Federal Aviation Administration

Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety

General Aviation Manufacturers Association

1400 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

August 20 – 22, 2013

Meeting Minutes

Purpose: Guidance on Development of FY 2016 Research and Development Portfolio

Designated Federal Official: Eric Neiderman, FAA

SAS Chair: Joe Del Balzo, JDA Solutions

Day 1 – August 20, 2013

A1 Welcome Remarks

Presenter: Eric Neiderman

Eric Neiderman called the meeting to order at 8:06 AM and welcomed the Subcommittee on 

Aircraft Safety (SAS) members, FAA participants, and all others in attendance or on the phone. 

Eric introduced Joe Del Balzo as the SAS Chair and thanked the General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA) and Walter Desrosier in particular for hosting this meeting. After 

introductions of all present, Eric updated the Agenda by moving the Dennis Filler presentation 

from August 20 to August 21.

B Strategic Plan

Presenter: Eric Neiderman

Eric presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - ANG Strategic Plan Discussion. Eric 

emphasized that the process began with an unconstrained view of anticipated research areas for 

the Aviation Research Division (ANG-E2) seven to ten years out. He added that even if these 

predictions are not correct they have value because they show the thought processes used to 

distill them. He added that even the best futurists in the business missed the Internet, perhaps the 

biggest disruptive technology in our lifetimes. One output of this exercise is that it may reveal 

unexpected benefits by looking at research planning from a different perspective. Although the 

Aviation Research Division is currently observing many of the R&D best practices, FAA 

operational needs favor a focus on the near-term often at the expense of allocating resources for

the future. Eric also made reference to existing legislation that at least 15% of appropriated 

R&D funds should be for long-term research projects.

1 Letter designations represent location of presentation in the binders distributed at the meeting.

 
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

The approach to building the plan included a review of current program areas and a transition 

strategy for each one that identified people, laboratory, and partnership needs to address future 

challenges. Andy Lacher (SAS) asked if this was a technology transfer effort. Eric replied that 

it was more of an R&D organizational transition driven in large part by anticipated changes in 

technology. The results were condensed into a draft strategic research direction document that 

was reviewed by FAA and academic specialists. This information is included in Tab B of the 

Binder.

The next step is to look at other strategic plans and condense the document significantly. The 

transition strategy is very important, it is where the “rubber meets the road.”

Eric distributed a five-page handout titled Aviation Safety Systemic Drivers, dated August 6, 

2013. These drivers were mapped to Program Areas, Strategic Research Drivers, and Strategic 

Research Initiatives. John White (SAS) asked if the Initiatives were prioritized. Eric replied no. 

Andy Lacher (SAS) asked if the trends came from FAA subject matter experts. Eric replied yes. 

Andy asked where the disruptive technologies come from. Eric replied that that is unknown but 

it calls for a wide dissemination of the plan and a readiness to change it accordingly. Ken Knopp 

(FAA) added that additive manufacturing may be one of those disruptive technologies. Andy 

suggested that the plan could start with a disruptive technology rather than a systemic driver.

Doug Rohn (SAS) stated that NASA is developing an Aeronautics Plan that considers three 

systemic drivers. He stated that he will synch the NASA Plan with the ANG-E2 plan.

Todd Sigler (SAS) asked if Boeing could provide input to this project. Eric invited this feedback. 

Todd added that the FAA should not pursue an area only because of an existing strength. Eric 

agreed.

Joe Del Balzo offered three items for the SAS members to consider. First, establish a position 

relative to the 15% legislative set-aside for long-term research projects; second, determine an 

approach for this plan that chooses between an internal view as shown or a broader Agency-wide 

view; and third, comment on the content of the current document.

Rob Pappas (FAA) stated that since the law does not define long-term research, his view is since 

all the projects are long term all the research is long-term and the 15% is satisfied.

Chris DeSenti (Human Factors Subcommittee member) commented that the plan should embrace 

emergent issues.

This presentation closes Action Item #1 from the Spring 2013 SAS meeting.

C Budget Review

Presenter: Mike Gallivan (FAA)

Mike Gallivan presented REDAC Aircraft Safety Subcommittee - R&D Budget Status. Mike 

summarized his presentation with one word – uncertainty. Mike commented that the FY 2014

R, E&D budget request ($166M) is about 1% of the overall FAA budget. The House Mark 

2
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

($145M) takes most of the cut from NextGen and zeroes out the JPDO. Environmental research 

is plussed-up and there is specific language about Alternative Fuels for General Aviation (GA) 

and a Center of Excellence (COE) for more energy efficient aircraft. John White (SAS) asked if 

the COE language included more money. Mike said no. On slide 7 Mike commented that 

although the Senate Mark did not specifically address NextGen - System Safety Management 

Transformation, a $6M figure is anticipated. Mike said that the House and Senate are far enough 

apart at present that a Continuing Resolution (CR) is expected.

The FY 2015 Budget is still under review by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST). 

It is scheduled to be presented to Congress on February 3, 2014, along with the 2014 National 

Aviation Research Plan (NARP). The out-year targets established in March 2013 are expected to 

change in January 2014. The one bit of good news is that the current Authorization of the FAA 

runs through FY 2015.

John White (SAS) asked if the JPDO is cut, who will do the work. Mike stated that it would be 

spread across the Agency. John suggested that this might be a relevant topic for the Division’s 

Strategic Plan.

D FY 2016 AVS R&D Strategic Guidance Review

Presenter: Robert A. Pappas (FAA)

Rob presented AVS Aircraft Safety R&D - FY 2016 Strategic & Process Guidance. Rob 

announced that this was his last R&D cycle for the next six months. Andrea Schandler (FAA) 

would take over until an acting replacement was identified.

Rob spoke at length about a cover to cover revision of the AVS R&D Prioritization Process. The 

crucial key principle of the new edition is a focus on project outcomes. The technical evaluation 

criteria were assessed across all of AVS through a Working Group. The results (as shown on 

Slide 6) were not much different from the previous edition, and were condensed from five to four 

criteria. Rob and Mark Orr (FAA) added that a difference now is that there is a higher burden 

for data to support the need for the requirement and evidence regarding the outcome (or what 

AVS plans to accomplish). This point was reemphasized by Rob on Slide 8 (AVS R&D Life 

Cycle model) when he stated that in the first step it is the outcome, not the research, that is 

prioritized. John White (SAS) asked how long the life-cycle lasted. Rob said it was specific to 

the problem but could last eight to ten years. Mark Orr added that pop-ups could be 

accomplished much quicker.

Rob added that the AVS R, E&D budget is a tool used as needed to achieve future outcomes, and 

that R&D must be integrated into other AVS processes. Slide 15 (Macro View – Future) depicts 

this philosophy. In the system level integration of AVS activities, including R&D, must be 

aligned to measurable outcomes. John White asked how this aligns outside the FAA. Rob 

replied that there is a common risk-based approach, the common framework is risk. Andy 

Lacher (SAS) commented that the focus on outcomes was correct but asked if there was a 

mismatch between the outcomes and the research ideas on the table right now. Rob replied that 

the focus is on the outcome and the implementation plan. Joe Del Balzo asked if this (focus on 

3
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

outcome) is any different from the previous process. Rob replied that now it has been formalized 

into the process.

Chris DeSenti (Human Factors Subcommittee member) asked if the higher burden on 

justifications is a “bandwidth choke”. Mark Orr replied that you wind up with fewer but more 

important eggs – the right set not just a big set. Andy Lacher asked about disruptive 

technologies. Since there is no current safety risk they will not score well. Does this disfavor 

long-term research? Rob said no, that the requirement sponsors are asked to pursue disruptive 

technologies and include them in the justification along with quantitative input. Chris then asked 

about criteria #4 on slide 6 (WG 1 – Improved Evaluation Criteria), particularly the 

commitments to external drivers like the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Rob 

replied that not all NTSB recommendations see FAA action.

Rob addressed an open Action Item from the March meeting regarding AVS planning process 

and accommodation of pop-up requirements. Slides 20 and 21 close this Action Item.

Rob then addressed the FY 2016 AVS Strategic Guidance. He emphasized that this is the first 

year that the document is not prescriptive, it is guidance. Chris Seher (audience) asked if the 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) elements were embedded in the list of emerging risks listed 

on Slide 28 (FY 2016 AVS Strategic guidance). Rob stated yes. Todd Sigler then asked if the 

SAS could review the criteria, data, and assessments that AVS used to develop the list of 

emerging risks. Rob Pappas took an action to prepare a one hour presentation for the next SAS 

meeting on this topic. John White commented that the emerging risk areas seemed quite broad. 

Rob commented that the presentation would clarify this matter.

Action Item: AVP will brief the SAS on the development of the list of emerging risks in the 

AVS Strategic Guidance.

Andrea Schandler passed out copies of the 2013 AVS Aviation Safety R&D Prioritization 

Process 2013 and the FY 2106 AVS Strategic Guidance.

Rob concluded his review of the AVS Strategic guidance by emphasizing that R&D is not the 

only element in the guidance and that the Supplemental Research Requirements – FY 2014 is 

like an Advisory Circular for the strategic guidance.

E System Safety Management

Presenters: Danko Kamar, Scott LeMay, Hossein Eghbali (all FAA)

Danko presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - System Safety Management - Part of A11.h 

and SSM. The benefits to the FAA are the infrastructure and capabilities to enable information 

sharing that systematically assess potential safety risks and apply proactive solutions. Planned 

research in FY 2014 and FY 2015 remains focused on commercial aspects of ASAIS. FY 2016

focal areas will expand ASIAS into GA, rotorcraft, and NAS critical systems. No commercial 

ASIAS R&D is anticipated in FY 2016 and beyond.

4
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

Scott LeMay and Hossein Eghbali presented five Quad charts of FY 2013 requirements. Scott is 

the new Program Manager for ASIAS, replacing Mike Basehore. Scott mentioned that the 

commercial ASIAS R&D is a small but important component of ASIAS, somewhat like an 

incubator. Doug Rohn (SAS) asked if the Technical Reports from MITRE are public. Scott 

replied that MITRE would need ok any report release. Hossein presented the second half of the 

FY 2013 ASIAS requirement which is focused on GA and rotorcraft and the next four charts. 

Todd Sigler (SAS) commented on one bullet on Slide 7 (SSM-13-01 ASIAS-GA/Rotorcraft) that 

addressed development of Flight Risk Analysis Tool (FRAT) for pilots. Todd asked if there 

were two FRATS. Hossein said yes, one for pilots, the Flight Risk Analysis Tool, and one for 

NAS facilities, the Facility Risk Analysis Tool.

Hossein stated that work on Slide 9 (SSM-13-06 Integrated Domain Assessment of Future 

System (IDA-FS)) would continue past FY 2014 despite no funding beyond FY 2014. Chris 

DeSenti (HF Subcommittee member) asked if there are any human factors precursors for the 

work described on Slide 10 (SSM-13-07 Facility Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT)). Scott said yes. 

Chris asked if the UAS program could look to ASIAS. Scott stated that UAS will merge with 

ASIAS as the UAS field emerges.

Todd Sigler (SAS) commented the numbering system for the requirements is not easy to follow. 

He also asked if the measureable outcome from ASIAS R&D is the tool or the use of the tool. 

Cathy Bigelow (FAA) added that the tool is the output. Todd suggested that this is “seed for 

thought” to align taxonomy.

F Continued Airworthiness – Rotorcraft Systems

Presenters: Chinh Vuong and Paul Swindell (both FAA)

Chinh presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Rotorcraft Systems TCRG - Part of BLI A11.e 

– Continued Airworthiness. Chinh explained that the benefit of the program to the FAA is a 

reduction in the rate of fatal rotorcraft accidents. He added that this is in concert with the 

International Helicopter Safety Team (IHST) goal of reducing the worldwide rotorcraft accident 

rate by 80%. The research in FY 2014 and FY 2015 is a continuation of current programs. The 

focal area for FY 2016 includes research on Health Usage and Monitoring Systems (HUMS), 

advanced flight controls, continued operational safety especially at low altitudes, and occupant 

survivability. Chinh addressed open Action Item #7 from the previous SAS meeting with Slide 6. 

Cathy Bigelow added the point that the Action Item could not be closed until the handouts for 

the binders and the web site incorporated these changes.2

Paul Swindell presented addressed the Quad chart for the FY 2013 HUMS requirement. He 

stated that AVS would begin updating Advisory Circular 29-2C MG15 in the FY 2017

timeframe. He mentioned that this entire program effort takes a collaborative team approach 

with manufactures like Sikorsky and user groups like Helicopter Association International (HAI).

Paul then presented the Quad chart for the FY 2013 Advanced Control Systems requirement. Joe 

Del Balzo and Todd Sigler both questioned the irregular funding stream from FY 2013 through 

2 The slide (#6) presented by Chinh was not the same as the one in the binder. A revised slide was distributed to the 

SAS and the presentation on web site was updated.

5

 
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

FY 2017. Joe asked how one decides to either nickel or dime a program or cut and run. Paul 

replied that the sponsor drives the decision and usually encourages some investment just to get 

the program going. Walter Desrosier asked if the fly-by-wire is different for air transport. Paul 

replied that the level of pilot input for stability is higher for the helicopter pilot.

Andy Lacher and Todd asked if there was any R&D into advanced rotorcraft that has counter 

rotating pods on the sides of the craft. Chinh replied that the FAA must constantly balance the 

use of limited resources and that this area was not a high priority. Todd countered that the FAA 

waits too long to start the R&D. Chris DeSenti asked if there was any work related on on-board 

warning with HUMS. Chinh replied that there is some discussion within AVS on this topic and 

that it might be addressed in the Advisory Circular in the FY 2016 timeframe.

G Continued Airworthiness – Maintenance & Inspection

Presenters: Rusty Jones and Dave Galella (both FAA)

Rusty Jones presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Maintenance & Inspection - TCRG -

Part of BLI A11.e – Continued Airworthiness. Rusty informed the audience that this would the 

last time he presented this topic. He will be focusing on strategic composite work in the future. 

Rusty stated that the M&I research has benefited the FAA by adding composite related segments 

to training programs for both the industry and FAA inspectors. He stated that research through 

FY 2015 remains focused on non-destructive testing (NDT) of weak bonds and quantification of 

bond strength in composites, the Holy Grail of M&I. He stated that AVS is developing a 

strategic plan for composites. He then mentioned a possible pop-up in FY 2014 to address ADSB and Mode S transponder incorrect reply. John White asked why that was included under the 

M&I work. Rusty stated that it is a systems issue within Flight Standards (AFS-360).

Dale Hawkins (FAA) presented the FY 2016 focal area that includes personal electronic devices 

(PEDs). He added that the Avionics Branch in AVS has a need for this. Joe Del Balzo asked 

why this isn’t a pop-up? Dale replied that it is in the works. Todd asked about the scope of M&I. 

Doug replied that the M&I Technical Community Representatives Group (TCRG) is expanding 

beyond metals and composites. John White added the SAS is alert to the shift in M&I to 

Avionics. Rusty replied that the FAA has invested vast amounts of work and money into 

composites. Todd then asked if the FAA can get the right people.

Dave Galella (on phone) presented the FY 2013 Quad chart for the one M&I requirement. Dave 

identified eight separate areas of research under this single requirement. Two of the areas are 

wrapping up in FY 2014, five areas are ongoing, and one is not yet underway. There were no 

comments.

H Continued Airworthiness – Electrical Systems

Presenters: Paul Siegmund and Mike Walz (both FAA)

Paul (on phone) presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Electrical Systems TCRG - Part of 

A11.e- Continued Airworthiness. Paul began by stating that there are no new research 

requirements for FY 2014 and FY 2015. Current work is focused on completing the FY 2013

requirement, especially infrastructure for +/- 270V DC, and developing internal research 

6
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

capabilities related to solid state. This research could be leveraging some of the HUMS work by 

using the aircraft wiring system. Emerging focal areas in FY 2016 include hydrogen fuel cell 

installation. Current regulations did not foresee this and guidance is necessary. Mike presented 

the FY 2013 Quad chart and explained that although the funding ceased in FY 2013, he is able to 

leverage other programs to keep the work going through FY 2015. Slides 7 through 18 

demonstrate the level and extent of these activities. John White commented that this is a lot of 

work for $1M. Mike replied that much of the work involves partnerships with industry (like 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements). Also the FAA laboratory capabilities 

allow work to proceed beyond the limits of contract dollars.

John White commented that this is a great example of frugal use of limited resources. Joe Del 

Balzo commented that the lithium battery work slated as a focal area for FY 2016 appears to be 

too late. This is a pop-up issue right now but the process does not appear to address it. This is 

similar to the PED issue. Mark Orr replied that the pop-up process is not arduous. The shifting 

of the money is a problem. Todd stated that it should not be too easy. Andy Lacher added that 

some flexibility is necessary. Steve Edgar (FAA) closed out the discussion by stating that they 

are considering the PEDS as a pop-up but haven’t decided yet. They are not held back by the 

process but by the decision to move forward.

I Continued Airworthiness – Structural Integrity Metallic

Presenters: Mark Freisthler, Mike Reyer, John Bakuckas, and Felix Abali (all FAA)

Mark presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Structural Integrity of Metallics (SIM) – TCRG 

Part of BLI A11.e - Continued Airworthiness. Mark explained the prime benefit from SIM R&D 

comes from the data and tools that support rulemaking, policy and guidance development, 

aircraft certification, continued airworthiness, education, and training. The primary focal areas 

for FY 2014 and FY 2015 address new alloys, fatigue and durability, structural health monitoring, 

emerging process intensive materials (additive manufacturing), and risk analysis requirements. 

The emerging focal areas for FY 2016 are a continuation of FY 2014 and FY 2015 and an 

emphasis on metallic structures like unitized integral structures. This is explained in greater 

detail on Slide 19 (Emerging Metallic Structures Technology (EMST) Roadmap).

John Bakuckas presented the Quad charts for FY 2013 requirements. John mentioned that due to 

budget issues the funding for Emerging Technologies - Active Flutter Suppression (SIM-13-03)

is uncertain for FY 2014 and FY 2015. Todd Sigler asked if there was a sequestration priority 

list showing how these cuts would impact individual requirements. Andrea Schandler replied 

that AVS has such a list on their SharePoint site. John pointed out on Slide 12 (Durability and 

Damage Tolerance of Emerging Technologies (SIM-13-05)) that industry helps guide the R&D.

Felix Abali presented the Continued Operational Safety requirement Quad chart. He explained 

that the prime outcome is AVS implementation through integration into AIR’s Monitor 

Safety/Analyze Data (MSAD) safety concerns risk assessment tools.

Todd asked if there was any partnering with Transport Canada across the entire SIM program. 

Mark Freisthler replied no, Transport Canada is aware of the SIM work but that the data is used 

primarily by the FAA. Andy Lacher commented that much of the work is near-term. What 

7
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

percentage is long-term? Mark referred to Slide 19 (Emerging Metallic Structures Technology 

(EMST) Roadmap) but did not offer a quantitative answer.

J Fire Research and Safety

Presenters: Jeff Gardlin and Gus Sarkos (both FAA)

Jeff (on the phone) presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Fire Research and Safety BLI 

A11.a - Part of Fire and Cabin Safety TCRG. Jeff emphasized that the greatest benefit of this 

R&D is that it reduces loss of life and injuries due to aircraft fires. The success of the program is 

measured by the number of research products that are implemented in aircraft. Gus reviewed the 

research implemented over the last 10 years and then focused on implementation over the last 

year. This includes ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel, Improved Technical Instructions, effective 

January 1, 2013, and Policy Statement on “Flammability Testing of Interior Materials (Policy 

No: PS-ANM-25.853-01), August 2012. Gus provided recent examples of the in-house expertise 

solicited by outside organizations (Slide 6).

Jeff resumed the presentation by reviewing FY 2014 and FY 2015 planned activities and 

expected research products. He highlighted one of the products, the Micro-scale Combustion 

Calorimeter test procedures to screen new non-halogen flame retardants. Halon presents a very 

large environmental and toxicity issue. The emerging FY 2016 focal area includes test methods 

tailored to the actual threat as opposed to general systems. These include detection and 

extinguishing technology for inaccessible or hidden in-flight fire scenarios, performance 

standards for high energy storage/generation devices (e.g., aircraft hydrogen fuel cells), and 

integrated airplane fire protection system criteria. The thrust is to develop generic testing and 

regulations.

Gus presented Quad charts for FY 2013 requirements, Slide 10 (Improved Flammability 

Standards for Aircraft Materials) and Slide 15 (Improved Aircraft Fire Protection & Occupant 

Fire Survivability). He provided numerous examples through diagrams, photographs, and videos 

of recent accomplishments with an emphasis on testing of lithium batteries.

SAS members brought up the recent lithium battery fire related to an emergency locator beacon 

in a B787 and the subsequent damage to the composite structure. Todd asked how much of the 

research is dedicated to fire prevention. Gus and Jeff replied that the entire Fire Material Section 

is dedicated to that aspect. Todd followed by asking about work on ignition sources. Jeff and 

Gus replied that the nature of the problem is not the ignition source, most times it is unknown. 

Steve Edgar (FAA) asked if the research is long-term. Jeff replied that the fuel cell research 

certainly is. Walter Desrosier asked if there are any materials vs. material testing. Gus replied 

that they are proceeding with support for a performance-based rule that gives the manufacturer 

the benefit of flexibility.

The SAS commented once again about the world-class nature of the work and the highly 

professional stature of the personnel.

8
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

Eric Neiderman passed around a recent news article written by former FAA Technical Director 

Ann Harlan regarding a recent airplane accident at San Francisco Airport and the role this R&D 

played in the outcome.

K Continued Airworthiness – Flight Controls and Mechanical Systems

Presenters: Robert Jones and Robert McGuire (both FAA)

Robert presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Flight Controls and Mechanical Systems Part 

of BLI A11.e – Continued Airworthiness). He explained that the benefits to the FAA include a 

reduction in the number of loss-of-control events and fatalities. Anticipated research in FY 2014

and FY 2015 include loss-of-control for Part 23 aircraft and flight critical systems design 

assurance. Emerging focal areas in FY 2016 include an FAA Flight Control Plan that guides 

research and rule-making out to 2020. Bob McGuire presented two Quad sheets for the FY 2013

requirements: Stall Departure: Identification, Recognition and Recovery FCMS-13-01 and 

Envelope Awareness and Protection Legacy Transport Airplanes FCMS-13-02. Bob mentioned 

that the funding for the later requirement was zeroed out in FY 2014.

Todd Sigler asked if the R&D activities were coordinated with other activities across the world. 

Robert Jones replied that James Wilburn (FAA AVS) sits on the Commercial Aircraft Safety 

Team (CAST) and he coordinates through an FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) Harmonization Working Group at the national level. They are also trying to coordinate 

with higher levels groups.

Andy Lacher and Jim Mangie commented that techniques for loss of control accidents require a 

common outcome across all research efforts.

John Lapointe (FAA) handed out updated versions of Slides 6 and 7 with revised budget figures.

L Continued Airworthiness – Engine NDE

Presenters: Jorge Fernandez and Cu Nguyen (both FAA)

Jorge presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Propulsion Systems Part of 11.e Continued 

Airworthiness. Jorge handed out a revised hard copy of the presentation with corrected budget 

numbers. He explained that the key benefit to the FAA for this work is research into areas of

manufacturing processes that haven’t been addressed by regulatory means. Anticipated research 

in FY 2014 and FY 2015 include final development of sonic infrared inspection on critical 

engine components. This involves eight original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) from around 

the world. Cu explained that the FAA has the following objectives looking out four years; 

moving from disk to blisk, composites/ceramics, and human factors aspects of inspection. He 

added that the industry is interested in engine efficiency, lighter weight, longer distance, and 

higher temperatures. The FY 2016 focal area includes non-linear ultrasonic testing assessment 

of diffusion bonded engine components, non-linear imaging for nondestructive evaluation of 

titanium bonded leading and trailing edges on composite blades, and nondestructive residual 

stress profiling.

9
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

Cu presented the single Quad chart for the FY 2013 requirement. Joe Del Balzo asked about 

ceramic-based engines. Jorge stated that GE will introduce engines with 10 -15% ceramics. Joe 

asked if the FAA R&D is too late. Cu stated that the program is working on that right now with 

bonding of new parts. More resources will be directed to that in FY 2016.

Todd Sigler asked about the seemingly big shift from hard-alpha R&D in the March meeting. 

Ken Knopp (FAA) explained that that work was associated with a different engine propulsion 

effort that would be covered later in the meeting.

Strategic Plan Discussion and Review of Action Items and Recommendations

Eric Neiderman lead the discussion regarding the Strategic Plan he presented earlier in the day. 

There were three questions that framed the discussion: the 15% set-aside for long-term research; 

the approach for higher level R&D; and comments of the draft Strategic Plan.

Walter Desrosier posed the question; does the 15% constrain or liberate planning? Andy Lacher 

asked if emergent needs fit the 15% intent. Eric replied to both by saying in general mitigation is 

near-term and prevention is long-term. It was suggested that the 15% be applied at the Budget 

Line Item (BLI) level. Andy believed that this is too restrictive. Todd Sigler stated that this 

issue should not be over complicated. Joe del Balzo stated that convergence on a definition of 

the 15% is of no consequence to the strategic plan.

Eric asked if there were any comments of the content of the plan as presented. Rob Pappas 

stated that AVS has not reviewed the document yet. Andy suggested that the entire Agency 

needs to review it. Ken Knopp (FAA) added that the presentation is the first outreach to the 

industry. Joe asked what the plan attempts to do. Ken replied that the original intent was for 

internal guidance for the Aviation Research Division.

Todd referenced an action item from earlier in the day (AVP will brief the SAS on the 

development of the list of emerging risks in the AVS Strategic Guidance) and deleted his request 

to align funding stream.

Meeting adjourned for the day.

Day 2 – August 21, 2013

Holistic View of Research

Presenter: Dennis Filler (FAA)

Eric Neiderman opened the session at 8:30 AM and introduced Dennis Filler, the new Director of 

the William J. Hughes Technical Center Office. Dennis addressed the SAS and audience by 

identifying the biggest challenge – defending the research budget within the decreasing 

Congressional budget for the Agency. He stated that the SAS discussions should bear in mind 

the delicate balancing act necessary for a fully integrated portfolio across the Agency. It is 

important for the SAS to establish clear priorities that allow his Office the ability to preserve 

10
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

critical mass. He added that these are business decisions and that everyone must be mindful of 

developments that intrude on research planning. 

Eric then asked the SAS to review the homework assignment from the night before. Andy 

Lacher asked who in the FAA will do the planning if the JPDO is dissolved. John White said 

that the JPDO work is now shifting towards implementation. Todd Sigler asked if there is a 

work statement for the JPDO. Walter Desrosier suggested that the Finding and Recommendation 

on this topic should wait until the SAS gets a briefing from the JPDO. Joe Del Balzo suggested

making a recommendation to the REDAC and then to the Administrator. Dennis added that the 

JPDO was mandated by Congress but now the House wants to kill it and the Senate wants to put 

it on life-support. Todd then asked why the SAS should get involved. Joe agreed. Doug Rohn 

asked if the JPDO mission is complete. The SAS agreed to keep the JPDO issue as a finding 

only, no recommendation necessary.

Andy asked why there are two Strategic Plans. Cathy Bigelow replied that the AVS Strategic 

Plan looks out two years while the ANG-E2 plan looks out ten years.

M NextGen – System Safety Management Transformation

This presentation was removed from agenda.

N Aeromedical Research

Presenters: Jean Watson and Estrella Forster (both FAA)

Jean Watson presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Aeromedical TCRG BLI A11.j –

Aeromedical. Jean emphasized that the primary benefit of the program concerns the human 

aspects of protection and survival from exposure to hazardous conditions relative to civil 

aerospace operations. Success is determined by preventing accidents and improving health, 

determining the cause of injury and death patterns, and providing accident investigators with 

near real time data from toxicological and medical aspects of all fatal and high priority aircraft 

accidents. Jean added that the Air Transportation Center of Excellence for Research in the 

Intermodal Transport Environment (formerly known as Airliner Cabin Environment) was closing. 

John White asked if it was closing for a reason other than reaching its 10-year limit. Jean 

answered that if the requirements are prioritized above the Mendoza line (the funding cut off 

line) the Center may be able to remain open for two more years. After that the Center must be 

recompeted.

Estrella presented the anticipated research in FY 2014 and FY 2015 along with expected research 

products. The focal areas for FY 2016 include implications for medical certification associated 

with advances in prosthetics and missed diagnoses in aeromedical certification. Todd asked if 

they were seeing an increase in advanced prosthetics. Estrella answered no but they anticipate an 

increase.

Estrella presented four Quad charts representing FY 2013 research requirements. The Aerospace 

Medical Systems Analysis is primarily a data mining effort. Jim Mangie asked where the 

information goes. The reply was that it goes to AAM-400 for medical certification for GA. 

Slide 7 provides example of some of the publications from this data. The Accident Prevention & 

11
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

Investigation requirement focuses on the safety of the human. Jim Mangie asked if suicide is a 

driver. Estrella said that it is being tracked to see if mitigation is possible. On Slide 9, Jim asked 

if the referenced manual was new. It is and it is available at the CAMI library. The Crash 

Survival requirement uses the bio dynamics sled and also studies cabin safety during evacuations. 

Estrella presented plans for a new sled on Slide 11. Joe Del Balzo asked how this is being 

funded. Estrella replied that it is part of the larger Technology Refresh, an F&E effort approved 

by the FAA Joint Resources Council (JRC). The Aerospace Physiology requirement studies high 

altitudes hazards. John asked if the research involves equipping aircraft with sensors. Estrella 

replied no, flight attendants wear the sensors.

Jean Watson presented the last FY 2013 requirement Quad chart on the Airline Cabin 

Environment Purification of Environmental Control System Air Supplies; Bleed Air 

Contamination. As stated previously, this is the last year for this effort. Jean stated that a report 

is due out next year on the program. Walter Desrosier asked if the risk of exposure to bleed air 

in ten years will be the same as today. Jean replied that unless more aircraft enter the fleet mix 

like the B787 (that does not mix bleed air into the cabin), the risk will not change appreciably. 

She added the aforementioned report would include the information sought by Walter. Jean 

referred to a project called VIPER on Slide 15. A crack in one of the structural pylons stopped 

progress on this R&D effort.

Estrella then provided high-level rationale for prioritizing Aeromedical Requirements, an open 

Action Item #2 from the previous SAS meeting. Slides 16 through 20 explain the drivers and 

process for prioritizing research. This presentation successfully closed the first portion of the 

Action Item. The deep-dive at the Spring 2014 meeting will close this Action Item completely.

During the wrap-up, Andy Lacher asked why the FAA doesn’t just make blood work routine for 

certification. Estrella replied that there are privacy issues and it is not the purview of the 

research group. If the data show that self-reporting does not work, there may be a need to inform 

through an educational process.

The SAS commented that this was a very informative briefing.

O Digital System Safety

Presenters: Barbara Lingberg and Alanna Randazzo (both FAA), and Richard Barhydt (NASA)

Barbara presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Software and Digital Systems A11.d partial): 

Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety and A11.n: Advanced System and Software Validation. 

Barbara informed the SAS that beginning in FY 2014 Ray DeCerchio, AIR-120, will assume 

sponsorship of Onboard Network Security and Integrity. Barbara will maintain sponsorship of 

Digital Systems, Software, and Electronic Hardware. Barbara then addressed Action Item #4 

from the previous SAS meeting (Show explicit outputs and outcomes regarding wireless 

interfaces on the aircraft). Slide 4 lists specific outputs that result in the outcome: No increase 

in number of service difficulties or Airworthiness Directives due to use of wireless technologies 

in aircraft. This closes Action Item 4.

12
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

Barbara explained that the benefits of this research program include increased standardization 

and reduced certification time. The anticipated research for FY 2014 and FY 2015 will focus on 

complex digital systems research at both systems and implementation level. There are four 

requirements that encompass the following: approval at the component level, define complexity 

and its tipping point, single event effects (SEE), continue simulation efforts, does assurance case 

hold up, model-based development, and electronic work on COTS. The emerging FY 2016 focal 

area is described on Slides 7 and 8 emphasizing a domain independent assurance. 

Alanna Randazzo presented three Quad charts for FY 2013 requirements: Onboard Network 

Security and Integrity SDS-13-01, Software Development Techniques and Tools SDS-13-03, and 

Software Development Techniques and Tools SDS-13-03. The first requirement is a means to get 

cyber security into the FAA. John White asked if there is any evidence of a problem. Barbara 

replied that simulations with electronic flight bags have identified some vulnerability. Walter 

asked if this is just with wireless. Barbara answered no it’s with wired systems as well. Jim 

Mangie asked about the extent of cyber security vulnerabilities. Alanna stated that the research 

is looking into that.

On the second requirement Andy Lacher asked about the migration from DO-178B to DO-178C. 

Barbara stated that their work helps explain what the document meant to say. The SEE work 

through Thales tries to evaluate mitigation techniques. There is some discussion about calling 

these atmospheric events.

On the third requirement Barbara stated that the airline industry does not drive COTS. The 

research tries to level the playing field for applicants looking for certification. Andy suggested 

that the FAA may be able to learn from the manner in which DARPA conducts this type research.

Richard Barhydt presented NASA-FAA Research Collaboration in Software and Digital Systems 

Safety Assurance – Status Report to FAA REDAC and SAS. The presentation included a research 

transition roadmap example and a schedule of work for the first year. One expected application 

is to support FAA guidance for the use of tools for software safety assurance. Cathy Bigelow 

asked about funding levels. Rich could not be specific but Doug offered that the overall NASA 

program is in the multi-million dollar range.

John White highlighted the importance of this FAA/NASA collaboration. Andy commented that 

this may present an outline for how the FAA could leverage DOD activities.

P Propulsion and Fuel Systems

Presenters: Jorge Fernandez and Joe Wilson (both FAA)

Jorge presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 – Propulsion Systems TCRG Part of BLI A11.b 

Propulsion and Fuel Systems. Jorge explained that the benefits to the FAA from this research 

include methods and tools used to establish methods of compliance to 14CFR Part 33.70 and 

continued operational safety for Advisory Circular (AC) 39-8. Anticipated research in FY 2014

and FY 2015 continues with DARWIN. It is expected to be finished in FY 2015. The final 

version will provide the basis for developing AC 33.70-4. The emerging focal areas for FY 2016

13
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

include methods and tools to address fretting fatigue and edge-of-contact problems; and damage 

tolerance analysis of non-rotating components.

Joe Wilson presented the one Quad chart requirement for FY 2013, Incorporate Damage 

Tolerance into the Safe Life Rotor Design Process (PS-13-01). Damage tolerance is the basis for 

the AC. The release of DARWIN version 8.1 is the accomplishment for FY 2013.

John White recognized that this research program is coming to a successful end. When the 

design tool is built it will be left in the hands of industry and the FAA investment will be done.

Joe Del Balzo stated that this is a successful conclusion.

Q Aircraft Icing

Presenters: Tom Bond and Jim Riley (both FAA)

Tom (on phone) presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Aircraft Icing TCRG A11.D 6DB 

Aircraft Icing and A11.K Weather Program (AVS Weather - Icing). One of the main benefits to 

the FAA from this research is an improvement of certification processes, especially Appendix C. 

Todd Sigler asked about benefits that contribute to NextGen. Tom replied that one example is an 

icing weather tool like the Terminal-Area Icing Weather Information System (TAIWIS). Tom 

mentioned that all the anticipated research activities in FY 2014 and FY 2015 are an extension of 

current research. He added that the two-year ground icing study with Southwest Airlines and 

UPS needs one more year. Tom explained that the FY 2016 focal area targets a means of 

compliance for the Supercooled Large Droplet (SLD) rule that is due out in early 2014. 

Certifications to this new rule are expected within a couple of years as new type certificates 

(TCs) and supplemental type certificates (STCs) are submitted. Existing tools are considered 

inadequate by the industry. FAA is working with NASA to develop new research strategies to 

improve engineering tools capabilities.

Jim Riley presented the six Quad charts representing the FY 2013 requirements including two

from the Weather Program (the AVS Wx wedge). The Research on Ice Crystal & Other 

Appendix C Exceedance Icing Conditions (AI-13-01) includes a Memorandum of Cooperation 

with Transport Canada. The research effort under Safe Operations and Take-off in Aircraft 

Ground Icing Conditions (AI-13-02) should be completed in FY 2014, at which time the Flight 

Standards Office should have enough information regarding holdover times on sloped surfaces. 

Jim made mention that the research for Material for ACO Engineers for Icing Certification of 

Rotorcraft (AI-13-04) was a one-year effort. The AVS Wx wedge requirements are funded 

through the Weather program (A11.k). The first, Mitigating the Ice Crystal Weather Threat to 

Aircraft Turbine Engines – A11.K: WX-03, is being done through a partnership with NASA and 

collaboration with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology the European High Altitude Ice Crystal 

Project. The flight campaign, with a French Falcon 20, is scheduled for early 2014 in Australia. 

NASA withdrew their test plane from the program in 2013. Jim mentioned that research related 

to Terminal Area Icing Weather Information System (TAIWIS) – A11.K: WX-01 will be 

integrated with NextGen through collaboration with the Flexible Terminal Sensor Network 

(FTSN) project at FAA Technical Center and work with NASA on its Icing Remote Sensing 

Project for Terminal Area that will provide information on liquid water aloft for TAIWIS.

14
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

Todd Sigler asked about the out-year funding for Safe Operations and Take-off in Aircraft 

Ground Icing Conditions (AI-13-02). Jim replied that FY 2015 was about $470k and FY 2016

and FY 2017 were TBD. Jim Mangie commented that this research requirement has an 

indefinite life. Tom Bond observed that continued operational criteria from the airlines to 

operate in new conditions drives continued research to expand take-off conditions. Jim Mangie

confirmed this observation and commented that this type research needs to continue. Todd 

emphasized the point that the aviation community has no means of compliance for the emerging 

SLD rule expected in 2014.

Joe Del Balzo commented that these are long-term requirements and the FAA must insure 

adequate bench strength. What, he asked, has the FAA done about this. Ken Knopp replied that 

the program support is broader than just Jim Riley but that it could benefit from additional 

personnel.

R Advanced Materials/Structural Safety

Presenters: Curtis Davies, Larry Ilcewicz, and Joseph Pellettiere (all FAA)

Larry presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Advanced Materials and Structures (SIC) 

Crashworthiness (F&CS) A11c Advanced Materials and Structural Safety. Larry identified the 

benefits from the structural integrity of composites program include benchmarks on best industry 

composite practices to support rulemaking and regulatory policy and guidance development; 

identifying safety problems; broadening awareness of related critical safety and certification 

issues; standardizing related composite practices, and developing related training. He added that 

benefits from the crashworthiness program include evaluation of composite technologies used by 

industry and industry workshops and safety awareness course content. He covered anticipated 

research for FY 2014 and FY 2015, mostly a continuation of current research. Larry provided a 

list of focal areas for FY 2016 (Slides 7 and 8) that flow from current research requirements. Jim 

Mangie asked how the composite work interfaced with the fire research program. Larry replied 

that they only intersected in a post-crash fire setting. Todd Sigler asked if the ditching research 

was a outcome from NTSB. Larry replied yes but it has been on their radar for several years 

because the work is applicable to more than just ditching scenarios.

Curtis presented a list of the research requirements for FY 2013 with a status on funding 

availability. He followed with Quad charts for each of the active FY 2013 requirements. Curtis 

explained that most of the R&D is through the Joint Air Transportation Center of Excellence for 

Advanced Material (JAMS).

S Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research

Presenters: Jim Williams, Kerin Olson, John Reinhardt, and Sabrina Saunders-Hodge (all FAA)

Jim Williams, FAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems Executive, opened the discussion by saying that 

the UAS Integration Roadmap had been completed on 2-14-2013 but was sent to OMB for 

review. He noted that the word “Integration” has been added to the title. To date there were 169 

comments from 12 Executive Branches, and 40 comments back on resolution. The Roadmap 

should be ready for publication in about a month. The UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

(ARC) took a look at roadmap. One of the comments they sent back was that the roadmap was 

15
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

not as comprehensive as needed. They submitted what they thought it should be and UAS 

Program Office is considering their input to develop a costing plan. Action Item # 8 from the 

previous SAS meeting will remain open. 

The OMB review is considered a total Government review and will address privacy issues. The 

Roadmap will cut across other Agencies to some degree. Jim added that the JPDO 

comprehensive plan is much broader still. Activities in the Roadmap are keyed to expected 

budgets. Todd Sigler asked about funding individual requirements, can you distinguish between 

“nice to have” vs. “must have.” Jim replied that they must be able to react to new technologies 

and without new money one must reprioritize accordingly. One of the tasks for FY 2014 is to 

help build internal story. We need to figure the relationship between the comprehensive plan and 

the roadmap and the work breakdown structure. Right now there is no way to meet 

congressional mandates as written with current funding available. There is an effort to also 

integrate the FAA money which is relatively small with the larger money from other Agencies. 

John White asked how this works with NASA. Jim replied that NASA has five task areas they 

are working and they consider the FAA to be the customer. Each project is coupled with the 

FAA.

Sabrina added that the FAA has 18 tasks across 10 requirements and an R&D portfolio matrix 

team with 30 people. She distributed a copy of the UAS R&D Portfolio matrix team. She added 

that this R&D is mapped to the JPDO plan. The plan should be available soon and it will be 

followed by a gap analysis. John White asked how the R&D stitches together. Jim stated that 

MITRE helps with the integration.

Joe Del Balzo asked if the JPDO has been helpful. Jim stated that they are indispensable,

especially with human factors aspects. Joe asked if the matrix approach is working. Jim said 

that it is, especially with the Memorandum of Understanding with ATO to put the structure in 

place. Dennis Filler observed that the bulk of UAS operations are in uncontrolled airspace. 

What is the plan for flying with other airplanes? Jim replied that the burden will be on the UAS 

to maintain a well-clear situation. We need an electronically translated definition of well clear so 

the UAS will not be disruptive. Information security is also necessary for the control stations 

similar to current DOD standards.

Kerin Olson presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Part 

of BLI A11.l – UAS. Kerin stated that the primary purpose of the research is to enable civil 

certification of UAS in the NAS. Detect and avoid is a major part of this effort. Kerin addressed 

anticipated research in FY 2014 and FY 2015 across eight areas (Slides 5 through 9). On the 

UAS System Safety Criteria slide, Todd Sigler asked Kerin to define lethality in the context of 

the expected final report detailing key lethality characteristics and lethality thresholds. She 

replied that safety thresholds are driven by the kinetic energy and shape of the aircraft. Andy 

Lacher added that there is not much available data on what is lethal vis-à-vis kinetic energy. 

This work is closely coupled with NASA. Kerin spoke to the research on simulating UAS in the 

NAS as beneficial for AOV oversight responsibilities. Kerin listed seven areas being considered 

as focal areas for FY 2016. She added that UAS Maintenance and Repair will extend beyond 

small UAS.

16
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

John Reinhardt presented Quad charts for five FY 2011 requirements, two FY 2012 requirements, 

and five FY 2013 requirements – all under execution in FY 2013. John added that the goal for 

the Sense and Avoid (SAA) work (Slide 19) is to support development of Minimum Operational 

Performance Standards (MOPS) in coordination with RTCA 228. It was asked how the SAA 

effort relates to the NASA work that was briefed to the SAS last year. Andy Lacher replied that 

there is none yet because you want to develop independent models for a better safety case. John 

informed the SAS that the FY 2013 requirement Sense and Avoid (SAA) System Multi-Sensor 

Surveillance Data Fusion Strategies (A11L.UAS.2) was cancelled. Also the requirement UAS 

Command and Control (C2) (A11L.UAS.02) was sunset in FY 2013. The requirement UAS C2 -

Time Critical Low Latency Control Response for UAS with Low Levels of Automation 

(A11L.UAS.3) will be completed by the second quarter of FY 2014.

The meeting adjourned for the day.

Day 3 – August 22, 2013

Eric Neiderman opened the meeting at 8:00AM.

The SAS discussed some minor edits to the homework assignments. No new recommendations 

were offered. Xiaogong Lee (FAA) began a discussion about an open SAS recommendation

(Spring 2008 -14): The FAA and NASA should jointly develop clear and actionable integrated 

roadmaps spanning all NextGen-required safety R&D and other safety-related R&D. The 

roadmaps should identify timelines, deliverables, and decision and transition points for the 

R&D’s insertion into infrastructure or regulatory products. Absent a more mature description of 

research needs, the Safety Subcommittee suggests that the 183 research issues from the ConOps 

be used as the basis for launching the NextGen-related roadmap process. Joe Del Balzo 

commented that the remaining open portion of this recommendation referred to the NASA 

Langley research activities aligned with the Weather-in-the-Cockpit program. Since NASA 

funding for this research was cancelled a joint roadmap will not be developed. The 

recommendation is closed. Joe added that as the SAS sees the need for individual integration 

between roadmaps they will issue a separate Action similar to the UAS roadmap.

T Weather Program

Presenter: Warren Fellner (FAA)

Warren (on phone) presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Weather Program. Warren 

opened by stating that Roger Sultan was called away and could not participate and that he would 

cover Roger’s portion. He described the Weather Program as applied research to minimize the 

impact of weather on the NAS. He also distinguished between the Core Aviation Weather 

Research Program (AWRP) and the AVS Weather Program (AVS Wx wedge). The former deal 

with capacity related hazards and the latter are safety related, two of which are managed by Jim 

Riley. Warren spoke to numerous FY 2014 and FY 2015 anticipated research activities (Slides 4 

-7). Todd Sigler asked about wind compression in the terminal area (Slide 5). Warren replied 

that sometimes winds are higher than expected and arrival spacing is impacted, that is the wind 

can bring aircraft too close to each other. The research effort with National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration is to determine when this begins and ends and inform ATC 

17
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

accordingly. Roger (on phone) gave an example at Newark Airport where changes in wind 

speed at different levels can wreak havoc on traffic flows. On the same slide Todd asked if the 

volcanic ash work is linked with ICAO. Warren said that one component of the research is 

global integration. John White asked if there are any on-board sensors for the ash. Warren 

replied that there were none under the AWRP but there is some effort in Scandinavia.

On Slide 6, Andy Lacher asked if the lightning storm forecast under the Convective Storms 

bullet was shared air-to-air or air-to-ground. Warren said both were relevant and that the goal 

for the FAA is to share this forecast mostly in the terminal area with an emphasis on ramp 

operations. Warren presented two slides on the focal areas for FY 2016 that essentially continue 

on-going work. He then presented ten Quad charts representing the active AWRP research areas 

in FY 2013 (Slides 10 -19). He also presented three Quad charts representing the AVS Wx 

wedge research requirements. Andy Lacher asked about the operational use of Turbulence 

research on Slide 12. Warren stated that the information can help specify a flight path or altitude.

SAS members commented that Quality Assessment (QA) and Aviation Weather Demonstration 

and Evaluation (AWDE) Services programs appear to overlap. Warren replied that that QA was 

a scientific, meteorological assessment of weather product quality, while AWDE assessments 

targeted human factors, operational suitability, and operational ATM impacts. Chris Benich 

expressed an interest in the outcomes for Lower Visibility for CAT 1 Approaches and RVR 

Conversion (Slide 22) and Safety Driven Weather Requirements for Wake Mitigation (Slide 23). 

Warren explained that since Roger was pulled away to another meeting he would provide 

information at a later time.

U Weather Technology in the Cockpit

Presenter: Gary Pokodner (FAA)

Gary presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Weather Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC) BLI 

- A12.d. He described the major benefits of the program as enhanced GA safety and increased 

NAS efficiency. He presented the focal areas and associated expected research products for FY 

2014 and beyond for both GA and Part 121/135. The GA discussion focused on determining a 

price point and how it relates to COTS and the R&D conducted under the Digital System Safety 

program discussed earlier. One point made by Gary is that the WITC program does not drive the 

technology. The R&D effort is to identify meteorological (MET) information and pilot decisionmaking shortfalls in the cockpit that are causal factors in GA accidents, and then identify 

equipage, services, and training that the GA community will adopt. Several SAS members 

argued that if the solutions are too expensive, then GA will not adopt them. Andy Lacher added 

that there is also a risk that the products may get ahead of the FAA. There is evidence that many 

Wx products are getting into GA cockpits already. Joe Del Balzo stated that this is not much 

different than hand-held navigation aids getting into the cockpit. Todd said that you can impede 

safety by being too conservative, and then too expensive to be used. Mark Orr said that the FAA 

is aware of this but that there is a continuum of safety that must be recognized. They are 

rewriting Part 23 with a motto in mind – twice the safety at half the price.

The Part121/135 slides and dialogue focused on shortfalls of MET information and resultant 

operational inefficiencies. Turbulence and wake dissipation were highlighted. Andy asked if 

18
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

this work related to other FAA wake turbulence R&D. Gary replied that there is collaboration 

with RTCA committees and other FAA R&D. There are also human factor element studies at 

the Technical Center.

The SAS members commended the focus and strategic approach of the program. The program 

has many facets but it does not appear to relate to the process guidance shown earlier and it is not 

clear how the outcomes will impact operations. Gary said that except for the last two AVS Wx 

wedge requirements, AWRP does not follow the AVS process.

V Terminal Area Safety

Presenter: Jeff Schroeder (FAA)

Jeff presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Terminal Area Safety Part of BLI A11.h – System 

Safety Management. Jeff explained that the prime benefits to the FAA from this program are 

reduced loss-of-control fatalities and reduced runway incidents and excursions. The anticipated 

research in FY 2014 and FY 2015 includes developing a process for creating representative stall 

models, estimating runway friction in real-time, and investigating feasibility of specifying 

universal missed-approach criteria. This is from both an operational and safety standpoint, 

recognizing there is a difference between landing at Aspen or Atlanta.

The FY 2016 focal areas include prognostic safety through simulation and improving GA safety 

in the terminal area. Jeff presented three Quad charts representing the FY 2013 requirements. 

For TAS-13-01 Advanced Maneuvers, he showed a movie clip that involved pilot startle. For 

TAS-13-02 Determine Runway Friction from Aircraft Data, he emphasized that the target is 

operations under snow and ice conditions. For TAS-13-03 Simulator Motion Cueing Criteria, 

Jim Mangie asked if ICAO has objective motion criteria. Jeff replied that no one does but 

committees are looking at it. Jeff made reference to the ICAO Doc 9625 Manual of Criteria for 

the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices.

The SAS recognized this as very good and important work but what’s “good enough”. Jeff said 

that the point is well taken and the FAA plans to address this through a training matrix.

W Flightdeck/ Maintenance/ Systems Integration Human Factors

Presenters: Kathy Abbott and Tom McCloy (both FAA)

Kathy presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Human Factors TCRG BLI A11.g - Flightdeck/ 

Maintenance/ Systems Integration Human Factors. Kathy identified reducing risks associated 

with human performance while ensuring safety in aviation operations and maintenance activities

as the prime benefit of the research program. She commented that almost 3⁄4 of all accidents 

include pilot error as a primary factor. Kathy presented selected accomplishments from FY 2011

and FY 2012 and three Quad charts representing the approved FY 2013 requirements. HF-13-

01: Flight Training Methods for Jet Upset Prevention, Detection and Recovery was 

accompanied with a diagram depicting Upset Recovery Research – Relationship Among TCRGs. 

She also briefed three charts that mapped the planned research for these requirements through 

FY 2016, including mitigations for startle, surprise, and distraction; how to prepare a pilot for 

sensor failure. HF-13-02: ADS-B Human Factors – AIR & AFS Equipment Design, Evaluation, 

19
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

and Operational Approval Guidance was also accompanied by charts with planned research out 

through FY 2016. She mentioned that the ADS-B HF R&D is applicable for both airborne and 

ground operations. Jim Mangie referred to planned FY 2016 research on Slide 14 related to 

integration issues with tablet technologies in the flight deck and asked how the program stays 

relevant. Kathy replied that they see the need but do not have the resources. HF-13-03: A 

Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Fatigue Risk Management in Maintenance included one chart 

for planning out through FY 2016. Kathy commented that there are multiple products planned 

for each of the four areas.

Kathy presented Slide18 which represented the flight deck research areas through FY 2016. She 

made mention of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for operational credit for advance vision 

systems. She added that the GA safety improvement research was coordinated with the FCMS 

program and that the HF for rotorcraft operational safety includes night-vision goggles, fuel 

management, and runway incursions.

For the on the HF integration issues related to iPads project on Slide 14, Joe Del Balzo 

commented that this issue comes up after the money is already frozen (programmed). Kathy 

replied that HF is so lean that they can’t do any trade-offs. Todd stated that the problem is how 

the FAA racks and stacks. He and Chris Benich asked if the FAA could reprioritize. John White 

reminded the SAS that they were seeing the results of the process that the SAS endorsed. John 

added that HF is improving on the quality of the requirements but the timing remains a problem. 

Jim Mangie agreed that the relevance of the research is better defined but that maybe it should be 

embedded in other research. Kathy replied that HF would be accomplished in an HF TCRG with 

coordination with other TCRGs. Todd asked if the SAS should confer over prioritization and 

that he still doesn’t understand the process. Joe stated that the SAS will distill this issue into a 

Finding.

X NextGen – Alternative Fuels for General Aviation

Presenters: Peter White and Dave Atwood (both FAA)

Peter (on phone) presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - A11.m - NextGen Alternative Fuels 

for GA. He stated that the major benefit to the Agency from this program is implementation of 

the recommendations of the Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Transition Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (UAT ARC) to transition the aviation industry to an unleaded avgas. They will do 

this by developing standardized test procedures to certify a fleet on a proposed unleaded fuel and 

to understand and mitigate any potential safety impact. The planned research for FY 2014 and 

FY 2015 follows the UAT ARC recommendations. Peter covered the emerging focal areas for 

FY 2016 on Slide 5.

Dave Atwood (on phone) presented four Quad charts representing the requirements for FY 2013. 

These requirements follow the UAT ARC recommendations. As a NextGen funded program, it 

is not subject to the AVS prioritization process.

20
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

Y Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program

Presenters: Jay Turnberg and Chip Queitzsch (both FAA)

Jay (on phone) presented REDAC SAS Fall 2013 Review - Propulsion Systems TCRG Part of 

A11f - Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program. Jay identified certification by 

analysis in lieu of full-scale testing as the major benefit to the FAA from this program. The 

anticipated research in FY 2014 and FY 2015 will focus on predictive impact modeling, 

improved material properties tabulation, improved analysis tools for debris interaction, and open 

rotor certification issues. The FY 2016 focal area will begin to shift the focus from metal impact 

modeling to composites. 

Chip presented the single Quad chart representing the requirement for FY 2016. He emphasized 

that before the FAA can go to certification by analysis, the research must provide valid material 

properties. Todd Sigler asked if there was any link to EASA. Chip said yes. Michael Dostert of 

the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate (TAD) interacts with EASA and coordinates issues 

through Bill Emmerling (FAA research provider).

Chip distributed a two page document (prepared by Jay) that addressed Action Item #6 from the 

previous SAS meeting – Provide an implementation plan for incorporating Aircraft 

Catastrophic Failure Prevention research into regulatory products. Jay stated that the current 

rules require full-scale engine tests. The implementation plan uses policy to give applicants the 

flexibility to use structural dynamic analysis for blade containment and rotor balance tests. The 

SAS was satisfied with the content and explanation provided by Jay and closed the Action Item.

Z SAS Recommendation Review, Feedback, and Future Meeting Planning

Presenters: Eric Neiderman (FAA) and Joe Del Balzo (SAS)

SAS recommendation Spring 2008-14:

The FAA and NASA should jointly develop clear and actionable integrated roadmaps 

spanning all NextGen-required safety R&D and other safety-related R&D. The roadmaps 

should identify timelines, deliverables, and decision and transition points for the R&D’s 

insertion into infrastructure or regulatory products. Absent a more mature description of 

research needs, the Safety Subcommittee suggests that the 183 research issues from the 

ConOps be used as the basis for launching the NextGen-related roadmap process. 

Joe Del Balzo commented that the only remaining open item in this recommendation referred to 

the NASA Langley research activities supporting the WTIC program. With NASA funding 

cancelled this roadmap will not be developed. SAS closed the recommendation with the caveat 

that as the SAS sees the need for individual integration between roadmaps they will issue a 

separate Action similar to the UAS roadmap.

SAS Recommendation Spring 2011-18:

The subcommittee recommends that future PBN research include analysis of the 

performance improvements of NextGen satellite-based navigation solutions (e.g., RNP, 

21
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

SBAS, GBAS) over classic navigation sensors (e.g., ILS). This analysis, which should 

include RNP to GBAS approach and landing operations, should result in data that can be 

applied to regulatory criteria that establish operational advantages (e.g., lower landing 

minima) for these NextGen capabilities.

SAS closed the recommendation.

Joe sated that the briefings continue to get better. But the FAA is not taking advantage of the 

opportunity to reprioritize on-the-fly. John White added that posting the briefing information on 

the web site is positive. Joe added that he would post today’s write-ups on the web site by 

August 26.

March 17, 2014 was offered as a possible date for the next meeting. Eric suggested that it may 

be possible to arrange the SAS and Human Factors meetings to overlap for one day to enable n

information exchange.

Joe and Eric thanked all the presenters and the host GAMA for such a productive meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 2:30 PM.

22
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Time Subject Presenter

800

Welcome

• Introductions

• Agenda Review

• Discussion of changes and expectations

Joseph Del Balzo/

Eric Neiderman

820 Strategic Plan Eric Neiderman

840 Budget Review Mike Gallivan

855 FY 2016 AVS R&D Strategic Guidance Review Robert Pappas

930 System Safety Management Scott LeMay/

Hossein Eghbali 

1015 Continued Airworthiness

• Rotorcraft Systems

Chinh Vuong/

Paul Swindell

1045 Break

1100 Continued Airworthiness

• Maintenance and Inspection 

Rusty Jones/

Dave Galella

1130 Continued Airworthiness

• Electrical Systems

Paul Siegmund/

Mike Walz

1200 Lunch

1300 Continued Airworthiness

• Structural Integrity Metallic

Ian Won/

John Bakuckas

1345 Fire Research and Safety Jeff Gardlin/

Gus Sarkos

1415 Continued Airworthiness

• Flight Control Mechanical Systems

Robert Jones/

Bob McGuire

1445 Continued Airworthiness 

• Engine NDE

Jorge Fernandez/

Cu Nguyen

1515 Break

1530 Strategic Plan Discussion All

1600 Review Action Items and Recommendations All

1630 Adjourn

 

Note: Dress code is business casual

23
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Time Subject Presenter

830 Review Action Items and Recommendations Joseph Del Balzo

930 Aeromedical Research Jean Watson/

Estrella Forster

1015 Break

1030 Digital System Safety (NextGen Advanced 

Systems & Software Validation)

Barbara Lingberg/

Alanna Randazzo

1130 Propulsion and Fuel Systems Jorge Fernandez/

Joe Wilson

1200 Lunch

1300 Aircraft Icing Tom Bond/

Jim Riley

1345 Advanced Materials/Structural Safety Larry Ilcewicz/

Curt Davies

1430 Break

1445 Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research Kerin Olson/

John Reinhardt

1545 Review Action Items and Recommendations All

1615 Adjourn

1800 Dinner Old Ebbitt Grill (15th & G NW) 

(202) 347-4800

Note: Dress code is business casual

24
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Time Subject Presenter

800 Review Action Items & Recommendations Joseph Del Balzo

830 Weather Program Roger Sultan/

Warren Fellner

915 NextGen - Weather Technology in the Cockpit Gary Pokodner

945 Break

1000 Terminal Area Safety Jeff Schroeder/ 

Andrew Cheng

1045 Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human 

Factors

Kathy Abbott/

Tom Chidester/

Tom McCloy

1130 Lunch

1230 NextGen – Alternative Fuels for GA Peter White/

Dave Atwood

1315 Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research Jorge Fernandez/

Ken Knopp

1345 SAS Recommendations Review Eric Niederman/

Xiaogong Lee

1415 SAS Feedback Joseph Del Balzo

1430 Future Meeting Planning and Discussion Joseph Del Balzo

1500 Adjourn

Note: Dress code is business casual

25
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

Open Action Items

1. Provide deep-dive of Aeromedical program at the Spring 2014 meeting (this is a carryover 

from the Spring 2013 SAS meeting). (Robert Johnson)

2. Present UAS Integration Roadmap (this is a carryover from the Spring 2013 SAS meeting).

(Jim Williams)

3. AVP will brief the SAS on the development of the list of emerging risks in the AVS Strategic 

Guidance. (Rob Pappas)

4. Provide additional information on outcomes for Lower Visibility for CAT 1 Approaches and 

RVR Conversion, and Safety Driven Weather Requirements for Wake Mitigation. (Roger 

Sultan) 

5. Provide additional information to the members to clarify the distinction between the Quality 

Assessment (QA) and AWDE (Aviation Weather Demonstration & Evaluation) bullets on 

slide 5 with slide 17 of the Weather Program. (Warren Fellner)

6. Provide a briefing on FAA efforts to document UAS research linkages with NASA, DoD, 

and DHS as well as efforts to identify potential research gaps. (Jim Williams)

ACTION ITEMS (SAS MEETING SPRING 2013)

1. 1. Present the Draft ANG-E-2 Strategic Plan at the next SAS meeting. (ANG-E2 Division 

Manager) CLOSED 

2. 2. (a) Provide a high-level rationale for prioritizing Aeromedical requirements at the next 

SAS meeting (CLOSED); and (b) provide deep-dive at the Spring 2014 SAS meeting. 

(Robert Johnson) REMAINS OPEN

3. 3. Update Fire and Cabin Safety Quads charts with correct out-year funding levels. (Rob 

Pappas) CLOSED

4. 4. Show explicit outputs and outcomes regarding wireless interfaces on the aircraft. 

(Barbara Lingberg) CLOSED

5. 5. Provide out-year funding levels for Continued Airworthiness – NDE. (Rob Pappas) 

CLOSED 

6. 6. Provide an implementation plan for incorporating Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention 

research into regulatory products. (Jorge Fernandez) CLOSED

7. 7. Investigate opportunities for FY 2014 funding for the Advanced Control Systems (RS-15-

02) requirement based on progress in FY 2013. (Chinh Vuong) CLOSED

8. 8. Release of the UAS Roadmap will remain an open Action Item (#5 from previous SAS 

meeting). (Jim Williams) REMAIN OPEN

(Not included on original list)

The Subcommittee requests a briefing on the AVS planning process that has been put in place to 

prioritize its portfolio of projects in a way to meeting growing requirements. Examples of how 

the process has been used to accommodate a popup and changing priorities will be helpful. (Rob

Pappas) (CLOSED)

26
2013 Fall SAS Meeting Minutes

ATTENDANCE

SAS Members:

Chris Benich

Joe Del Balzo (Chair)

Andy Lacher

Jim Mangie

Doug Rohn

Todd Sigler

John White 

Eric Neiderman, DFO

Participants:

Felix Abali

Kathy Abbot

Dave Atwood (phone)

John Bakuckas

Richard Barhydt

Cathy Bigelow

Tom Bond (phone)

Daniel Brock

Tom Chidester (phone)

Bill Crossley

Curtis Davies

Raymond DeCerchio

Walter Desrosier

Chris DeSenti 

Gloria Dunderman

Steven Edgar

Hossein Eghbali

Warren Fellner (phone)

Jorge Fernandez

Dennis Filler

Estrella Forster

Mark Freisthler

Dave Galella (phone)

Mike Gallivan

Jeff Gardlin (phone)

Larry Ilcewicz

Dale Hawkins

Michel Hovan

Robert Jones

Rusty Jones

James Knight

Ken Knopp

Danko Kramar

John Lapointe

Xiaogong Lee

Scott LeMay

Barbara Lingberg

Teresa Lucchesi

Rich Lyon

K. Maris

Tom McCloy

Robert McGuire

Nelson Miller

Cu Nguyen

Kerin Olson

Lee Olson

Mark S. Orr

Robert A. Pappas

Joseph Pellettiere

Gary Pokodner

Chip Queitzsch

Alanna Randazzo

John Reinhardt

Mike Reyer

Jim Riley

Gus Sarkos

Sabrina Saunders-Hodge

Andrea Schandler

Jeff Schroeder

Chris Seher

Paul Siegmund (phone)

Peter Sparacino

Roger Sultan (phone)

Paul Swindell

Jay Turnberg (phone)

Chinh Vuong

Michael Walz

Jean Watson

Jim White

Peter White (phone)

Jim Williams

Joe Wilson

27