Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

September 20, 2006 

Meeting Minutes 

On Wednesday, September 20, 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Research, 

Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), held a meeting in the Bessie 

Coleman Room, at 800 Independence Avenue, SW, in Washington, DC. Attachments 1 and 2 

provide the meeting agenda and attendance, respectively. 

Welcome and Introductory Remarks 

Dr. John Hansman, REDAC Vice Chair, welcomed the members and audience participants. 

Ms. Joan Bauerlein, REDAC Executive Director, read the public meeting announcement. 

Report Approval - Separation Standards Working Group – Ms. Sarah Dalton 

Ms. Sarah Dalton, Chair of the Separation Standards Working Group began her briefing 

reviewing the purpose for the working group. The group was to recommend R&D activities to 

produce the reduced separation standards without jeopardizing safety. The first item examined is 

the basis for current separation standards, and reviewed past and ongoing studies of separation 

requirements. The working group then considered improved methodologies for establishing 

separation standards, as well as changes that new technology may bring. The process resulted in 

ten findings, with accompanying recommendations. 

Ms. Dalton summarized each finding and recommendation. The report was unanimously 

approved by the Committee. 

Hon. Marion Blakey expressed her gratitude for the commitment and efforts of the working 

group. She also thanked the retiring members for there dedication and hard work. 

Update - Air Traffic Controller Workforce – Ms. Maureen Knopes 

Ms. Maureen Knopes briefed the members on their strategic training vision. She discussed: the 

training alignment; systematic development framework; enhanced learning experience; controller 

workforce plan initiatives; the AT-SAT; and the academy enhancements and air traffic controller 

optimum training solution-ATCOTS. 

Maureen discussed some opportunities at hand. If customers engage at all management levels, a 

true training partnership could be formed. Training could be integrated into a broader strategic 

human capital plan based on one set of competencies to serve all functions. 
Update - Next Generation Air Transportation System – Charlie Leader 

Mr. Charlie Leader, FAA reviewed the accomplishments of 2006. He also discussed the 

research goals for 2008 and the 2007 goals and objectives. 

Mr. Leader commented the CONOPS explains how NGATS will work. It sets the stage for the 

structure the capabilities that will be needed. Copies are available at www.jpdo.aero. 

In conclusion, this coming year is a transitional year for the office in pursuit of NGATS that 

there has been some real progress being made and we think in the next 12 months, there will be 

continue progress to make NGATS much more easily defined, much easier to discuss, and much 

more easily tied to the research budgets in the developmental efforts of the various agencies that 

are involved. 

Update on Weather Working Group - Rick Heuwinkel 

Mr. Rick Heuwinkle, FAA, updated the Committee on the status of the Weather Working Group. 

He commented that our alternative vision’s of the future air transport system call for a substantial 

increase in traffic 2Xor 3X by 2025, which will require extensive ATM automation in which 

weather is fully integrated to handle the traffic. 

The Weather Working Group has been formed to advise FAA on opportunities to integrate new 

weather information with ATM. Below is what the Group will be working on. 

1. Recommend the developments, the priorities for integrating weather and ATM: The near, 

medium, and long term – 2025. 

2. Consider the requirements for the flight deck which often called air navigation service 

providers and the flight operations center. 

3. Recommend incorporation of the requirements, previously mentioned, into the FAA 

Enterprise architecture as well as the NGATS Enterprise Architecture. 

4. Recommend changes to 7-year plans in the aviation weather research program. 

The group was formed in July with a kick-off meeting in August in Minneapolis. We are in the 

data collection mode. Rich stated this was a brief overview of where the group is. 

Update on NASA Programs - Dr. Lisa Porter 

Dr. Porter, NASA, began her presentation with by discussing the three principles below. 

- We will dedicate ourselves to the mastery and intellectual stewardship of the core 

competencies of Aeronautics for the Nation in all flight regimes. 

- We will focus on research in areas that are appropriate to NASA’s unique capabilities. 

- We will directly address the fundamental research needs of NGATS in partnership with 

the member agencies of the JPDO. 

Dr. Porter also discussed the New Aeronautics Programs and their capabilities. The programs 

are: Fundamental Aeronautics; Aviation Safety; Airspace Systems; and Aeronautics Test. 
Subcommittee Recommendations for FY 09 

The Subcommittees engaged in a lengthy discussion with the Chairs listed below regarding the 

FY 09 recommendations. The final recommendations are provided in the letter to the 

Administrator (see Attachment 3). 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety Mr. Ron Wickens 

Subcommittee on Airports Mr. Edward Gervais 

Subcommittee on Human Factors Dr. Kevin Corker 

Subcommittee on Environment & Energy Mr. Steve Alterman 

NAS Operations Subcommittee Dr. John Hansman (for Jerry Thompson) 

Dr. Hansman thanked the members and instructed them to send any additional concerns or 

comments via email. He would prepare the letter and forward to the members for review. The 

meeting was adjourned. 
Attachment 1 

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

800 Independence Avenue, SW – Bessie Coleman Room 

Washington, DC 20591 

September 20, 2006 

Agenda

9:00 a.m. Welcome John Hansman 

Joan Bauerlein, FAA 

 9:15 a.m. Remarks Hon. Marion Blakey 

9:30 a.m. Report Approval – Separation Standards Working 

Group 

Sarah Dalton 

10:15 a.m. Update – Air Traffic Control Workforce Maureen Knopes, FAA 

10:45 a.m. Break 

11:00 a.m. Update - NGATS Charlie Leader, FAA 

11:30 a.m. Update- Weather Working Group Rick Heuwinkel, FAA 

12:00 noon Lunch 

1:00 p.m. Update – NASA Programs Dr. Lisa Porter, NASA 

Presentation of Subcommittee Recommendation for FY 09

2:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety Ron Wickens 

2:45 p.m. Subcommittee on Airports Ed Gervais 

3:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Human Factors Kevin Corker 

3:15 p.m. Break 

3:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Environment & Energy Steve Alterman 

3:45 p.m. NAS Ops Subcommittee Jerry Thompson 

4:00 p.m. Committee Discussion – Guidance for FY 09 

Recommendations 

John Hansman 

5:00 p.m. Adjourn 
Attachment 2 

Attendance 

Members: 

John Hansman, Chair Steve Alterman Michael Bragg 

Jim Crites Sarah Dalton John Douglass 

Ed Gervais Christine Horne Albert Kaehn 

Fred Pease Lisa Porter Ron Wickens 

Jim Wilding Joan Bauerlein, Executive Director 

Other Attendees:

Charlie Leader, FAA Cathy Bigelow, FAA Monique Morris, FAA 

Michael Basehore, FAA Warren Fellner, FAA Susan Mertes, AIA 

Dan Elwell, FAA Scot Simcox, FAA Gloria Dunderman, FAA 

Ed Fedderman, House Science Roy Reichenbacher, FAA Mike Romanowski, AIA 

Paul Krois, FAA Gloria Kulesa, FAA Mike Gallivan, FAA 

Frank Mangine, FAA Pat Lewis, FAA William Wall, FAA 

Terry Allard, FAA Nick Stoer, Stoer & Assoc. Tom McCloy, FAA 

Richard Gornik, FAA Jim White, FAA John Wiley, FAA 

Maureen Knopes, FAA James White, FAA Karlin Toner, NASA 

Rick Heuwinkel, FAA Andy Lacher, MITRE Peggy Gilligan, FAA 

Denise Davis, FAA 
Attachment 3

T. WILSON PROFESSOR OF ROOM 33-303 

AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS 77 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE 

DIRECTOR CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139 

 INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION (617) 253-2271 FAX (617) 253-4196 

 E-MAIL: rjhans@mit.edu 

November 13, 2006 

The Honorable Marion C. Blakey 

Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dear Administrator Blakey: 

On behalf of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), I wanted to 

again thank you for your participation in the September 20 meeting. 

Enclosed are the recommendations of the standing REDAC Subcommittees on Aircraft Safety, 

Environment and Energy; Airports, and Human Factors. 

As you know, the REDAC has also been addressing specific topics of identified importance to the agency. 

Recent activities: 

- The working group on Separation Standards led by Sarah Dalton has completed its report which 

has been forwarded to you under a separate cover. Per your discussion with Sarah, she looks 

forward to meeting with you and discussing the report in more detail. 

- The working group on Financing the Next Generation Air Transportation System led by Jerry 

Thompson has disseminated the results of their preliminary cost estimates of NGATS. 

- A working group has been formed to evaluate weather information needs in current and future 

NAS environments based on user operational requirements to provide guidance for the 

development of aviation weather products. The working group is being led by William Leber and 

Ray LaFrey. 

- A working group is being formed to evaluate policy and procedure implications of NGATS. It 

will include regulatory and human factors considerations as well as other factors which will be 

critical to NGATS implementation. 

- The JPDO Subcommittee led by John Hamre will continue to support the JPDO efforts at the 

strategic level. 

- The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee looks forward to working with the Systems Safety TCRG to 

improve the plan for the development of a systematic approach to safety management based on 

data mining and rigorous risk assessment. 

The REDAC and the communities which the members represent are committed to maintaining the health 

and viability of our air transportation system as we face the technical, operational and financial challenges 

ahead. We stand ready to help in this regard. 
Thank you again for your interest and participation. I, and the other members of the REDAC, are 

available if you would like to discuss these, or other, issues in more detail. 

Sincerely, 

R. John Hansman 

Co-Chair 

FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Enclosure 
Subcommittee Guidance for FY 09

Subcommittee on Airports

The Airport Subcommittee appreciates the response of the Administrator in her letter of 

September 5th, that is largely supportive of the Subcommittee's FY 2008 recommendations from 

last Spring. 

The Subcommittee met in August 2006 and has affirmed the following ongoing 

recommendations for FY 2008: 

The Airport Subcommittee: 

1. Recommends close cooperation between the FAA Technical Center and the Airports 

Cooperative Research Program for any and all projects that relate to airports, so as to avoid 

duplication of effort and/or redundancies. 

2. Continues to recommend an increase in staffing at AAR-410 (Airport Technology) in order to 

allow for the above cooperation to be thoroughly carried out, in addition to the tasking that is 

entailed in the increased funding levels that Congress has approved. 

3. Among the many projects that the Technical Center are carrying out, the Subcommittee 

especially supported the proposed research tasking on: 

a) Foreign Object Damage (FOD) detection radar, 

b) Fire fighting techniques for second level (upper deck) fires, 

c) Wildlife hazard mitigation, and 

d) Airfield pavement behavior and longevity research. 

A number of added topics were discussed and considered during the summer meeting of the 

Subcommittee and a few were singled out for special attention. 

(I) The results of the study of visual screens for applications at airports that are installing endaround taxiways, should be more widely disseminated in order to encourage the use of the 

excellent research that was performed by the Technical Center. 

(II) The effort to instrument a section of concrete taxiway at the Atlanta airport to collect realworld data from a live-use installation was strongly encouraged. 

(III) The installation of g-load sensors aboard the FAA-owned fleet of jet aircraft be considered, 

for application to the surface ride quality (runway roughness) research task. 
Subcommittee on Environment and Energy

The following specific issues were identified as matters that should be raised to the attention of 

the Administrator. 

Issue 1: The subcommittee members once more expressed their concern about the imbalance of 

FAA environmental investment in mitigation (via the Airport Improvement Program 

Noise/Emissions set aside) versus research to address better management of the environmental 

issues of aircraft noise and engine emissions. 

Recommendation 1: Given the relative benefit of each investment, the subcommittee 

recommends that FAA seek ways of expanding the uses of noise/emissions mitigation funding 

activities through the upcoming reauthorization process. This expansion should include allowing 

airports to propose the demonstration of new operational procedures or technologies to mitigate 

environmental impacts. 

Issue 2: The subcommittee expressed a general sense that developing the NexGen system will 

require substantial additional environmental RE&D resources. The committee noted that there 

are program gaps (the termination of NASA’s Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) and Ultra 

Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) efforts before meeting their goals) as well as funding gaps 

caused by new demands from NexGen. Members also noted that in view of Clean Sky (Europe’s 

new initiative to invest in noise and emissions RE&D), which is funded $300M per year, the 

leadership goal of NexGen in the environment area was also in question if FAA does not step up 

and makes the necessary investments. 

Recommendation 2: The subcommittee recommends that the Administrator seek budget 

authority through the upcoming FAA Reauthorization, and follows through with appropriations 

requests, to meet the RE&D needs of NexGen. This includes a potential additional investment of 

$40 million on environmental RE&D. 

Issue 3: The subcommittee members noted that issues associated with aviation’s impact on 

earth’s climate are increasingly coming to the forefront worldwide. The US is frequently placed 

in a defensive position against European policy proposals that are not always based on scientific 

facts. Given that the U.S. is responsible for 40% of the world’s aviation activity and needs 

aviation as a form of mass transit, the nation must have a robust research program to be in a 

position to ensure any actions undertaken to mitigate aviation’s climate impact are based on solid 

science and will have the desired outcome. 

Recommendation 3: The subcommittee recommends that the Administrator establish a robust 

RE&D effort toward addressing the uncertainties associated with aviation’s impact on earth 

climate. This effort should be accomplished not only by providing new FAA resources, but also 

by engaging the senior leadership of the Federal agencies participating in the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP) to ensure their investments address this important issue. 

Issue 4: Subcommittee members commended the FAA for actions taken in the last six months to 

address fuel availability/energy independence. The subcommittee feels this is a key strategic 

issue and needs continued focused attention and resources. Members also expressed that it is 

important to continue working this area, even if fuel prices drop in the short term. 
Recommendation 4: The subcommittee recommends that the Administrator direct AEE to 

continue and augment its efforts to work with DoD, DoE, and NASA to advance the use of 

alternative fuels in aviation. The agency should also augment resources in this area, and look 

beyond environmental issues to also address reliable energy supply and any safety issues 

associated with the use of aviation alternative fuels. 

Issue 5: The subcommittee commended recent efforts under the Airports Cooperative Research 

Program (ACRP) to address pressing particulate matter (PM) and hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs) research issues. However, the subcommittee members feel that there are still many 

needs and that the ACRP efforts only scratch the surface. 

Recommendation 5: The subcommittee recommends that the Administrator continue to seek 

additional resources to address PM and HAPs RE&D issues. This includes ensuring that ACRP 

efforts have a strategic long term view toward addressing PM and HAPs issues that affect 

airports, beyond the present limited scope. 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety

The subcommittee would like to thank the FAA for supporting the subcommittee’s request for a 

review of 2009 R&D requirements before they were finalized in the TCRG process. The 

subcommittee appreciates that the presentations had been prepared in the requested format. 

Subcommittee is also grateful for the review provided by the FAA of the TCRG process of 

establishing priorities and funding levels. 

The Subcommittee realizes that the FAA staff is responsible for defining R&D requirements are 

investing significant effort in the process of defining them. FAA staff is obviously passionate 

about their R&D requirements. Unfortunately, due to severe funding constraints, a significant 

fraction of the requirements can not be funded. The Subcommittee is of the opinion that overall 

projected 2009 FAA R&D funding is inadequate and that the FAA should seek to leverage it 

with contributions from other government agencies and the private sector where possible. 

SAS Recommendations 

1) System Safety Management TCRG: The Subcommittee has historically been supportive 

of the development of a systematic approach to safety management based on data; data mining 

and rigorous risk assessment because it believes that such an approach, if successfully 

implemented, would offer significant safety benefits in the long term. At the same time, the 

Subcommittee has been consistently critical of the lack of technical performance on past projects 

in this area as well as the lack of a clear definition of how such a system would be implemented. 

Nevertheless, SAS cannot support at this time the plan of the System Management TCRG, as 

presented, for the following principal reasons: 

a) The plan does not describe how such a system would be implemented and what the FAA’s 

commitment is to full implementation. 
b) Since the plan represents a key element of the future of the FAA’s safety management, it 

needs to be coordinated with the JPDO. It was not apparent that such coordination was part of 

the plan. 

c) The plan should include all aviation sectors, including GA. 

d) The poor past technical performance record in this area – more than $35 million have been 

spent over the past 14 years on projects ranging from SPAS to SASO without major safety 

benefits having become visible. 

e) Funding the plan would divert major resources from other areas of FAA aircraft safety 

research. The plan does not provide an argument for such a redirection of priorities based on a 

comparative cost-benefit analysis. 

Because the Subcommittee suspects that a System Safety Management approach along the lines 

proposed, if properly conceived and executed, would provide major safety benefits long into the 

future, it recommends that the plan be subjected to an in-depth review by a competent review 

panel of experts. The Subcommittee suggests that such a review panel be established under the 

auspices of the National Academy of Sciences. A successful review would not only provide a 

solid basis upon which to make the needed difficult funding choices but it would also enhance 

the credibility of the entire program, which might result in stronger congressional support. 

2) JPDO: The TCRG’s should ensure that they remain informed about short-, medium- and 

long-term R&D needs. For the long-term component they need to stay informed about the 

JPDO’s plans. While the latter appeared to be generally accepted, some presentations did a more 

convincing job than others to describe how JPDO informed their requirements planning. 

3) Upset Recovery Simulator Software: Such software would undoubtedly bring safety 

benefits. However, in view of the severe shortfall in FAA R&D funding, the FAA should try to 

get the private sector to contribute to the development of such software. 

 

4) Human Factors: Head-up displays for synthetic vision should be capable of integrating 

enhanced vision information. Enhanced vision systems are about to enter regular service on 

transport aircraft; it would be impractical to have two separate head-up displays, one for 

synthetic vision, the other for enhanced vision. 

5) Electrical Systems: All high-energy batteries should be included, not only lithium ion 

ones. 

6) Mil Handbook 17: Continued FAA support is necessary. 

7) UAS: The FAA needs to limit its activities to establishing standards and regulations and 

leaves actual product development to the private sector. 

8) Aging Aircraft: The term “Aging Aircraft” as a budget line item and program area needs 

to be changed to what it has de facto been for many years: “Continued Airworthiness” or 

something similar. The old term has outlived its usefulness in the congressional budget process. 

Instead of encouraging Members of Congress to consider funding a familiar program it has 

turned into the negative connotation of an old program that should have completed its mission 

and should no longer is in need of funding. 
 

Subcommittee on Human Factors

1. Training: Simulator Motion Requirements 

Committee Recommends: Reconsideration of motion standards in Part 60 rewrite & ICAO Doc. 

9625 and extension of work to advanced maneuver simulation including upset recovery 

2. Safety Data 

Committee Recommends: Review and coordination of data bases & programs with reference to 

tracking and coordinating human factors issues. 

3. Performance Measurement 

Committee Recommends: Develop a transition plan for previously NASA funded databases and 

critical human factors efforts (e.g., LOSA, Flight Automation Issues, Team Performance 

Modeling, Concurrent Task Management) to industry or other FAA program support bases to 

avoid loss of critical information and expertise 

4. Weather Research and Development Integration 

Committee Recommends: a systematic study across domains of what weather related decisions 

need to be made to assure appropriate presentation of weather information to decision makers in 

current and future systems. 

5. NGATS Policy and Procedures 

Committee Strongly Recommends: Strongly recommends that the Human Factors Research and 

Engineering Group be involved in JPDO committees associated with the development of policy 

and procedure and the coordination of near term R&D, to assure human performance capabilities 

integration, identify human-system failed-mode and safety issues, develop procedure 

requirements for training, and to assure appropriate functional allocation among human and 

automated systems.