Federal Aviation Administration

Research Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC)

Guidance on the FY 2018 Research and Development Portfolio

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy

The Environment and Energy Subcommittee of the FAA Research, Engineering and 

Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) met in Washington, DC on August 6 - 7, 2015. 

Following is the report on the outcome of this meeting. The recommendations offered are all for 

inclusion in the REDAC report. There are no recommendations from this meeting for the letter 

to the Administrator.

Finding: Noise continues to be a significant challenge for the implementation of Performance 

Based Navigation (PBN) for operational efficiency improvements, which are a critical element 

of NextGen.

Recommendation: In the near term, the FAA should ensure that the operational procedure 

development and implementation work is continued. Effective community and airport 

engagement techniques are an especially important part of the implementation. The recent 

reductions in the F&E budget could result in undesired delays in the development and 

implementation of these procedures. 

To increase the success-rate of implementing PBN-based procedures, it is necessary to better 

understand the impacts of these procedures and define acceptability criteria for their use. In 

addition to the recommendations made at the March 2015 subcommittee meeting, the 

subcommittee recommends the FAA initiate research to understand the additional annoyance due 

to the noise focusing aspects of PBN. We would recommend you follow this work with research 

to develop ATM and/or operational concepts that will mitigate the identified noise impacts from 

PBN implementation. The safety and efficiency aspects of these changes would need to be 

considered. Finally, we recommend that the FAA use the knowledge gained from this research to 

develop the necessary mission support tools, policies and procedures to inform decision-making.

Finding: We commend the FAA/AEE for vigorously leveraging the efforts of, and working 

with, other divisions of the FAA, other government agencies, (e.g., EPA, NASA, DOE, DOD), 

and industry and utilizing available databases to advance the Environment and Energy R&D 

portfolio. A recent example is their use of the Medicare and Women Health Initiative medical 

databases to understand if there is a correlation between aircraft noise exposure and health 

impacts.

Recommendation: The subcommittee encourages FAA to continue to find additional 

collaboration opportunities. For example, the development of the NASA Aeronautics Research 

Mission Directorate (ARMD) Strategic Research Plan suggests an opportunity for NASA, FAA 

and other agencies to update the National Aeronautics Research Plan and achieve greater 

synergy in R&D. With regards to using databases from other fields of study, the appropriateness 

and limitations of the databases to support the objectives of the study should be considered.
Finding: The CLEEN program tasks are ending in 2015. The subcommittee is very pleased with

the successes from the CLEEN Program in achieving the maturation and validation of a wide 

suite of technologies that will reduce noise, emissions and fuel burn from the aircraft fleet.

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends the FAA continue to implement and execute 

the second phase of CLEEN (known as CLEEN II) to mature technologies as they will enable the 

achievement of the CLEEN II goals for noise, emissions and fuel burn reductions.

Finding: The Environment and Energy R&D portfolio have delivered significant results, and the 

FAA are doing a better job of communicating these successes, but there is more needed to 

highlight these in public communications. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends the FAA make these accomplishments 

visible broadly. FAA has taken significant steps here by developing websites for CLEEN and 

ASCENT COE, publishing CLEEN Fact Sheets summarizing the CLEEN program’s significant 

accomplishments, and developing brochures on the FAA’s Environmental and Energy Strategy. 

The Subcommittee is impressed with the quality of these materials and they recommend that they 

be communicated broadly. The subcommittee encourages regular updates to these to highlight 

recent accomplishments and to continue developing additional communication materials such as 

a new Environment and Energy website for the FAA.

Finding: Based on the information presented by the FAA at the Subcommittee meeting, the 

Subcommittee feels the Environment and Energy R&D portfolio is reasonably balanced in terms 

of the resource allocation among technologies, tools, policy / standards development, sustainable 

alternative fuels, and ATM and operations improvements. 

Recommendation: As the aviation environmental tool suite effort matures from development to 

implementation and use in decision making, including standard setting and other policy making 

efforts, there may be opportunities to strengthen the R&D efforts on operational improvements 

within the Environment and Energy portfolio. These have been negatively impacted due to the 

F&E funding reductions in the past three years. The need to better understand the impact of 

aviation emissions on climate should also be considered in this Environment and Energy R&D 

portfolio planning. The subcommittee encourages the FAA to leverage efforts with ACRP 

studies like enhanced data gathering on noise and emissions impacts. The regular evaluation of 

the Environment and Energy R&D portfolio should be continued with consideration of “what 

does it take to be where we need to be in 2025 and beyond”. To achieve these goals, additional 

collaborative technology development would be required.

Finding: The environmental impacts of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) are going to be a 

growing issue. Given the recent surge in the number of UAS operation approvals, there is a need 

to get ahead of this issue.

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the FAA start plans to assess and 

understand the noise impact of UAS. This would include development of assessment tools and 

impact mitigation concepts. 

Finding: Real-time information-based decision making represents an opportunity for improving 

the operational efficiency and environmental impact of air vehicles.
Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the FAA support research to develop 

technology that enables integration of relayed information (e.g., weather, 4D trajectories, etc.) 

with cockpit information. This will enable higher levels of onboard automation and the ability to 

further reduce the environmental impacts from aviation. 

Subcommittee on NAS Operations

Findings: UAS Integration in the NAS: The Subcommittee recognizes the significant effort 

and substantial progress that the FAA has made since 2011 in establishing a concept of 

operations for routine UAS access to the NAS. This activity has explored important nominal 

and off-nominal operational scenarios and the critical ATC regulatory and procedural 

structures necessary to ensure safe and effective inclusion of UAS in the NAS. The 

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

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

for operations. The Subcommittee has the following findings:

1- While the work described above sets the stage, the FAA has yet to substantially engage 

the UAS stakeholder community on the development of the vision and expectations for 

operating in the NAS. As UAS markets continue to emerge and technology 

capabilities accelerate, it becomes increasingly important for the FAA to reach out 

beyond their capable set of internal subject matter experts and include these new

airspace users. These new entrants largely come from the IT community not 

traditionally experienced in aviation. Their business cadence is much faster, and they 

are more comfortable with uncertainty and risk-based implementation approaches. 

This cultural difference must be addressed with early and substantial discussion.

2- The three focus areas chosen for exploration and prototyping (i.e., small UAS within 

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

of sight in rural areas) all contain significant limitations (i.e., through the amount of 

airspace that can be allocated to these operations and the numbers of UAS that can

simultaneously operate within that airspace). With the projection of explosive growth

in UAS operations, these limits will be quickly reached and the FAA has not yet 

established a method by which the limited resources inherent in the concepts will be 

allocated to users.

3- The FAA has not yet substantially explored future UAS operational concepts that offer

significant potential to mitigate the fundamental limitation of the near term focus areas

described above (e.g., the NASA UAS Traffic Management concept).

4- In its most recent marks of the FY16 budget, Congress increased the amount of 

RE&D funding for UAS research and development. However, these RE&D efforts
are focused on airframe safety and certification, not the development of operational 

concepts and procedures that is necessary for UAS operations in the NAS, particularly

in the near term. This latter work is contained within the FAA F&E budget request

which was reduced by Congress. This apparent mismatch in funding priorities will

likely further delay the integration of UAS in the NAS.

Recommendations: The Subcommittee has the following recommendations -

1- The FAA should move aggressively to engage the broadest set of external stakeholders

of the UAS business community to explore market opportunities, innovative

technology developments and implementation paths, and flexible and transparent

airspace resource allocation schema. This should be initiated as soon as practical.

2- The FAA should employ the effective Research Transition Team structure to include

government entities engaged in UAS R&D and bring the best of breed technologies and

operational approaches to safe and effective UAS integration. Include the NASA UAS

Traffic Management (UTM) activity in this effort. A near term focus for this effort 

should be how such future concepts should be designed and certified.

3- During its budget process, the FAA should clearly articulate the relationship between

the research and development associated with UAS platform safety and certification

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

required for UAS integration in the NAS. This should be presented as an integrated

program to enable budget decision makers to avoid potential budget disconnects that

could unintentionally delay this integration.

Background: Runway Incursion Reduction Program - The Subcommittee received a briefing on 

the Runway Incursion Reduction Program (RIRP) and had findings and recommendations 

relevant to three projects: Low Cost Ground Surveillance (LCGS), Runway Safety Assessment

(RSA), and Small Airport Surveillance Sensor (SASS). The LCGS project is intended to

develop a low cost surveillance system for small airports for which a cost benefit analysis does

not justify more costly surveillance systems such as ASDE-X. Similarly, the SASS project is 

intended to provide a secondary (beacon) surveillance system to provide improved controller 

situational awareness and safety and efficiency at smaller towered airports. Finally, the RSA 

project is intended as a small airport solution to address the NTSB recommendation A-00-66

(July 6, 2000), which states:

“[The FAA should] require, at all airports with scheduled passenger service, a ground 

movement safety system that will prevent runway incursions; the system should provide a 

direct warning capability to flight crews. In addition, demonstrate through computer 

simulations or other means that the system will, in fact, prevent incursions.”
The FAA reported to the Subcommittee that their Joint Resources Council had made a decision

to not go forward with the LCGS project because of an unfavorable cost benefit ratio and that

an estimate of the safety benefit of LCGS was not included in this ratio.

The FAA reported to the Subcommittee that they were proceeding with technology 

assessment and development for the RSA and SASS projects in anticipation of a future 

investment decision.

Findings: Runway Incursion Reduction Program - The Subcommittee has the following 

findings -

1- The NTSB recommendation fails to address the cost/benefit assessment that should be 

considered in any investment decision. It falls to the FAA to make this determination.

2- The FAA has not performed a benefit analysis of either the SASS or RSA project and

therefore cannot accurately estimate the potential safety or efficiency benefit pool

available to offset the life cycle cost of the SASS or RSA projects. Without this 

estimate, it is impossible to evaluate the subject technologies for their implementation

feasibility.

3- The decision to not include an estimate of the safety benefit in the LCGS investment

decision appears inconsistent with the investment decision associated with other safety

systems such as Runway Status Lights or ASDE-X, where the benefits were largely

attributed to safety.

Recommendations: The Subcommittee has the following recommendations -

1- The FAA should establish and consistently apply a clear policy with regard to 

investment decisions on airport surveillance and safety systems that establish what 

benefits (e.g., safety, efficiency, etc.) will be included and how those benefits will be 

calculated.

2- The FAA should use this policy to estimate the benefits pool available to the RSA and

SASS projects and compare this to a life cycle cost estimate of the RSA and SASS

technologies. Further technology development in these projects should be contingent

upon a positive cost/ benefit estimate.
Subcommittee on Airports

The Subcommittee met on August 25 and 26 in the Director’s Conference Room at the FAA

William J. Hughes Technical Center (the Tech Center) in Atlantic City with representatives from

the Airport Technologies Research Branch as well as select representatives from the FAA Office

of Airports. During the meeting the Subcommittee reviewed the ongoing progress Branch staff

have made on the varied airport safety, planning, design, and pavement projects within the

Branch’s research portfolio and reviewed the Branch’s proposed FY2016-2017 budget and

discussed potential additional work for FY2018.

The following section summarizes the Subcommittee’s findings and recommendations.

Finding: The Subcommittee believes that the Airport Technology Research Program is on a

solid footing and supports the allocations of program funds for FY2016 and 2017 presented by

Branch staff. The Subcommittee also believes that FY2018 project priorities are appropriate,

excepting the minor comments in contained in subsequent findings and recommendations 

contained in this report. The Subcommittee applauds the Branch staff’s efforts classify its 

research projects on the basis of subject-matter based research program areas (RPAs) rather than

solely on the basis of individual research projects. The Subcommittee believes that this 

classification will improve our effectiveness in reviewing research program accomplishments

and identifying future funding needs.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that Branch staff expedite their efforts to

classify projects by RPA and provide budget and spending reports using these classifications 

well in advance of the Subcommittee’s Spring 2016 meeting so we have ample time for review 

and comment.

Finding: In the review of the long life pavement design project, information as to the 

variability of engineering properties of materials that meet FAA specifications. It has been

known that local materials—especially aggregates—can meet FAA specifications but may

result in a wide range of resulting performance. As the system moves towards more

engineering based designs understanding this variability and accounting for it in the design

process is critical in providing consistent long-life pavements.

Recommendation: A study should be initiated that looks into the variability of asphalt and

concrete mix designs that meet FAA specifications. Special attention should be paid to a range

of local materials—especially aggregates—that meet national specifications that are known to

have marginal performance.

Finding: As we noted in our Spring 2015 report, the Subcommittee appreciates that the proof 

of concept work associated with the low cost ground surveillance systems (LCGSS), 

particularly the optical surveillance system that has been pilot tested at Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport. However, given the ongoing development of alternative surface

surveillance systems, continuing reductions in the costs associated with automated dependent

surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transponders, and the oncoming 2020 ADS-B equipage

deadline, the Subcommittee is interested in understanding the role LCGSS are likely to play at 

airports if and when they are available for implementation before significant additional 

research into these systems is conducted. We also recognize the need for this research to be

coordinated with other research programs within the FAA—particularly the air traffic

management and safety research programs—as well as with NASA, which is engaged in a

significant airport surface management research effort of its own.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee reiterates our recommendation that Branch staff develop

a concept of operations that defines the roles and applications of the LCGSS in the National Air

Transportation System given other surface surveillance programs and technology deployments 

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

The concept of operations should consider what unique capabilities or deployment opportunities 

would exist for LCGSS as well as those capabilities that are likely be duplicated by ADS-B

based surface surveillance systems. We also strongly recommend increased collaboration

among the FAA’s research programs and with NASA regarding both surface surveillance and 

airport surface management.

Finding: The Subcommittee agrees that research is needed to develop rational overload

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

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

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

5 percent above the reported PCN. The research shows that the 10 percent flexible pavement

overload may be overly conservative for thin flexible pavements. In addition, many general 

aviation airfields with rigid pavements have performed well and exceeded their design lives

while supporting loads that far exceed the rigid pavement design strength. This suggests that

the ICAO 5 percent rigid pavement overload criteria are may also be overly conservative as 

well. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends the overload project be expanded to

reevaluate the 5 percent overload criteria for rigid pavements and 10 percent overload criteria

for flexible pavements.

Subcommittee on Human Factors

Finding: The Civil Aerospace Medical Institute provided the HF Subcommittee with an 

overview briefing that surveyed advances in both Medical Technology and technology with 

potential implications for Aerospace Medicine and Human Factors in aviation, including safety. 

The subcommittee observed that the presented technologies pose two distinct but related 

challenges; the breadth and number of areas of advancement, and the pace at which technology is 

advancing.
However at this time there is insufficient synthesis of the technologies and their associated 

research to enable assessment or prioritization for consideration of specific future FAA research 

planning.

Recommendation: The HF Subcommittee recommends that the FAA develop a methodology to 

both track advances in technology with potential implications for operations, Aerospace 

Medicine and Human Factors in aviation, as well as assess the implications, both positive, and 

from a safety and risk management perspective, in order to better inform research and plans for 

both potentially rising issues, and opportunities that these technologies represent.

Observation/Finding: The committee was pleased to see support for a Human Factors UAS 

project in FY15 that addresses several key initiatives the Subcommittee has noted in the past. 

Specifically, the Subcommittee has previously stated that Human Factors is an important 

component of creating an acceptable integration of operating UAS in the NAS and hence 

ensuring continued prioritization of items related to control station design and approval, 

operator/pilot qualifications and training, as well as procedure and air space design is essential. 

Having Human Factors a priority within the UAS program is a positive step in achieving this 

essential component of UAS in the NAS.

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

The Aviation Safety Committee of the REDAC met on September 9, 10, 2015 at the FAA 

Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ for its fall meeting. The objectives of the meeting included 

review of FY15 R,E&D aviation safety portfolio; targeted deep dives of program areas with 

previously identified emerging issues; early input for FY2018 research plan; and development of 

any findings and recommendations. The deep dives included such topics as Certification of 

Advanced Materials and Structural Technologies; Dependability of Increasingly Complex 

Systems; Mixed UAS and Manned Aircraft Operations; Real Time System-wide Safety 

Assurance and General Aviation Alternative Fuels. Below are the Findings and 

Recommendations from the committee, which should be used to consider improvements in 

current research programs, their controls and to also inform the 2018 Research Plan as it 

develops. Thank you to the committee members for their engaged participation and dedicated 

time. Also a strong thank you to all at the FAA that made the meeting a success through their 

support by providing research details, tours and immediate responses to committee questions.

Finding: Improved Clearer Link between Research Activities and Overarching Safety Objectives 

and Goals - The SAS Committee is spending considerable time and energy trying to understand 

the big picture of the FAA’s research programs as they relate to aviation safety. In 2015 there 

are over 70 research requirements with a total budget expenditure for the safety portfolio on the 

order of $90 million. This size of investment in research warrants a clear picture into the 

programs including overall research objectives, sponsor outcomes, financial commitments over 

multiple years, research exit criteria, etc. Good progress has been made in producing individual 

research program quad charts describing specific targeted contract research efforts. However, 

visibility to the comprehensive research picture is still lacking and confused by the presentation 

of the material in individual Budget Line Item (BLI) format and focused on contracted dollars 

only versus a total dollar view. Program documentation is also apparently produced for the use 
of SAS committee only, which, while appreciated, seems counter to good program management 

techniques. Lacking clear line of sight to the higher program level makes providing SAS 

committee input into overall research programs fragmented and incomplete at best.

Recommendation: FAA should create a comprehensive program description for safety research 

that clearly identifies, and communicates, the higher level research objectives, by topic, (icing, 

fire safety, structural technologies, etc.) as well as provides connectivity to the comprehensive 

set of specific targeted research objectives in each area. This description needs to clearly

communicate how individual research supports the overall objectives. The description should be 

easily updateable and designed so that it primarily adds FAA management value as well as 

supports the SAS Committee objectives. 

Finding: Enhanced International Collaboration on Safety Research - The Subcommittee 

received an overview presentation on the Association of European Research Establishments in 

Aeronautics (EREA) Future Sky Safety program. We were pleased to see that the FAA Aviation 

Safety organization will be engaged in the activity by being part of the Advisory Board. The 

program’s four themes are addressing issues, which align with many of the FAA’s aviation 

safety priorities. 

Recommendation: Given that Aviation Safety issues span international borders, the FAA should 

consider taking a leadership role in deepening US-European collaboration on Aviation Safety 

research by initially focusing on one or two specific areas of common interest. One potential is 

big data analytics associated with aviation safety data exploration. Both the FAA and NASA 

have significant on-going investments in this area, which aligns nicely with the Future Sky 

Safety project on Emergence Detection and Big Data, which is intended for a start in 2017. 

Through joint efforts we are likely to be able to magnify the safety impact of research 

investments of all parties. 

Finding: Immediate Needs for Additive Manufacturing Certification Support - There has been 

continued progress accelerating the development of a FAA Additive Manufacturing Roadmap 

and the identification of focused Additive Manufacturing research. In parallel, industry is 

continuing to accelerate efforts to incorporate additive manufacturing technologies as full-scale 

production processes. The Subcommittee was presented with an update on Additive 

Manufacturing research activities ongoing at the Air Force Research Laboratory and the 

identified design, manufacturing and inspection challenges associated with this technology. In 

July 2015 the Air Force issued an Airworthiness Bulletin to its Program Offices highlighting the 

process steps to be followed to insert Additive Manufacturing technologies. This near term 

action is seen as a positive step to assure implementation is consistent with strategic planning 

with respect to qualification of new materials and processes. The Subcommittee also received a 

briefing from the FAA Fatigue and Damage Tolerance Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor 

(CSTA) on recent progress including collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory on 

the qualification and certification of parts produced via Additive Manufacturing processes. The 

Subcommittee finds that a near term strategy is required to help the certification directorates 

assess type designs or type design changes which incorporate parts produced utilizing additive / 

advanced manufacturing methods.
Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA develop guidelines describing 

the considerations, which should be assessed relative to the incorporation of parts produced by 

Additive Manufacturing. Target for implementation of these guidelines should be immediate (on 

the order of 3 months). The Subcommittee further recommends that the FAA assess the need for 

additional research to supplement the initial guidelines for the potential longer-term codification 

of Additive Manufacturing guidance.

Finding: Research to Mitigate the Impact of Cockpit Laser Strikes - The potentially negative 

effects of laser beams striking the human eye and interfering with flight operations are well 

documented by previous research conducted by the FAA, among others. The frequency of 

reported laser strikes has increased more than 10 fold since 2006; that year, FAA reported 384 

such events. In 2014, the agency reported 3,894 laser strikes and, unfortunately, the number of 

reported strikes this year has spiked about 35% higher than last year with more than 2,625 

reported as of June 2015. Whereas low-powered handheld lasers were previously in common 

use, more powerful lasers that pose a greater threat to the pilot are becoming available to 

potential offenders. While considerable research has been conducted within the military, much of 

this work is classified, focused on specific threats, and therefore will not provide a complete 

solution for the civilian sector. To date the FAA’s approach to mitigate the impact of a laser 

illumination event is to document and characterize these events, and educate flight crews on how 

to recognize an event and then respond in a manner to help identify and prosecute offenders. 

Despite these efforts and others, the number of laser strikes is expected to continue to rise and 

there has yet to be identified a robust, reliable countermeasure that will protect pilots’ vision and 

preserve flight safety. Currently, there is no funding in the FAA R&D portfolio of activities to 

investigate and/or develop potential technical solutions to mitigate the impact of a laser strike. 

Achieving a workable, affordable technical solution to this problem, rather than relying primarily 

on law enforcement and education campaigns to mitigate the risk, would represent a significant 

safety accomplishment that would benefit the traveling public and cockpit flight crews. 

Recommendation: The SAS Committee recommends that the FAA include within its R&D 

portfolio the resources to conduct research aimed at identifying a technical, onboard solution to 

prevent or greatly reduce the potential for a laser strike against aircraft and mitigate its impact. 

The extensive R&D conducted within the DoD should be leveraged to the maximum extent 

possible considering security and intelligence concerns. As envisioned, the solution would:

• Require no action by the flight crew that would disrupt or unduly complicate normal 

operations,

• Be effective against a high percentage of laser strikes,

• Be capable of being used on any aircraft, but the primary focus should be for aircraft in FAR 

Part 121 and/or Part 135 services,

• Not impair pilots’ visual acuity or ability to correctly interpret colors of messages, warnings, 

etc., on cockpit displays at any time, or otherwise degrade performance, while operating the 

aircraft,

• Be affordable within FAA analysis results of safety risk benefits versus cost criteria.