the system development line. ATM Research was moved in to F&E 

during the Clinton administration. New ATM requirements are cross-cutting but not ready for 

investment decision in 2-3 years. Probably 3-4 years from a Final Investment Decision (FID). 

This is where we do the things not quite ready to go to pre-implementation.

Common trajectories. Trying to define the minimum set of requirements for ground-ground and 

ground-air to be able to get to TBO. Ms. Debbie Kirkman asked: How does TBO direct what 

FAA is doing for 214? We are working with 214 and 227. Need to modify the message set for a 

new leg. We are looking at this as a capability – making the message set richer to provide 

additional capabilities. The standard will be done this year.

Airborne SWIM. What does it mean to have access to SWIM on the flight deck and do the 

commercially available platforms support it? Need to understand the full range of information 

and the bandwidth requirements. There will be an airborne ISP. There is a planned demo of 

this. Goal is to negotiate over SWIM and clear over datacomm. Have to take full advantage of 

the size of the pipes. There are some other projects looking at airborne internet – example in 

weather. This is a fertile ground for information and we are trying to figure out how best to use 

it. 

New radar surveillance requirements. In 2010 we had NPAR (weather radar). Replace Airport 

Surveillance Radar (ASR) 8, 9, and 11s with NPAR. Funding this with DHS. Making progress 

on low cost components for domestic usage. In FY15 will decide if we can replace the primary 

radars with this new technology (it will replace the Doppler radars as well). Use for surveillance 

and for weather. Had to prove that the algorithms work and then we will go to industry.

Starting in FY13 there is a new gap in weather. Advanced translation of weather in to impacts. 

The issue is how to do the translation. This includes some standards work with ICAO. 

Budget in FY15 is $22M (FY14). It will probably be 5% or 6% below this given the budget. If 

something gets delayed it would be the FMS work. Mr. Bradford would like to accelerate the 

weather translations. It is important to synchronize the research with the implementation. It is a 

matter of timing.

Mr. Bill Leber asked about the disparity between the amount of resources (1% R&D) and the 

demands of NextGen. Mr. Bradford answered that the NextGen budget is $932M per year and 

R&D is $100M. This is adequate given the implementation stream. We are also carrying 

$150M in subscription fees (less implementation), so R&D is a bigger percentage. 
Page 5

Presentatio NextGen Wake Turbulence | Presenters Jeff Tittsworth and Paul 

Strande

Discussion – Mr. Jeff Tittsworth briefed the members on the FY 2015 portfolio for NexGen 

Wake Turbulence and Wake Re-Cat (1A07E).

His briefing included the following:

- Wake Turbulence program is funded by RE&D, and F&E and the purpose of the funding. 

- Goal is to increase capacity. 

- The program is beginning to look at en route airspace and the 3nm separation standard given 

the implementation of ADS-B. Look at the wake of an A380 at 420kts. Proposing lateral 

offsets for the climb through and the descend through. This will start with the UASs and 

then move in to the commercial airlines. 

- There was a discussion of stagger for dependent runways (less than 2500’ separation). 

National rule change to 7110.308. Being implemented at SFO by September. Large aircraft 

are 80% of operations at an airport – so it solves 80% of the problem.

- New standards for new aircraft designs – based on NTSB recommendations were discussed. 

A new process has been developed doing this using LIDAR data and wake encounter data 

from flight tests. For aircraft smaller than a 744, they can use a sensitivity analysis. This 

approach takes into account wing design and approach speed.

- The longer term goal is dynamic wake separation. RED is a $9M annual program. Spend 

plan for FY 2015 was presented.

- F&E is the implementation side of the R&D. An example is that Wake Turbulence 

Mitigation for Departures (WTMD) is approved and they are conducting a field trial to 

determine benefits. Algorithm indicates if a runway is safe for operations given cross-winds. 

Re-CAT was approved last year and implemented in Memphis International Airport (MEM). 

Categories were inefficient given how they need to account for the extremes in the 

categories. The program and its research broke categories for upper and lower heavies in to 

two. 

Presentation Runway Incursion Reduction Program (RIRP)| Presenter John Maffei

Discussion – John provided a program overview stating the RIRP will continue research, 

development and operational evaluation of technologies to increase runway safety.

Stated that the RIRP is almost all demonstration and prototyping to reduce risk at all phases of 

flight. The F&E sponsor is AJI-14 for all the work that is done. RWSL waterfall for the 

program office ends in FY16 and then the program ends in FY17. E-FAROS installing at BOS 

and installed at DFW. Expect IARD in FY15. LCGS will go to JRC in June for IARD. RSAconduct HITLs with MITRE to demonstrate feasibility. Not too many changes from last 6 

months. Program is fairly stable over time. 

Bill Leber asked how the program makes safety tradeoffs in a statistically insignificant world? 

Mr. Maffei responded that they argue on behalf of safety primarily and also the efficiency 
Page 6

benefits. The costs of the equipment are minimal and they will make the business case even in 

an ASDE-X environment.

Subcommittee Discussion 

The subcommittee had a discussion about determining the benefits given that we have an 

unprecedented level of safety. The key is to make sure there is enough investment so we don’t 

have fly-fix-fly approach. 

There was also discussion of the amount of research not getting ahead of what can be 

implemented.

Candidates for deep dives:

- modeling and simulations

- UAS integration

- Small airports

- Trajectory-based operations (and SESAR version)

- More detail on integrated arrival departure (does it include surface?)

- Integrated operations

Use RONA as a proxy for how the FAA can collaborate and get stakeholders to get them to bring 

resources. Tackle the benefits pool incrementally.

The subcommittee discussed topics for the Administrator. 

- Autonomy and automation

- New propulsion (e.g., electric)

- When should we have programs and infrastructure in place? What about robotics in 

aviation? Example - Airport surface robotics. 

- What does the airspace of the future look like? Moore’s law, Guilders law.

- What do alternative flight rules for UAS look like and what are the impacts for GA?

- What are you doing about resilience and adaptability of the future system given the 20 year 

time horizon?

- FAA Policy and Budget Committee (at level of the NMB) to allocate budget to the strategic 

objectives. How do you allocate research objectives to achieve the goals/gaps? Have we 

spent enough on safety and capacity and now we need to focus on environment?
Page 7

CONTINUE EDITS HERE

Day two of the meeting was done via telcon due government closure because of weather. 

Presentation Surface R&D | Presenter Paul Fontaine

Discussion -

The action from the previous meeting was for a big picture view of work in surface. Caveats –

briefing is a work in progress. The information did not exist in one place. The pieces were 

scattered. There is not a big picture view across the agency. This is because there are different 

budgets and organizations. We also don’t do a great job telling stories. Problem is that some 

people don’t want things tied to OIs because then it has to have NextGen funding (which is a 

limited pot). There is some resistance of mapping things to the OIs. OIs were part of the 

NextGen construct. There is other stuff that is funded outside of NextGen (e.g., airports). 

Last reorganization developed the Portfolio Managers (Jim Weatherly) for Surface. Weatherly 

has to bring in all the other pieces in F&D, etc. Focus has been on surface CDM activities. The 

agency just published an Operational Capabilities Implementation Plan (OCIP). The approach is 

to overcome R&D being done and then a hard wall to implementation. It is like a contract in 

advance that describes the transition. Transitions have been traditionally difficult. OCIPs lay 

out the transition in advance and get it in writing and in front of the NMB. Not every R&D 

project has to have a mapped out, funded transition plan. It is a way to get the landscape and to 

identify where the decision points need to be. 

Mr. Fontaine presented a number of slides on the Surface R&D: 

Slide 2 – basic OIs that are pulled out for surface: Situational awareness, runway safety, 

traffic management. The OIs are fairly intuitive. We don’t have a problem 

understanding what we are trying to achieve in the OIs. There are also linkages to the 

implementation roadmap. 

Slide 3 – OI104209 Surface management. A number of activities are based on this 

(ASDE data)

Slide 6 – presented timelines of how the FAA is mapping this stuff. Green, yellow, blue 

(concepts under exploration). TFDM is still evolving (not a baseline program yet) so it is 

not mapped. We have also tried to denote the various dependencies (e.g., to 

surveillance). There is planned R&D for each increment in the future. Bruce: taxi 

routing. 

Slides 7 – 9 Runway surface situational awareness. ASDE-X (started in late 90s) 

delivered to 30 airports that have been baselined (which changed 3 or 4 times). It wasn’t 

NextGen funded but it meets these OIs. It was paid out of F&E. SDS ADSB 

(surveillance and broadcast services) had a requirement for 9 additional ASDE-X 

systems. This will give surface surveillance at 39 airports. June 2013 will be the 

investment analysis readiness decision. Same system, but it could be an issue if it had to 
Page 8

be funded out for NextGen. How do we get capability to sites 45 and beyond? 

Surveillance is critical to many of the other OIs – this has to be considered in making the 

business case. The road on LCGS will be very difficult given the budget climate and 

making people understand the bigger picture. The agency can’t make the business case 

on safety alone. 

Slide 15 – full surface situational information. Knew about the ground vehicle part. Did 

not realize the airport guys were doing the second part – prototype installed in SEA. 

Different pots of money and different LOBS. Speaks to the need for a broader portfolio 

manager construct to share info and make the alignments. 

Slides 18-20 are all the projects from the airports folks. Will look at how they map to the 

OIs. Much of the advanced concepts work has been mapped to ATC – not to AVS and 

Airports. Steve- it may be an artifact of mapping it to the NextGen OIs. Putting it all in 

one construct allows us to see all the research being done and what it is contributing. 

Subcommittee Discussion: 

It was the sense of the subcommittee is that this is useful. 

In surface, Paul Fontaine looked across 6 to 8 organizations to pull the information together. 

Maybe REDAC should reinforce the notion of portfolio management (even though it is a 

thankless task). Dr. Bussolari suggested that the subcommittee could ask for each program to 

draw a line to the OIs. This would be a better approach to see what is missing and to coordinate 

what is being done by other agencies. It took 3 weeks to put this together with a team. Portfolio 

managers are focused on NextGen – the subcommittee wondered who at FAA is doing this type 

of inter-organizational integration.

Action – None.

Finding and Recommendation - A finding and recommendation was drafted (refer to the 

section at the end of the minutes).

Presentation Weather Program | Presenter Steve Abelman

Discussion -

Weather program has some changes from last year. The program looked at what they are doing 

and why. They also looked at how to align to the NSIP. They are also working more 

collaboratively with the weather service for the 4D weather cube. 

There are three main thrust of the R&D –

• support NextGen OIs; 

• collaborate with the National Weather Service; and 

• improvement of safety and efficiency. 
Page 9

The program has 3 FTEs and works with many labs and partnerships. The program has a process 

to identify and prioritize the requirements. There is an agreement with AVS that gets about 20% 

of the budget. 

Mr. Abelman gave a presentation of quad charts for each of the FY15 requirements. The 

program is looking at in-flight icing commercial products and also additional focus for Alaska. 

The issue is getting information to the GA pilots in Alaska related to in flight icing. The 

challenge is getting the same number of observations as in the CONUS. They are collaborating 

with NASA on field campaigns. They are working with NCAR on automated turbulence 

forecasting. The Weather Program is adding capability down to the surface (important for GA) 

and probabilistic deterministic of turbulence. 

The subcommittee asked how the program is able to transition products. After the R&D there is 

a review by a panel of SMEs, then an SMS review, then transition to NWS, or link to emerging 

NextGen tools. 

Subcommittee Discussion - In the core weather program they work with their own sponsors. 

For the AVS work, they use a slightly different process and a separate AVS weather TCRG. 

They had reasonable research questions, but it was not clear how they related to the NextGen 

OIs. They should be able to point to the requirements. Increasing the accuracy of the forecasts 

is laudable, but it should be tied to operational utility. The subcommittee would like to see a 

better tie to NextGen OIs and the research. 

Action – None.

Finding and Recommendation - A finding and recommendation was drafted (refer to the 

section at the end of the minutes).

Presentation Weather Technology in the Cockpit | Presenter Gary Pokodner

Discussion -

Mr. Pokodner explained that they are really avionics guys working in weather. They have an 

operational focus – an applied version of the science of weather from a cockpit standpoint. The 

program ties to all the impact in flight that occur because of weather. Ms. Kirkman asked how 

the program complements private industry. The response was that the program works with 

industry. Airbus had many potential weather technologies but not sure which systems would be 

certifiable. WITC provides guidance materials so the technology will be certified and will meet 

NextGen capability requirements. Mr. Holmes commented that there is still not evidence that the 

safety related to weather (GA) has not decreased – there is a need for this type of work. 

Overall, the Program assesses the utilities and benefits of commercial products. Standards and 

guidance provide industry the information to develop products that are useful. The key is to 

identify what provides utility to the NAS. There are three major goals: safety, efficiency, and 

reducing emissions.
Page 10

Mr. Pokodner gave a presentation of the quad charts. He described improvements of MET 

information in the cockpit to support NextGen. This includes requirements for wind information 

for forecasts and FMS accuracy. RTCA will be presenting 7 to 10 enhancements for evaluation. 

This will lead to a better FMS being developed by industry. It will also produce a requirement 

for using ground weather information to make better decisions at an earlier time. Dr. Bussolari 

asked about the research question? The answer was that the primary customer is Part 91 since 

they don’t have a forward looking radar. This is to look 20 minutes out as a strategic tool to 

avoid weather. The issue is that GA is not avoiding the weather despite all of the tools that are 

being produced. Thus, the research question is why GA pilots are having weather encounters 

despite FIS data. 

Weather alerts is determining the alerts that will provide benefits. The Research question is 

whether the technology and the information available. The air/ground integration project is 

looking at the optimal way to get info to and from the cockpit. They are developing 

recommendation based on costs, criticality and other factors. 

Human Factors is focused on the presentation so that the pilot is interpreting the information 

correctly. This research is resulting in standards and guidance on presentation for industry to 

develop tools for more consistent decision making. One issue is to time stamp the information 

uniformly so it is clear how up-to-date the information is. They are also looking at how to 

negotiate reroutes on data link to increase efficiency. This is a project that is just starting. It will 

develop performance requirements. 

Subcommittee Discussion -

This is a large R&D investment ($20M) and there is no validated portfolio that they are working 

to that demonstrates buy-in from users. There does not appear to be a valid story for the $20M. 

How does the investment have value? Where is the pull? 

The Subcommittee was concerned that this work be coordinated with other work on reroutes and 

stressed the importance of a literature review on the topic. The subcommittee expressed that 

aircraft have internet and industry has embraced iPads. Program will have to look at the impacts 

of bringing internet in to the cockpit. 

There was a general discussion of NextGen and whether it has linkages to GA. GA does not 

seem to be a core part of the NGIP. The Subcommittee needs more clarity between NextGen and 

GA. Weather and RONA may be part of the answer to this. What is the general aviation role in 

all of this? The FAA should identify aircraft accident causal factors and the research initiatives. 

Where is the evidence that the products affect the accident rates? Aviate, navigate, communicate 

is killing a few GA pilots a day. We need to change the paradigm and add automate. Maybe 

training will have a bigger impact than the high tech solutions. There is not a strong case that 

FAA safety-related research, focused on GA, has a direct link between causes and solutions. The 

argument is the weather is a factor in GA accidents. The Agency is working to improve it; 

therefore they are improving it. The FAA needs to have a quantification of the benefits. 

There was also discussion about research and benefits. R&D is about $280M across the agency. 

Agency budget is $12B (so R&D is about 3%). The key is to identify the benefits pool 

(quantitatively) when the FAA starts a research process.
Page 11

Action – None.

Finding and Recommendation - A finding and recommendation was drafted (refer to the 

section at the end of the minutes).
Page 12

Meeting date | Time 3/7/2013 8:00 AM | 

Meeting location Washington, DC 

Purpose NAS Operations

Guidance review for FY 2015 

R&D Budget

Facilitator Eric Neiderman, DFO

Note taker Eric Neiderman

Timekeeper Gloria Dunderman

Presentation Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) | 

Presenter Karlin Toner

Discussion

NextGen has been around for a decade. In 2003 the JPDO was legislated to provide 

coordination. In 2012 it was legislated for a second time (expanded the duties). This was not 

necessary but done when the FAA reorganized. The program is focused in setting the big vision 

for 2025. In 2008 the FAA started to have a development focus, and Dr. Toner has been at 

JPDO for 3 years and is focusing on where the integration is absolutely critical. 

The JPDO doesn’t build things or turn them on – look at 3,5, and 20 years. They are looking at 

capability from industry and other agencies will accelerate the FAA program. It is not about the 

11 FTEs, but it is about the 100s of people they bring together to advance a capability. At its 

peak the JPDO had about $20M of R&D and F&E funds. In 2012 the budget was cut 75% (from 

$17M). They expended all multi-year funds. In FY13 the JPDO will only carry out one goal –

the UAS Comprehensive Plan to Congress. They will now scale back drastically unless 

additional budget is provided. UAS is a challenge but will also lead to capabilities in data 

communication, TBO, etc. In FY14 the program hopes to expand. The JPDO Board meets on a 

quarterly basis. There is also a senior policy committee that oversees the JPDO. They have been 

much more operationally focused on pushing the implementation.

Four major initiatives are planned for FY 15 (slide 3)

- UAS Integration

- System-of-systems risk management. Need to think about safety and security (cyber 

security of data exchange). Need to look across at the interdependencies across 

portfolios. Can we come up with ways to manage across the portfolios?

- Interagency Data Exchange Definition and Policies (developed a prototype test bed 

with DoD investment. SWIM is adopting this as a prototype).

- Challenge Areas and Interagency Capabilities. Mid-term program runs out through 

about 2022. JPDO has to look just beyond this horizon – things to consider for the 

next implementation path. This is looking at technical components and associated 

policies.

-
Page 13

Mr. Cavalowsky asked how far out in front of the research can the JPDO be before there is too 

much of a backlog? Dr. Toner replied that the funnel for getting stuff in place is rather small. 

They are setting the priorities for mid-term plus 1 year. The key is to shape it so that it is 

possible to shape the priorities with some strategy around it. 

When times are tight, the benefits of sharing and coordination are the greatest. The industry is 

an important component. For example, industry is leading in the datacomm area.

Request for FY15 will be at the $12M level. Even with a bad FY12 and F13 the JPDO can ramp 

up in FY15 with expected budget of $9.5M. This is about the right size. 

The UAS Comprehensive Plan will have 5 goals. Goal 5 calls for looking at automation. This is 

more a research goal. Some level of autonomy will allow these vehicles to fly more safely. 

JPDO is pushing the partners to address this.

Dr. Zellweger asked if other agencies provide in-kind funding and people? Dr. Toner answered 

that there is expected to be some level of support, but it depends on each agency. There are 

currently 3 employees from DoD and 1 from the Department of Commerce. This fluctuates 

almost quarterly. To do interagency work it is key to have a blended workforce model. Mr. 

Holmes inquired if the JPDO keeps track of industry resources (at the NextGen Institute). The 

response was that the JPDO tracks participation but not funds. The NextGen institute can do 

pro-bono work. Under the OTA it can also be used as a contractual vehicle. It has not been used 

in this way very often given the challenge of moving funds across agencies. The JPDO has had a 

Trajectory contract to have industry leads work with SESAR. 

Subcommittee Discussion -

There was discussion about the OTA approach and the utility of the NextGen Institute to 

leverage the investments and get things accomplished in half the time. Governance of JPDO 

should be with Dr. Toner and a Board of Directors from other agencies and industry partners. 

They would each identify the resources they have to bring. There should be shared decision 

making with the industry. What motivates the industry to bring money to the table? Industry is 

interested in the UAS Automation Roadmap and has resources to provide. 

An issue is that no government agency is willing to subordinate themselves to an interagency 

group like the JPDO. Design guidelines, systems standards, and means of compliance are where 

the industry wants to be involved. Industry wants to “think through” these issues in 

collaboration with the government (e.g., JPDO as the host for this discussion).

The subcommittee discussed that the key is system-to-system risk analysis in terms of the goal 

setting. There was also discussion about the extent has the FAA used the output of JPDO to 

make decisions and prioritization? The subcommittee considered a recommendation that the 

FAA use the outputs of the JPDO.

Action – None.
Page 14

Presentation Air Traffic Control Technical Operations Human Factors | 

Presenter Dino Piccione

Discussion -

Mr. Piccione introduced Dr. Rachel Seely (who will brief NextGen). Mr. Piccione reminded the 

subcommittee that they a link to the strategic plan – the foundation for the program. A new 

thrust area is that they are reaching out to the operational community. There was an OIG report 

just last week that indicated some operational HF issues. Operational input has given the 

program a different perspective about operational issues and design issues. It also provides the 

field info about the role of HF. This is a direct link to the user. 

Mr. Piccione had planned to talk about work in HF in UAS. Instead he talked about major 

changes to the program (from the OMB examiner). There is major uncertainty with FY15. He 

completed the budget white sheets yesterday to reflect the FY14 changes. As a result the 

program will have to revisit the strategic plan and change the implementation plan – no contract 

funds in the future. He will review and revise commitments in the NARP and the Business Plan. 

OMB directed that there not be any personnel selection research. OMB indicated that this should 

be done by Human Resources. The FAA has not lost a single case since the personnel selection 

tools are valid, reliable, and fair (in terms of adverse impact). OMB does not object to the 

research, just that it should be done by HR. As a result the program will have to redirect inhouse resources (the researchers at CAMI). 

The other area of focus in the program is HF standards (in demand from PMO) for development. 

Some of the benefits relate to RNAV/RNP procedures. Total FTE staff is 40: 5 at HQ; 14 at 

RDHFL; and 25 at CAMI. Three out of four research requirements remain, but contract funding 

has been reduced to about $250k. This is about a 40% reduction in resources.

Mr. Piccione gave a presentation of the Quad Charts and a focus on the outputs. He highlighted 

the final delivery of HF design standard which has been used extensively used by the acquisition 

programs. For the planned update, the program will have a cross-agency collaboration to try to 

get this done. The NextGen OIs get integrated at the controllers’ workstation. The impact is that 

the data block is growing. The program is working on an integration approach – they will use 

internal resources. 

Tech Ops has largely been not included on NextGen. How does the agency deal with leased 

services? What is maintenance going to be like in the NextGen future. The HF Program is 

working on a concept of use. 

Individual and Team performance is looking at the operational implementation in impacts. How 

do we ensure benefits? There is a renewed focus on the in-service management aspect of the 

lifecycle. 

Action – The subcommittee suggested that Mr. Piccione take a look at the REDAC culture 

report to examine NextGen culture issues (Gloria Dunderman was asked to provide the 

document).
Page 15

Presentation NextGen Air Traffic Control /Tech Ops HF F&E | 

Presenter Rachel Seely

Discussion -

Dr. Seely described that integration is one of the major issues they are pursuing. If things are 

not integrated then it is the user who has to do the integration. How do the tools work given the 

integration of the controllers, pilots, and how everything ties together? One of the benefits of the 

research is to reduce program risk. Which tools will not provide benefit to the user when they 

become operational? 

Dr. Seely presented a table of requested, enacted, and funding via the Program Level Agreement 

(PLA). The NextGen Chief Scientist provides input about what the program actually get in the 

PLA. One example is air/ground integration HITLS that identify interactions between 

controllers and flight crews. HF is involved in NavLean on procedures and safety assessments. 

As a result of input, they are reducing the steps from the current 18. Mr. Holmes asked if there 

are any training issues for controllers in mixed-equipage. It was replied that traditionally, unless 

there is 80-90% usage then the procedures are not being used. The HF program is looking at job 

task analysis and where training impacts acceptance of new procedures. A tie in to the Ops is the 

“Lantini Report.” This is NextGen F&E 1A08A which is now under System Development. Mr. 

Cavalowsky asked why the program is not getting what is enacted? The response was that there 

was a 20% cut to the 1A08A overall (from $109M to $85M). FAA has the flexibility to 

reprogram it based on prioritization. The Agency can move 10% on the F&E, but not on the 

R&D side. 

Action – None.

Presentation Weather PPT Portfolio Review | Presenter Steve Abelman

Discussion -

Mr. Abelman presented an overview of the Program Planning Team (PPT) and the members. 

There is initial screening and then there is a prioritization scoring system. Prioritization is based 

on 3 equal weights – increase capacity; increase safety; satisfies official documented internal and 

external drivers. They are rated on a scale. 

The new approach that was started in December 2011 is the Research Evolution Plan. This has 

input from industry which provides understanding of the community that uses the weather 

products. This process addresses shorter term needs and transitions to NextGen. The key is to 

have involvement from Strategic Planning Teams that includes a diverse mix of subject matter 

experts, government, and industry individuals. This leads to recommended research priorities. 

Ultimately, the PPT prioritizes across the REP outputs. The team includes FAA, NWS, research, 

NASA, airlines, and other stakeholders. This process and team has been put together to help the 

weather research program prioritize. 

Mr. Abelman also described the alignment with NSIP for Improve in-flight icing forecast; 

improve turbulence detection and forecasts; improve C&V analyses and forecasts. These are 

R&D initiatives that are specific OIs.
Page 16

At future NASOps meetings it may be useful to look at the ATM Weather Integration. This has 

been NextGen funded. This is a cross-cutting initiative. It has partnerships with Surface 

Trajectory Based Operations (STBO), Time Based Flow Management (TBFM), and 

Collaborative Air Traffic Management (CATM-T) to determine the weather inputs and needs 

associated with these programs.

Dr. Bussolari noted that there is a lot of focus on GA. He asked where is the study that shows a 

direct benefit that can result from the research? Mr. Abelman responded that is it really a better 

forecast or getting the information in a more timely manner? They are working on metrics to 

quantify the benefits that weather information is making. 

Subcommittee Discussion -

The connection between the GA accident rate and the research benefit needs to be quantified. It 

may be necessary to think more broadly about the benefits than safety. For example, thinking 

about efficiency as well. 

The OIs are very broad statements. At some point there are diminishing returns – to statements 

like “improve.” Purpose of research is to turn the general statements into specifics. There is a 

need for this level of detail from the Solution Set Coordinators. 
Page 17

Findings and Recommendations (DRAFT)

Topic: Prioritization of Research across FAA portfolios and lines of business

Findings: 

1. The NASOPs subcommittee has previously recommended that the FAA undertake a broader 

management framework for its research and development. This would enable FAA to 

manage its research portfolio across funding lines to focus on achieving specific operational 

benefits to the NAS. At its summer 2012 meeting, Paul Fontaine agreed to develop a 

portfolio view of FAA activities related to NAS surface operations. The subcommittee found 

this portfolio view to be excellent. The graphical depiction of related efforts highlighted the 

interplay between requirements sources, funding sources and projects within the portfolio 

and could easily be expanded to include more detail on FAA R&D and related research 

projects from other government agencies (e.g., DoD and NASA)

2. A true portfolio view and management of research priorities across the portfolio will require 

the right level of aggregation and oversight by an executive-level governance body such as 

the REB, the NMB, or the SBC. The subcommittee realizes that asking for this information 

places workload on already highly loaded managers; however, we believe that there is high 

value to the FAA being able to see the integrated view to identify research gaps and 

synergies. The NextGen portfolios are a good start to taking a portfolio perspective; 

expanding these portfolios beyond projects with NextGen funding is a critical next step.

Recommendation: The FAA should build upon the work that Paul Fontaine presented to the 

subcommittee and present a similar portfolio view of FAA research for one or more additional 

NAS domains during the next subcommittee meeting. This portfolio view should include a 

first-order, quantified description of the benefits pool(s) that drive the decision for the projects 

(e.g, safety case, security case, efficiency case, reliability case, etc.). In addition, the portfolio 

views should include more detail of FAA R&D activites and the research activities of interagency and non-governmental organizations. The subcommittee will work with the FAA to 

define which domain(s) will be presented and how to maintain them as the research activities 

evolve. 

Topic: Weather PPT Portfolio and Weather Technology in the Cockpit

Finding: The subcommittee observed that the Weather PPT Portfolio research requirements, 

while directly linked to NextGen Segment Implementation Plan (NSIP) Alpha and Bravo, were 

too broadly stated and open-ended. Examples included: “enhanced turbulence forecasts and 

graphical guidance information, enhanced ceiling and visibility analysis and forecasts, and 

enhanced aviation specific weather hazard diagnosis and forecast information”. While there may 

be an operational need in NextGen for enhancement to these forecast tools, it was difficult for 

the subcommittee to ascertain just how much enhancement was needed and what NextGen 
Page 18

operational benefits would be achieved with each incremental enhancement. Moreover, the 

research prioritization process employed by the FAA for the Weather PPT Portfolio appears to 

be internally focused within the weather research organization. Individual components of the 

weather research portfolio are prioritized within the A.11k Budget Line Item (BLI) rather than 

prioritized relative to what is needed to achieve NextGen Operational Improvements. The 

subcommittee recognizes that this BLI is not controlled by the NextGen Program. However, the 

principal justification for this investment of RE&D funds are Operational Improvements defined 

in the NextGen Segment Implementation Plan, (i.e., OI 103119-13A, B, and C). These 

Operational Improvements, in their present form, do not specify the required improvements in

weather forecast products in sufficient detail to allow for appropriate assessment and 

prioritization of the research. 

Finding: One of the principal justifications for both the Weather PPT Portfolio and the Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit programs is that they would provide a safety benefit to General 

Aviation (GA). Both programs cite the 75% average fatality rate in GA weather-related 

accidents and the fact that GA accounts for 88% of weather-related aviation accidents. However, 

the subcommittee was presented with no evidence of any systematic study of the causality of 

these accidents that leads to the conclusion that better forecast tools or cockpit display of weather 

will substantially reduce the GA weather-related accident rate.

Recommendation: In future subcommittee reviews of the Weather PPT portfolio and Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit Programs, the FAA should present a clear justification for the 

research investment, tying the research to the operational improvement that is expected to be 

achieved. The FAA should provide quantitative (e.g., monetized) estimates of the NextGen 

safety and operational benefits achievable with the research results when applied to operations. 

Where the justification for the research requirement comes from the NSIP, the FAA should 

define specific requirements for weather technology improvement, based upon the safety and 

operational requirements of NextGen. If these requirements have not been defined and 

quantified, the FAA should orient the Weather PPT research portfolio to define these 

requirements. The FAA should also provide specific quantitative estimates of the safety benefit 

for those research investments targeted for GA safety.

Actions

Action – By 1 APR – The Subcommittee should provide questions for the Administrator and the 

agency senior executives.

Action – The FAA should describe how recommendations from REDAC impact the REB. This 

will require a briefing on how the REB works. 

Action – To the Subcommittee. Take a look at the projects that were deferred (homework over 

the next 24 hours) keeping in mind a $5m budget. Focus on mid-term: 2018-2020. Looks like 

this may be 2025 time frame. Reduced budgets may impact how these things are implemented 

(the timelines). 
Page 19

Action – The subcommittee suggested that Mr. Piccione take a look at the REDAC culture report 

to examine NextGen culture issues (Gloria Dunderman was asked to provide the document).

Next Meeting Date: August 27-29, 2013

Location: Washington, DC – Allied Technologies

Attendance

Members:

Steve Bussolari, Chair John Cavolowsky Mark Weber

Deborah Kirkman Bruce Holmes Joe Bertapelle

William Leber Dres Zellweger Eric Neiderman, FAA – DFO

Other Attendees:

Cathy Bigelow, FAA Rachel Seely, FAA John Marksteiner, FAA

Mike Gallivan, FAA Gloria Dunderman, FAA Andrew Henderson, TASC

Steve Bradford, FAA Jeff Tittsworth, FAA Jillian Cheng, Engility

John Maffei, FAA Dino Piccione, FAA Steve Abelman, FAA

Karlin Toner, FAA John Wiley, FAA

Paul Fontaine, FAA (telcon) Gary Pokodner, FAA (telcon)
Page 20

REDAC – NAS Operations Subcommittee

Allied Technology Group – 600 Maryland Avenue, SW Suite 900 West

Washington, DC 20024

March 5-7, 2013 (FINAL)

Day 1 – March 5

8:30 - 9:00 am Welcome Steve Bussolari

9:00 – 9:15 Introductory Remarks / Welcome John Wiley

9:15 – 9:30 am FAA Input on Subcommittee Role & 

Expectations

Eric Neiderman

9:30 – 10:00 am FAA Guide for Authoring Findings and 

Recommendations

Cathy Bigelow

10:00 – 10:30 am Budget Overview Mike Gallivan

10:30 - 10:45 am Break

10:45 – 11:45 NASOps PPT

Operations Concept Validation

NextGen – Ops Concept Validation

NextGen – Staffed NextGen Tower

John Marksteiner

11:45 – 12:30 Subcommittee Discussion – Findings and 

Recommendations (Homework)

All

12:30 Lunch

1:30 – 2:30 pm ATC/Tech Ops Human Factors

NextGen ATC/Tech Ops HF

Strategy Plan for Human Factors*

Dino Piccione

Rachel Seely

2:30 – 2:45 pm Break

2:45 – 3:45 pm Runway Incursion Reduction John Maffei

3:45 – 4:00 pm Subcommittee Discussion – Findings and 

Recommendations (Homework)

All

4:00 pm Adjourn

Day 2 – March 6
Page 21

8:00 – 9:00 am Subcommittee Discussion – Previous Day 

Findings and Recommendations

All

9:00 – 9:45 am Surface Discussion* Paul Fontaine

9:45 – 10:00 am Break

10:00 – 11:30 am Weather Program/Weather PPT 

Prioritization Process*

Weather Technology in the Cockpit

Steve Abelman

Gary Pokodner

11:30 – 12:00 Subcommittee Discussion – Findings and 

Recommendations (Homework)

All

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 – 1:45 pm JPDO Karlin Toner

1:45 – 2:30 pm Update/Discussion – Previous 

Subcommittee Recommendations

All

2:30 – 3:00 pm Update – REDAC Working Group Cathy Bigelow

3:00 – 3:30 pm Future Subcommittee Activity All

3:30 pm Adjourn

TBD Dinner - TBD

Day 3- March 7

8:00 – 9:00 am Subcommittee Discussion – Previous Day 

Findings and Recommendations

All

9:00 – 10:00 am NextGen Wake Turbulence

Next Gen Wake Turbulence

Re-Categorization

Jeff Tittsworth

Paul Strande

10:00 – 11:00 Subcommittee Discussion

- Finalize Findings and 

Recommendations

- Confirm Action Items

- Future Meeting Logistics

All

11:00 Adjourn

* Addresses Previous Subcommittee Recommendation