Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

April 29, 2009

Meeting Minutes

On Wednesday, April 29, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Research, 

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

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 Chair, welcomed everyone, reviewed the agenda and turned it over 

to Barry Scott. 

Mr. Barry Scott, REDAC Executive Director, read the public meeting announcement and 

thanked everyone for attending. Mr. Scott introduced the newest member of the Committee, 

Dr. Christopher Wickens. Dr. Wickens will also serve as Chair of the Human Factors 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. Scott commented on how helpful it was for him to attend all the Subcommittee meetings. It 

gave him an opportunity to get more information on the programs within his organization. 

Updated – ABS-B – Vincent Capezzuto 

Mr. Vincent Capezzuto, Director of Surveillance and Broadcast Services, FAA provided the 

members with an update on the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). 

Mr. Capezzuto briefed the Committee in April 2007. He reviewed the previous briefing and 

reviewed the following. 

• Program Overview 

• Dual Track Strategy 

• Essential Services 

• Critical Services 

• Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) Status 

• Program Risks 

• Summary 

The members engaged in a discussion on how the program would be funded and the support 

within FAA. Members encouraged the Agency to make sure industry was aware of the numbers 

and what they represent. 
 

 

 

 

 

Update – NextGen – Michael Romanowski 

Mr. Michael Romanowski, Director, NextGen Integration and Implementation Office, provided 

the Committee with an update on the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). 

Mr. Romanowski discussed the following and showed the Gate-to-Gate Video. 

• 2009 NextGen Implementation Plan (Members received a copy) 

• NextGen Accomplishments 

• NextGen Complexity 

• Keys to NextGen 

• Integration Framework – Alignment 

• Infrastructure Roadmaps (12) 

• NextGen Integration – Portfolio Management 

• FAA Expectations for RTCA Task Force 

• Research Transition Teams (Near-, Mid- & Far-Term) 

The members engaged in a lengthy discussion with Mr. Romanoswki. Below are some of the 

topics discussed. 

- Who is responsible for making it happen? 

- Leads for each roadmap – collaborative with Environment. 

- Who makes the gaps happen? 

- FAA facilities should include airplane needs and when they need to be equipped. 

- Define standards quickly – adopt system around equipage. 

- REDAC can help define mid-term and longer needs by defining research. Look at what 

JPDO and others are doing and how do we build that bridge. 

Staffing – Research Workforce/Update July Workshop – Barry Scott 

Mr. Barry Scott, Director, Research and Technology Development, provided the Committee with 

a summary of the research workforce. He reviewed the following. 

• National Academy of Public Administration Study 

• Acquisition Workforce Plan 

• Core Acquisition Workforce 

• Workforce Plan Status (Completed – Remaining) 

Mr. Scott also reviewed some of the details for the upcoming workshop on July 14. 

Executive Order Advisory Committee – Karlin Toner 

Dr. Karlin Toner, FAA Representative for the Senior Policy Committee, discussed the NextGen 

Coordination for the Secretary and Senior Policy Committee. Dr. Toner reviewed the 

Presidential Executive Order 13479, dated November 18, 2008 – Transformation of the National 

Air Transportation System. This Order does the following: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Expresses Executive Branch support for the policy set in Vision 100. 

• Enables effective participation of the Senior Policy Committee (SPC) to lead NextGen, a 

national effort with broad scope of policy, economic and technological complexity. 

• Requires biennial reports to the President on progress made, with performance measures. 

The proposed Advisory Committee will: 

• Engage the private sector in public discussions. 

• Focus on NextGen policy, planning and performance measures. 

• Include a “broad spectrum” of aviation representatives (users, stakeholders, & transportation 

experts). 

Presentation of Subcommittee Reports 

Each year in February/March, the standing subcommittees review FAA’s R&D investments in 

the areas of airports, aircraft safety, human factors, NAS operations, and environment and 

energy. After reviewing the respective portfolios proposed by the FAA, each subcommittee 

generates recommendations. The Subcommittee Chairs listed below presented their 

Subcommittee’s recommendations. Attachment 3 provides the recommendations/observations 

presented by each Chair. 

Subcommittee Subcommittee Chair 

Environment & Energy Steve Alterman 

Human Factors Bill Edmunds (for Chris Wickens)

Airports Richard Marchi (for Ed Gervais) 

Aircraft Safety John White (for Joe DelBalzo) 

NAS Operations Victor Lebacqz

The recommendations were approved and the minor edits will be made per the discussion. The 

final versions will be submitted to the Administrator. 

ACTION: Additional discussion/research is needed regarding the MIPA rule. Nancy LoBue 

and Lourdes Maurice will discuss and provide comments to Sarah Dalton of the NAS Operations 

Subcommittee. 

Committee Discussion 

The members engaged in a discussion on the following. 

• Core Competences Working Group – No longer needed. Could address any issues at 

individual subcommittee meetings. 

• Suggestion was made for subcommittee chairs to meet more often. 

• The questions for the subcommittees need to be reworked. Suggestion was to make 

questions more specific. Will work with the members to create a new set of questions. 

• Look at materials presented to the members and what is missing. 

• A standard format that may help with writing a recommendation will be drafted. 
Below are the topics discussed by the members for recommendations to the Administrator. The 

letter to the Administrator is provided in Attachment 4. 

• Understanding the research requirements. 

• Environmental and safety approval process. 

• Workforce expertise – critical software and digital systems specifically. 

Dr. Hansman thanked everyone and the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1 

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 – Round Room (10th Floor) 

April 29, 2009 

Agenda 

9:00 am Welcome Barry Scott 

John Hansman 

9:15 am Update - ADSB Vincent Capezzuto 

9:45 am Update - NextGen Mike Romanowski 

10:30 am Break 

10:45 am Staffing – Research Workforce Barry Scott 

Update – July Workshop 

11:15 am Executive Order Advisory Committee Karlin Toner 

11:30 am Committee Discussion John Hansman 

11:45 am Lunch 

Subcommittee Reports 

12:30 pm Environment & Energy Steve Alterman 

12:45 pm Human Factors Bill Edmunds (For Chris Wickens) 

1:00 pm Airports Richard Marchi (For Ed Gervais) 

1:15 pm Aircraft Safety Joe Del Balzo 

1:30 pm NAS Operations Victor Lebacqz 

1:45 pm Break 

2:00 pm Committee Discussion John Hansman 

- Recommendations Barry Scott 

- Future Committee Activity 

2:30 pm Adjourn 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2 

Attendance 

Members: 

John Hansman (Chair) 

Steve Alterman 

Sarah Dalton 

Victor Lebacqz 

Agam Sinha 

John White (for Joe DelBalzo) 

Bill Edmunds (for Chris Wickens) 

Richard Marchi (for Ed Gervais) 

Tom Irvine (for Jaiwon Shin) 

Barry Scott, FAA/REDAC Executive Director 

Audience: 

Leisha Bell, AOPA George Marania, FAA 

Rob Pappas, FAA Paul Krois, FAA 

Cathy Bigelow, FAA Lee Olson, FAA 

Chris Hillers, FAA Vicki Cox, FAA 

Keegan Hurley, AMA Mohan Gupta, FAA 

Mile Gallivan, FAA R. Scott Stevens, FAA 

Ray Young, SENSIS Lourdes Maurice, FAA 

Gloria Dunderman, FAA 

Edmond Boulay, US-CREST 

Karlin Toner FAA/DOT 

Tom McCloy, FAA 

Richard Popp, FAA 

Vincent Cooper, FAA 

David Gannon, BAE 

James White, FAA 

Gary Church, AMA 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3 

Subcommittee Reports – Subcommittee on Environment & Energy 

FAA REDAC Subcommittee on Environment and Energy 

Meeting Report and Recommendations 

Spring 2009

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

Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) met in San Francisco, California, on February 24-

25, 2009. Following is the Report on the outcome of this meeting. 

Introduction – Before answering the questions submitted by the full REDAC and 

detailing the Environment and Energy Subcommittee recommendations for Agency action, it is 

important to put the Subcommittee’s deliberations in both financial and political context. 

First, in spite of the deteriorating world economy and the concurrent reductions in airline 

service levels, environmental research and implementation of environmental initiatives, must 

remain a top FAA priority. As a practical matter, decisions made today will have long term 

implications for an industry that is forecast to continue its growth patterns in future years. 

Therefore, in assessing environmental research requirements, it is important to filter out the 

anomalies of a short-term economic crisis and focus on the long-term needs of the industry. 

Moreover, it is impossible to overlook the fact that the current political climate presents a focus 

that will demand that aviation play an active role in climate change mitigation. The 

Subcommittee would like to reiterate the fact that the environmental impact of aviation on global 

climate has a time scale measured in tens of years and decisions made today will have a lasting 

impact for decades. Faced with these facts, the Subcommittee feels strongly that expanded 

environmental research is absolutely necessary and that the Agency’s NextGen effort must 

contain a significant environmental overlay. 

In addition, in making recommendations for future actions, it is impossible to overlook 

the unsettled Congressional budget process. With the resources for Fiscal 2009 delayed well into 

the budget period, plans for 2010, 2011 and beyond are necessarily deferred to future years and 

research necessary now to address current environmental concerns is seriously jeopardized. 

While the Subcommittee recognizes that the Agency has little control over these budget 

processes, the reality of funding shortfalls must be considered in assessing the recommendations 

contained herein (i.e., recommendations are based on assumed funding levels that may not be 

available in a timely manner. Absent those funds, some of the articulated recommendations and 

goals will be impossible to achieve). 

In an attempt to deal with these realities, this Report will be divided into two sections – 

the first section will answer attempt to answer the REDAC questions given to all Subcommittees 

and the second section will provide specific Environment and Energy Subcommittee 

recommendations to the Administrator. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Portfolio Content. Do the proposed outcomes, outputs and time frames reflected in 

the R&D program seem correct given the needs of the air transportation system? 

The Subcommittee feels that the portfolio content of the Office and Environment and 

Energy is substantially correct, but recognizes that the available resources are not sufficient to 

accomplish stated goals in a timely manner. This fact was exacerbated by the delay in passage of 

a Fiscal ’09 Budget and a reduction in funds from the levels originally planned for Fiscal ’09 and 

’10. 

Moreover, even if the current R&D programs were fully funded, as the “needs” of the 

transportation system continue to evolve (for example, an expanded concentration on 

Greenhouse Gas regulation), the environmental research program will necessarily have difficulty 

meeting such expanded goals. 

What is missing? That is, what R&D initiatives are needed that are not 

represented by an R&D program in the portfolio? 

With global climate change in the forefront of the current political debate, the 

regulation of Greenhouse Gases is playing an increasing role in the environmental 

debate. Research is needed to address the impacts of any proposed regulations 

and the various ways of meeting any stated goals. Research on the scientific 

understanding of Greenhouse Gas impacts, on more efficient aircraft technology, 

on modernization of inflight operations and in the development of alternative fuels 

is planned but not adequately funded. 

In addition, system-level technology demonstrations are planned under the 

proposed CLEEN program but not at sufficient levels to support transition to the 

fleet and to reduce the risk of significant gains to be realized. 

What is not needed? What R&D program or project in the portfolio should 

be dropped and why? 

The Subcommittee finds no programs that should be eliminated. 

Program Funding. Are the investment levels (i.e., the priorities) assigned to the 

R&D programs (Budget Line Items) correct? 

The Subcommittee assumes that this question relates to “priorities” and not “funding 

levels”. In terms of “priorities” (i.e., relative investment levels) the Subcommittee finds that the 

environmental R&D investments are correct, but, as noted below, the absolute funding levels are 

inadequate. 

Research Area Funding. Are the overall investment levels (priorities) reviewed by 

the subcommittees correct? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

The Subcommittee finds that the absolute investment levels are inadequate to achieve 

stated goals in a timely manner. Not only was funding reduced from that originally planned for 

Fiscal Year ’09 and ’10, but the delay in enacting a FY ’09 federal budget has strained the 

ability to begin important new projects. 

Partnerships. What specific opportunities exist to forge stronger partnerships with 

industry, academia and/or other government agencies in order to better leverage FAA’s 

R&D funding? 

The National Technology and Science Council (NTSC), using the National Policy and 

Plan for Aeronautics R&D as a guide, needs to define clear roles and responsibilities for the 

agencies involved in environmental projects. For example, the FAA, NASA and NOAA are all 

involved in climate change research without any direction on how these agencies can leverage 

their spending to achieve better results. Similarly, the proposed CLEEN program (and NASA’s 

N+1 efforts) should be resourced at a national level with roles and responsibilities assigned to 

each agency. On a more general level, the Subcommittee feels that there needs to be more direct 

and timely collaboration between the FAA and NASA in the planning of environment and 

energy research and development. Near term efforts should be undertaken to foster cooperation 

with NASA with respect to the funding NASA received for system-level technology research as 

a result of the passage of the recent Economic Recovery and Stabilization Act. 

With respect to programs such as CLEEN and the CAAFI effort on alternative fuels, the 

FAA has the opportunity to interface with both industry and NASA. The ongoing PARTNER 

program provides continuing opportunities to work with academia and should be commended for 

significant progress over the past year. 

Response to Committee Recommendations. The Committee and subcommittees 

provide comments and recommendations regarding the FAA R&D investment portfolios as 

guidance in the fall and as a review of the portfolio in the spring. 

Has the FAA team responded effectively to the guidance? 

The Subcommittee finds that the FAA is adequately following the guidance 

submitted in building the environmental R&D portfolio – within the constraints of 

funding realities. 

What points were missed or not addressed adequately in the portfolio? 

See answers to questions above. 

Process. What should the FAA do to improve the process it is now using to engage 

the Committee in providing advice on the agency’s R&D investment portfolio? In 

particular: 

Is the subcommittee structure effective? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. The Subcommittee feels that this structure is effective. 

Is the information presented by the FAA in subcommittee and full committee 

meetings effective. Should more or less or different information be 

presented? 

The information presented is effective and enables the Subcommittee to make 

informed decisions on the R&D portfolio. Indeed, the Subcommittee has decided 

that the current level of detail being presented is necessary and, due to the 

expanded scope of FAA environmental activity, the Subcommittee meetings need 

to be expanded to two full days. 

Additional Guidance and Recommendations. What additional guidance and/or 

recommendations are offered with the objective of helping FAA to better focus its R&D 

investments on the needs of its customer community? 

As an initial thought, the Subcommittee feels that the questions asked are too generic and 

need to be supplemented with the more specific recommendations. These recommendations are 

set forth below. 

FAA REDAC Subcommittee on Environment and Energy 

Supplemental Recommendations

2. The Subcommittee finds that the FAA Office of Environmental and Energy is 

significantly underfunded and understaffed, especially in view of the additional 

responsibilities (global climate change issues and a refocusing on noise research) that 

continue to be imposed on it. While the Subcommittee recognizes that the FAA is 

captive to the Congressional appropriations process, action is necessary to ensure that 

appropriate research activities are initiated and sustained. In particular: 

• The Agency should fully fund an additional position in the Operations and 

Policy Division as soon as possible. 

• The Agency should, as quickly as possible, restore the contract support that 

was recently removed. 

• Appropriate funding should be provided to continue the research review of 

aviation noise metrics and policy. 

• Support of, and leadership in, the international processes of the International 

Civil Aviation Organization should continue. More specifically, funds should 

be made available to support the activities of the ICAO GIACC that is 

working to establish international standards on global climate change. 

7. The Subcommittee continues to be concerned that environmental issues have not been 

given appropriate attention in the NextGen effort. In order to ensure proper 

environmental consideration, it is recommended that an Environmental Management 

System (EMS) be established for the NextGen initiative. This EMS would be used to 

provide information on the environmental impacts of modernization actions and 

would facilitate the implementation of environmental research efforts. 

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 
8. In order to support environmental research efforts, funding for the PARTNER 

program must continue. 
 

 

 

Attachment 3 (Cont.) 

Subcommittee Reports – Subcommittee on Human Factors 

HF in Next Gen 

Human Factors issues in NextGen are critical! The Human Factors Engineering & Research 

Group (AJP-61) recognizes this importance and is working to address the many issues, including 

human integration, that need attention. 

Assurance of HF integration 

Finding 1 

Unable to judge the extent of HF attention across NextGen elements 

Recommendation 

• Key issues in a single document 

• Multi-disciplinary workshop 

• FAA organizations regularly report HF progress 

HF Oversight in other elements 

Finding 2 

Many issues with HF implications fall outside purview of AJP-61 

Recommendation 

FAA develop a process to address critical HF within the Seven Solution Sets 

Resource Limitations 

Finding 3 

There is an immediate need for HF positions to manage programs and let contracts 

Recommendation 

FAA should begin to prepare HF researchers (in and outside of FAA) for NextGen tasks 

Support education of aviation HF specialists 

• At universities – Contracts & grants 

• FAA – HF Training for regulatory & acquisition personnel 

Leadership Turnover 

Finding 4 

HF Office has had turnover in leadership 

Recommendation 

Permanent leadership needed immediately with sufficient authority to assure HF issues are 

effectively addressed 

HF Lessons Learned in Acquisition 

Finding 5 

Identification of HF lessons learned in acquisition is good, as far as it goes 

Finding 

A process should be established to transition HF lessons learned into substantive follow-on 

activities to improve implementation & acquisition, standards, guidance and processes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3 (Cont.) 

Subcommittee Reports – Subcommittee on Airports 

The Airport Subcommittee continues to support: 

Close cooperation between the FAA Airport Technology Research Branch and the TRB ACRP. 

ACRP has reached a maturity level that is complimentary to FAA Technical Center Airport 

Technology Branch projects (environmental topics, airport capacity, risk assessment 

methodologies regarding runway safety areas and airfield separations, etc.). Each of these 

programs targets different issues but an ongoing awareness of each program assures no 

redundancies will occur. 

Appreciates continued funding and recommends an increase in staffing by one person in FY 11. 

Subcommittee indicates highest priorities should be (1) complete the research to identify if 

additional fire fighting agent is required at airports with new large aircraft (A380), and (2) 

wildlife research needs to be maintained at the highest levels to assure further progress in 

reducing wildlife hazards to aviation in the vicinity of airports. 

FAA Bird Detection Technology 

Comprehensive Performance Assessment 

Assessing Avian Radar Detection Systems for use at civil airports focusing on: 

Deployment Considerations (Licensing, Transmission Interference, Location, Clutter, Form 

7460 approvals, Physical and Communication Infrastructure) 

Data Acquisition, Processing and Management Capabilities 

Validation of Target Detection and Tracking 

Operational Reliability (Maintenance Needs, Weather 

Integration of radar displays and airport GIS 

Outcome – Performance specification that will make bird radars eligible for FAA AIP funding 

as wildlife hazard mitigation tool. 

Long Term Goal: tactical use of avian radar to support real time ATC advisories (similar to 

LLWSAS). 

The Airport Subcommittee suggests that: 

FAA should have Boeing and Airbus involved in the project for predicting fuel release during 

accidents. 

Research should be initiated to investigate changing red end of runway lights to amber as red 

lights should only mean “stop” to an air crew (and they should give consideration to daytime 

visibility of ground lights. 

Supports infusion of airport related considerations into the NextGen plans and programs. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Pavement Software Products 

Releases have been as planned and on schedule ever since 1995 

FAA Training Workshops 

FAA Design Software for Airport Pavement Thickness 

The Technical Center reported that they have conducted workshops on pavement design during 

the past year at: 

– Singapore (April, 2008) – Comprehensive

– Phoenix, AZ (April 2008) - TSW 2008 Workshop 

– Bellevue, WA (Oct 2008 – ASCE Conference 

- Mexico City, Mexico (Oct 2008)

- Richmond, VA (Feb 2009) - ACC Workshop 

Upcoming workshops are planned for: 

–Amsterdam, Netherlands (May 2009) 

–Champaign, Illinois (June 2009 – BCR2A Conference) 

FAA completed installation of new load modules and is performing maintenance on the 

pavement test vehicle in preparation for phase 5 construction (Construction Cycle “CC” 5). 

FAA has completed the rewrite of AC 150/5320-6D (FAA software referred to as 

“FAARFIELD 1.3” which is replacing the design nomographs 

for standard thickness design). 

High pressure tire testing is planned to in the near future to determine the rutting potential of 240 

psi tires (as compared to 217 psi which is the current international standard for routine usage of 

airfield pavements). Asphalt temperature needs to be controlled for the results to be meaningful. 

The Technical Center discussed need for a Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) to develop 

specifications for gyratory compaction of asphalt pavement. R&D in this area has relied on 

laboratory testing, but full-scale tests are needed to validate the predictive models. An HVS cost 

is $2.4 million to acquire, but long term costs are less than the alternative of heating the test 

pavement. 

Summary of Recent Events 

The Airport Subcommittee continues to enjoy a high level of industry participation. 

The National Pavement Test Facility is continuing to perform full scale pavement testing; 

currently evaluating concrete overlay performance under four wheel and six-wheel loading. 

Internationally – The FAA findings from the initial (1998-2002) test results, as related to ACN / 

PCN have been adopted as an international standard by the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY-09-10-11 FUNDING FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 

AIRPORT TECHNOLOGY R&D Enacted Request Target 

Contracts $$ x1000 x1000 x1000 

Advanced Airport Pavement Design $450 $468 $450 

Pavement Design & Evaluation Methodology $900 $936 $1,000 

National Airport Pavement Test Facility $2,500 $2,850 $2,850 

Heavy Vehicle Simulator $0 $0 $2,400 

Field Instrumentation & Testing $540 $750 $750 

Improved Paving Materials $1,100 $1,350 $1,300 

Non-Destructive Pavement Testing $980 $1,100 $1,100 

Pavement Roughness $420 $437 $450 

Material Testing Laboratory $300 $200 $250 

CEAT-University of Illinois $300 $312 $350 

Airport Planning $350 $364 $380 

Airport Design $700 $728 $700 

Operation of NLA $800 $800 $800 

Composite Materials Firefighting $616 $453 $500 

Airport Wildlife Hazards Abatement $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 

Airport Visual Guidance/Incursions Reduc. $1,825 $1,200 $2,125 

Visual Guidance Test Bed $0 $2,000 $2,300 

Soft Ground Systems Follow on $300 $312 $300 

Surface Technology $1,000 $1,607 $1,000 

Rescue and Fire Fighting $420 $624 $650 

Subtotal--Contracts $16,001 $18,991 $22,155 

In-House PCB&T $3,347 $3,481 $3,620 

TOTAL $19,348 $22,472 $25,775 

Conclusions of the Subcommittee 

The Airport Technology Subcommittee supports and recommends approval of the budget plan 

that has been submitted for 2011, which includes: 

 Completion of research to identify if additional fire fighting agent is required at airports 

with new large aircraft 

 Continued focus on wildlife research, which needs to be maintained at the highest levels 

to assure further progress in reducing wildlife hazards to aviation in the vicinity of 

airports. 

 One additional engineer for Tech Center 

 $2,300,000 for phase II of the visual aid test bed 

 $2,400,000 for the high tire pressure testing initiative 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3 (Cont.) 

Subcommittee Reports – Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

General Observations 

 Presentations given by FAA managers and researchers were of uniformly high quality. 

 Method of summarization and content presentation greatly improved and readily

comprehensible at a management level.

 The plans were presented very clearly & in a consistent & well constructed format that 

allowed rapid understanding by the SAS. 

 The FAA R,E&D prioritization process reviewed and streamlining of process noted. 

 Streamlined prioritization process is improvement for identifying and focusing most 

relevant projects. 

 Recommendation tracking & closure process continues to be effective means to assure 

the FAA research management team addresses each recommendation made by SAS. 

 FAA research personnel who provided the tours & presentations impress the SAS with 

their deep technical knowledge & personal commitment. Enthusiasm, expertise and 

interest-in-the-work of the presenters were clearly evident. 

 The SAS commends them for their visible enthusiasm and thanks them for sharing their 

work with us. 

 The SAS recognizes that there are in reality three levels/kinds of valid and realistic 

research and development. Clear identification would be valuable to management. 

 Lines-of-Business specific program areas – R&D to provide support data for executive 

decisions (separation reductions or new technology introduction) 

Recommendations 

 National and Global Issues – R&D which stakeholders, industry, or Congress consider 

important, but may not be crucial to FAA’s immediate mission 

 Agency-wide initiatives – Research to provide basic information to FAA and 

stakeholders on capabilities of new technologies, procedures and processes 

Laboratories And Facilities 

 The Subcommittee recommends that, even in difficult budget periods, the work and 

funding of these laboratories be addressed from not only a program perspective, but from 

an Agency and national perspective as well. The full motion flight simulators at CAMI 

supporting research in Terminal Area Safety is a case in point. 

Support of NextGen 

 As stated in the last several SAS meeting reports, the Subcommittee recommends that 

this must be accelerated to assure research is done in a manner consistent with Next Gen 

deployment timing. In the interim the FAA research sponsors must use their best 

judgment to anticipate the Next Gen research needs until such requirements become 

better defined. 

 In addition as requirements evolve, the sponsors must be aware of research that has 

already been done. For example, much work has been done to evaluate closely spaced 

parallel runway limitations for today’s infrastructure. Much of this work may be 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

applicable to support Next Gen objectives for assessing self-separation capabilities on 

closely spaced parallel runways. 

Plans - Milestones - Deliverables 

 The Subcommittee recommends that the FY11 plans be defined, be clear & explicit to the 

point of being trackable on a monthly basis – not just the budget expenditure but the 

actual results vs. the plan. This timely understanding of execution issues enables 

midcourse corrections to be considered & implemented early for maximum benefit. 

 Additional focus on execution excellence will yield more & better research per dollar 

spent. Earned Value Measurement techniques are available to help here and can be very 

simple to implement in their most basic form. 

Project Level Agreements 

 The Subcommittee recommends that the Project Level Agreement mechanism be used 

actively to document the core research efforts and to capture industry and stakeholder 

input. 

Apparent Funding Disparity 

 In light of the growing and crucial importance of software/digital systems, the 

Subcommittee recommends that this work be given additional emphasis and funding, as 

well as renewed efforts to hire software and digital systems experts. 

Unmanned Air Systems - UAS Research Requirements 

 The Subcommittee recommends that significant system level thinking be applied to the 

development of the optimal operational construct & to the definition of the research (if 

any) needed to permit guidance material & regulations to be developed. The 

Subcommittee recommends that a Program Plan be developed with milestones, metrics 

and funding requirements. 

Aging General Aviation Fleet 

 The Subcommittee recommends that FAA develop a broad mandatory reporting system 

for the general aviation fleet as a means of gathering factual data on the aging GA fleet to 

proactively prevent in-flight catastrophic structural failures by enabling timely, 

appropriately focused, data based, high priority GA R&D activities leading to improved 

structural assessment guidance material and potentially Airworthiness Directives. 

 This is directly aligned with the FAA mandate to assure Continued Operational Safety as 

well as complimentary to the ongoing Small Airplane Directorate Part 23 Certification 

Process Study. 

Volcanic Ash Risk Assessment Paper 

 The Subcommittee recommends that the research be limited to the development of 

procedures for getting tactical information to flight crews so they can effectively avoid 

the hazardous areas. 

 Finally the Subcommittee believes that even this limited scope for research is relatively 

low in the broad research portfolio. 
 

 

 

 

Attachment 3 (Cont.) 

Subcommittee Reports – NAS Operations Subcommittee 

Portfolio Content 

 Finding 

3⁄4 As presented, research is heavily focused on mid-term (2018) capability, not on 

the longer term transformation. While important to provide near-term benefits, 

this near-term emphasis may not provide transformational benefits. 

 Recommendations 

3⁄4 FAA should conduct on assessment of the extent to which the planned “mid-term” 

imporovemetns to the NAS for 2018 are consistent with the requirements for the 

transformed long-term NAS. Research conducted for the 2018 goal should be 

scable to the transformations most needed for the long-term vision 

3⁄4 If 2018 research does not scale to long-term vision, FAA should identify 

additional resources required and how they will be obtained 

 Finding 

3⁄4 Avionics roadmap is a good start to understanding air-side contribution to 

NextGen, but performance metrics and system requirements must be defined, 

particularly for the 2018 capability. 

 Recommendation 

3⁄4 The FAA should accelerate developing airborne avionics and ground-based 

automation requirements for 2018 so that users will know what they need to do, 

including consideration of reliability requirements for airborne contribution. 

Roadmaps should include necessary stakeholder decision, actions, and implied 

costs. 

 Finding 

3⁄4 NASOPS has mixed opinions of the Human Factors works as presented. ConOps 

and technical issues such as human-automation or air-ground roles have not been 

determined, so plus-ups seem premature. However, controller roles will clearly 

change, and it should be possible to hypothesize skill sets and training 

requirements for that. 

 Recommendation 

3⁄4 FAA should task REDAC to form joint NASOPS-HF Working Group to assess 

the best way to accelerate appropriate HF research to support 2018 capability, 

especially with new controller selection and training criteria. 

Program Funding 

 Finding 

3⁄4 In presentations of NASOPS research, lack of connection to desired increments in 

capability, lack of clarity in magnitude of problem being addressed, lack of 

technical detail of approach, lack of metrics to assess benefits and progress, and 

lack of priority among elements make it difficult to place research in context and 

ascertain in value. 
 

 

 

 Recommendation 

3⁄4 FAA should conduct or complete gap analysis to identify projected benefits in 

quantitative terms of proposed implementations in the solution sets, the priorities 

among them, and the research required to provide them, putting this information 

into research portfolios with clear milestones, exit criteria, funding lines, and lines 

of authority. 

Research Area Funding 

 Finding 

3⁄4 Material to assess relative funding among the Subcommittee research areas was 

not presented. 

Partnerships 

 Finding 

3⁄4 Public-private partnerships hold substantial potential for many of the NextGen 

activities, and dramatically increase the potential for innovation. They are most 

effective when emphasizing pre-competitive, industry-wide design guidelines, 

standards for systems and architectures, and means of compliance for 

certification. 

 Recommendation 

3⁄4 FAA should consider developing a public-private partnership to execute NextGen, 

using past models for lessons learned, built around pre-competitive focus, shared 

governance, cost sharing, and appropriate IP protection. 

Response to Committee Recommendations 

 Finding 

3⁄4 FAA responses to NASOPS recommendations are reported to Congress through a 

NARP appendix, and, in the case of NASOPS, have been occasionally unclear or 

misleading 

 Recommendation 

3⁄4 FAA should consider putting REDAC recommendations, broken out by 

subcommittee, in the main parts of the NARP that describe the work being 

accomplished and discussed 

Process 

 Findings 

3⁄4 Limiting NASOPS review purview to RED funded items limits the ability to 

assess pre-implementation activities in the solution sets and progress toward 

NextGen. 

3⁄4 Working Groups have provided concrete technical and programmatic suggestions 

to FAA 

 Recommendations 
 

 

3⁄4 NASOPS suggests presenting the research by Solution Sets, and setting up 

Working Groups aimed at doing in-depth review of all the work in each Set. 

3⁄4 NASOPS will provide specific suggestions for organizing the material to be 

presented at future meetings. 

Additional Guidance 

 Finding 

3⁄4 The described FAA approach to assessing the environmental impacts of 

operational changes focuses on deleterious effects but does not allow credit for 

offsetting reductions in environmental impact. This imbalance was particularly 

evident in a discussion of RNP approaches that remove noise impacts over much 

of a possible approach or departure area by concentrating all flight tracks in 

narrow corridors. 

 Recommendation 

3⁄4 FAA should task REDAC to develop a NASOPS/E&E Working Group to propose 

new assessment approaches for environmental impact. 
Attachment 4
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

Recommendations on the FY 2011 R&D Budget 

Subcommittee on Airports 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends the FAA expedite completion of the 

research to identify if more firefighting agent is required at airports. This research is for the new 

large aircraft (group 6 aircraft) such as the A-380. These aircraft carry much more fuel than the 

group 5 aircraft such as the B-747. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends the FAA continue to focus on wildlife 

research. This should be maintained at the highest levels to assure further progress in reducing 

wildlife hazards to aviation around airports. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that staffing be increased by one engineer 

within the Airport R&D Branch at the William J. Hughes Technical Center. The position will 

support the increased funding and research projects underway. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends the FAA include $2,300,000 for Phase II of 

the visual aid test bed, and $2,400,000 for the high tire pressure testing initiative in the FY 2011 

program request. 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee finds that the FAA Office of Environmental and Energy 

is significantly underfunded and understaffed, especially in view of the additional responsibilities 

(global climate change issues and a refocusing on noise research) that continue to be imposed on 

it. While the Subcommittee recognizes that the FAA is captive to the Congressional 

appropriations process, action is necessary to ensure that appropriate research activities are 

initiated and sustained. In particular: 

a. The Subcommittee recommends that the Agency fully fund an additional position in the 

Operations and Policy Division as soon as possible. 

b. The Subcommittee recommends the Agency should, as quickly as possible, restore the 

contract support that was recently removed. 

c. The Subcommittee recommends that appropriate funding should be provided to continue the 

research review of aviation noise metrics and policy. 

d. The Subcommittee recommends that support of, and leadership in, the international processes 

of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) be continue. Specifically, funds should 

be available to support the activities of ICAO’s Group on International Aviation and Climate 

Change (GIACC). GIACC is working to establish international standards on global climate 

change. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee continues to be concerned that environmental issues 

have not been given appropriate attention in the NextGen effort. In order to ensure proper 

environmental consideration, it is recommended that an Environmental Management System 

(EMS) be established for the NextGen initiative. This EMS would be used to provide 

information on the environmental impacts of modernization actions and would facilitate the 

implementation of environmental research efforts. 

Recommendation: In order to support environmental research efforts, the Subcommittee 

recommends funding for the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction 

(PARTNER) program is continue. 

Subcommittee on Human Factors 

Finding 1: As a whole, the NextGen research work plans proposed by both Air Traffic 

Control/Technical Operations (NextGen Controller Efficiency) and Flight Deck (NextGen Self 

Separation and NextGen Air Ground Integration) domains were well crafted and reflect a good 

allocation of budget. The Subcommittee was pleased to see the efforts within NextGen Self 

Separation and NextGen Air Ground Integration focused on flight deck automation and humanautomation function allocation. However, after reviewing the material provided (NARP, 

NextGen Implementation Plan), we were unable to judge the extent to which human factors was 

adequately addressed beyond the efforts of The FAA Human Factors Office (AJP-61) across 

NextGen elements. Numerous reviews by GAO, National Research Council and so forth have 

highlighted the lack of a NextGen strategy for ensuring that concerns with human performance, 

human-system integration and effective use of automation are being systematically and 

thoroughly addressed at all stages of design and implementation. 

Recommendation: The FAA, perhaps through the NextGen Integration and Implementation 

Office, should ensure that all organizations responsible for design and implementation of 

NextGen contribute to and act upon the following: 

(a): A thorough review should be made and reported in a single document (e.g., “Human Factors 

Requirements of NextGen”) of the key issues with human performance, human-systems 

integration and effective use of automation inherent to NextGen Operational Improvements (OIs) 

and enablers. Particular attention should be devoted to highlighting potential solutions and 

mitigations to likely issues. 

(b): This document should be finalized in a multi-disciplinary workshop. The workshop 

organized outside of AJP-61 should include key decision makers in NextGen design and 

implementation. It should include the Chief Scientist for Architecture, the NextGen 

Development and the Director of the NextGen Integration and Implementation Office. This 

workshop should also address a strategy for pervasively, comprehensively, and systematically 

accounting for issues with human performance, human-systems integration, and effective use of 

automation, and building in solutions and mitigations to identified concerns early in design. The 

document should have concurrence with the Chief Scientist for Architecture and NextGen 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development and by the Director of the NextGen Integration and Implementation Office at the 

conclusion of the workshop and made available for public dissemination. 

(c): The Subcommittee recommends that the agency should require all organizations in the FAA 

to periodically report how they are addressing the human factors requirements as documented in 

the areas of NextGen design and implementation for which they are responsible. 

Finding 2: Many programs within and outside NextGen call out issues that have direct human 

factors implications but may not fall within the purview of AJP-61. Examples are weather 

products, safety, System-Wide Information Management (SWIM), and the repeated articulation 

of “supporting situational awareness” across many NextGen elements. We are concerned that 

critical human factors issues within these elements may not be addressed. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA develop a consistent process 

that addresses critical human factors issues within the seven NextGen Solution Sets. One 

approach would be to hire a human factors professional within the solution sets comprising the 

developmental areas of NextGen. AJP-61 could help coordinate and facilitate these 

developmental human factors activities. 

Finding 3: The Subcommittee views the new NextGen positions allotted to AJP-61 and one 

more position as important steps to addressing the resource shortfall. However, filling the 

remaining positions is an immediate need for managing programs and contracts. Challenges 

external to the FAA include a shortage of both qualified applied researchers who understand the 

flight-deck, ATO domains, human factors engineering, and qualified human-in-the-loop 

simulation facilities. Compounding this problem is the lack of rapid and effective mechanisms 

for letting contracts to bring external researchers into the program. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA begin now to prepare human 

factors researchers for the NextGen tasks. This should include bringing in top talent in human 

factors and providing rapid but comprehensive exposure to the flight-deck and ATO domains. 

The FAA should explore ways to engage researchers in countries with similar ATO traditions 

(e.g., Canada, Europe, and Australia). Qualifying simulation facilities needs to be explored and 

the specialized programming skills required for this work obtained. The NextGen program is of 

long enough duration that a concerted effort to train the necessary researchers is still feasible, if 

it starts immediately. Other funding mechanisms need to be explored to allow qualified 

researchers to participate effectively, e.g., contracts, inter-agency agreements, broad agreements 

with umbrella groups (e.g., National Institute of Aerospace) and temporary assignments of 

researchers to FAA for specific time periods. 

We also recommend that efforts be made to increase the pool of qualified applicants for future 

positions. This may be addressed by supporting the education of aviation human factors 

specialists at universities through contracts and grants. Within the FAA, short courses may be 

offered in aviation human factors for acquisition and regulatory personnel. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding 4: The Human Factors office (AJP-61) has had rapid turnover in leadership with a 

series of temporary appointments. This may provide human factors with less influence on 

NextGen policies and decisions than would be the case if there was long-term continuity in the 

office. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that permanent leadership be appointed as 

rapidly as possible. This person should have sufficient authority to ensure effective, coordinated 

human factors activities across the organizational lines spanned by human factors. 

Finding 5: The Subcommittee is encouraged by the identification of human factors lessons 

learned in acquisition such as those expressed in the AJA Report Cross Post-Implementation 

Review Analysis Lessons Learned, dated December 30, 2008. However, in order for the FAA to 

take full advantage of the opportunities identified, a follow-on activity is needed to address each 

of these lessons as an appropriate change to acquisition policy, standards, guidance, or processes. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends a process be developed that establishes 

how to transition human factors lessons learned into substantive follow-on activities. This will 

improve both system implementation and acquisition policy, standards, guidance, and processes. 

NAS Operations Subcommittee 

Finding 1: The majority of the research presented was oriented at developing a "mid-term" 

capability in 2018 for the NAS or by implementing incremental changes to the existing system to 

increase controller productivity. The general construct for the research is therefore one of 

evolution from the current system, rather than a transformation of the system. The 

Subcommittee understands that it is important for the FAA to provide as many benefits to the 

NAS users in the near term as possible; the evolutionary focus is consistent with that 

requirement. However, the Subcommittee is very concerned that this emphasis will not provide 

the technologies, policies, and procedures required for the transformation to the long-term vision 

of the NAS, because it is a push from current operations rather than a pull from the future. To 

have research oriented to both 2018 and the long term may require more resources than those 

needed for either vision alone. 

Recommendation (a): The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA conduct an assessment of 

the extent to which the planned "mid-term" improvements to the NAS for 2018 are consistent 

with the requirements for the transformed long term NAS. Research conducted for the 2018 goal 

should be scalable to the transformations most needed for the long-term vision. 

Recommendation (b): If the research supporting the 2018 capability does not scale to the 

longer-term vision, the FAA should undertake to identify additional research resources that may 

be required for the longer-term vision and clarify the approach for obtaining them. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding 2: The Subcommittee heard a briefing on the Avionics roadmap, which provides a good 

start to providing an understanding of the requirements for the air-side contribution to the 

NextGen infrastructure, but much work remains to be done. Performance metrics must be 

established and systems requirements must be defined. This is particularly true for the aircraft 

contribution to the 2018 architecture, because no research was described which addresses what 

the airspace users have to do to enable NextGen. Additionally, none of the research we have 

seen has addressed the aircraft avionics reliability impact on the 2018 or the long-term ConOps. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA accelerate developing 

airborne avionics and ground-based automation requirements that permit achievement of the 

stated 2018 goals so that users will know what they need to do. Consideration of reliability 

requirements should be part of this development. The roadmaps should include necessary 

stakeholder decisions, actions, and implied costs. 

Finding 3: The Subcommittee was given a briefing of the “Air Traffic Control/Technical 

Operations Core” and the “NextGen Controller Efficiency” human factors research programs. 

The Subcommittee has mixed opinions concerning this work and the level of funding it is 

receiving. On the one hand, these two programs each are requesting “plus-ups” near $6M for 

FY11, which are substantial increases when overall ConOps, and technical issues such as 

human-automation or air-ground roles-responsibilities, have not yet been determined. On the 

other hand, it is clear that controller roles will in some sense be switching from tactical control to 

“management” of traffic, even for the mid-term implementation, and it should be relatively 

straightforward to develop hypotheses regarding the change in required skill sets and start 

developing selection and training programs for new hires. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA task REDAC to put together a 

joint NASOPS-Human Factors Working Group to provide an external assessment of the best 

way to accelerate appropriate ATM human factors research in support of the 2018 mid-term 

capability. A key aspect should be the definition of accelerated activities required to develop 

new controller selection and training criteria. 

Finding 4: In the presentations given to the Subcommittee, there is frequently a lack of 

connection of the research to desired increments in NextGen capability, a lack of any sense of 

the magnitude of the problem being addressed, a lack of any real technical detail of the work 

being performed, a lack of any measure of the extent to which performing the research and 

implementing the results will provide an efficiency or capacity increase for NextGen, and a lack 

of an overall sense of relative priority among research elements. The resulting lack of clarity 

makes the research (1) very difficult to place in context, and (2) very difficult to ascertain in 

value. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA should conduct (or complete, 

if it is underway) a gap analysis which clearly identifies projected benefits, in quantitative terms, 

to capacity, efficiency, and/or safety of proposed implementations in the solution sets, the 

priorities among them, and the research required to provide them, and develop research 

portfolios which have clear milestone completion requirements, exit criteria, defined funding 

lines, and clear lines of authority. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding 5: Public-private partnerships hold substantial, and largely untapped, potential for many 

of the activities underway for engaging the private and state sectors in NextGen technology 

maturation and the related required innovations. Such partnerships are particularly effective 

when they emphasize pre-competitive, industry-wide design guidelines, industry standards for 

systems and architectures, and means of compliance for certification of new technologies. 

Additionally, industry methods for managing R&D may provide various accelerations to the 

FAA approach. Even with the slowly rebuilding NASA/FAA partnership, current FAA NextGen 

implementation strategies make scarce, insufficient use of partnerships. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA should consider developing a 

public-private partnership for the execution of NextGen. The FAA should use past models for 

lessons learned, and build the partnership around pre-competitive focus, shared governance, cost 

sharing, and appropriate IP protections. An approach would be to engage the National Council 

for Public Private Partnerships (NCPPP) as a forum to facilitate the design exercise, and engage 

the roles of small and large businesses (OEMs and suppliers), the states and municipalities, the 

operators, academia, and the Federal sector. 

Finding 6: The described FAA approach to assessing the environmental impacts of operational 

changes focuses on deleterious effects but does not allow credit for offsetting reductions in 

environmental impact. This imbalance was particularly evident in the discussion of the Required 

Navigation Performance (RNP) approaches that remove noise impacts over much of a possible 

approach or departure area by concentrating all flight tracks in narrow corridors. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA should task REDAC to 

develop a NAS Operation/Environment & Energy Working Group to propose new assessment 

approaches for environmental impact. 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

Finding 1: The Subcommittee has considered the roles played by several activities and 

laboratories – especially the Tech Center Fire laboratory, the Fuels laboratory and, importantly, 

CAMI. FAA has made major contributions to knowledge in these areas. The laboratories and 

their work are world renowned and add important luster to FAA. There is a need to document the 

various capabilities and the justification for the care and feeding of these facilities, so as to 

permit an FAA-wide examination of the need for, modernization of, and the funding of existing 

facilities. This examination should ensure that adequate ATC/Cockpit/pilot/controller simulation 

and modeling capabilities are available to support studies related to NextGen, self-separation, 

human factors, reduction of spacing between parallel runways, RNP, etc. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that, even in difficult budget periods, the 

work and funding of these laboratories be addressed from not only a program perspective, but 

from an Agency and national perspective as well. The full motion flight simulators at CAMI 

supporting research in Terminal Area Safety is a case in point. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding 2: Several research topics presented plans that were stated to be in support of the Next 

Gen initiative. Detailed NextGen research needs appear to be elusive and still need to be clearly 

defined in most areas. It was mentioned that the I&I office is working diligently on this 

requirements definition process. 

Recommendation: As stated in the last several Subcommittee meeting reports, the 

Subcommittee recommends that this must be accelerated to assure research is done in a manner 

consistent with NextGen deployment timing. In the interim the FAA research sponsors must use 

their best judgment to anticipate the NextGen research needs until such requirements become 

better defined. In addition as requirements evolve, the sponsors must be aware of research that 

has already been done. For example, much work has been done to evaluate closely spaced 

parallel runway limitations for today’s infrastructure. Much of this work may be applicable to 

support Next Gen objectives for assessing self-separation capabilities on closely spaced parallel 

runways. 

Finding 3: Consistent with the Strategic Guidance provided, the Subcommittee expects to see 

detailed plans with measurable milestones & deliverables for the FY11 research activity. It is 

noted that excellent results need several key ingredients – complete planning, diligent execution 

& skilled people. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FY11 plans be defined, be clear & 

explicit to the point of being trackable on a monthly basis – not just the budget expenditure but 

the actual results vs. the plan. This timely understanding of execution issues enables midcourse 

corrections to be considered & implemented early for maximum benefit. Additional focus on 

execution excellence will yield more & better research per dollar spent. Earned Value 

Measurement techniques are available to help here and can be very simple to implement in their 

most basic form. 

Finding 4: The Subcommittee understands that FAA now uses Project Level Agreements as a 

management tool to make judgments about appropriate NextGen research levels – as opposed to 

the former use of Program Plans. Program Plans have been valuable as a mechanism to gather 

user and stakeholder support and input. Weather Plan and Human Factor Plan are good 

examples. (The Weather research program, for example. continues to deliver high quality 

capability improvements. This consistent delivery may be due, in part to a consistently high 

level of research funding for which multi-year detailed plans are created & executed). This 

approach could be duplicated for strategically critical programs in other areas. These efforts have 

helped FAA to achieve support, consistency, and effective monitoring on the research initiatives. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the Project Level Agreement 

mechanism be used actively to document the core research efforts and to capture industry and 

stakeholder input. 

Finding 5: The Subcommittee also recognizes that Weather requirements cut across both safety 

and capacity mission objectives of the FAA. Consequently there are inherent institutional 

complexities for managing and sponsoring the Weather research. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA ensure it has enough qualified 

people to manage the broad and complex Weather related programs that support multiple 

mission needs. 

Finding 6: There is more funding proposed for Unmanned Air System (UAS) activities than for 

software /digital systems work. We have been informed that all the internal requests for research 

have been fully funded, but this situation may be evidence of the previously identified difficulty 

of FAA acquiring talented software/digital system experts. Next Gen based research 

requirements for Software Digital Systems are largely missing & must be defined. The 

continued lack of requirements is actually quite surprising since all of Next Gen is dependent on 

advanced avionics. 

Recommendation: In light of the growing and crucial importance of software/digital systems, 

the Subcommittee recommends that this work be given additional emphasis and funding, as well 

as renewed efforts to hire software and digital systems experts. 

Finding 7: Unmanned Air System (UAS) research requirements are fuzzy at best and lack a 

coherent plan that provides a clear path to certification & operation of UAS in the NAS. It 

appears the possible solution set is overly constrained by multiple conflicting operational 

requirements to the point where it may well be a null set making research either irrelevant or 

misdirected. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that significant system level thinking be 

applied to the development of the optimal operational construct and to the definition of the 

research (if any) needed to permit guidance material & regulations to be developed. The 

Subcommittee recommends that a Program Plan be developed with milestones, metrics and 

funding requirements. 

Finding 8: The Subcommittee notes that based on what was presented, the FAA planned 

activities for icing research are relevant, appear to be on track, and are well integrated with other 

organizations doing icing research such as NASA. 

Finding 9: The Small Airplane Directorate has a very tough task ahead to assure Continued 

Operational Safety (COS) for the >150,000 general aviation aircraft in the US. The issue of 

aging aircraft (one that has been worked tirelessly for many years on large commercial aircraft 

with great success) has barely had an impact in the General Aviation (GA) fleet. There remains 

significant work to do here. The approach proposed to develop guidance material for GA 

airplane structural fatigue assessment is good but insufficient. The efforts of the Directorate to 

educate pilots, mechanics & owners are commendable & are very slowly increasing awareness of 

the issue, but this too is insufficient. There needs to be a large scale, mandatory reporting system 

implemented to permit the FAA to gather the aging aircraft structural cracking data it needs to 

support an adequate, data based, reliable approach to COS for this fleet. This is unpopular & 

difficult. Absent a program such as this, the GA fleet will expose the structural fatigue issues, 

event by event, death by death. It will happen, what will be the human cost before the FAA is 

called to react to the systemic issue of aging GA aircraft? 
 

 

 

 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA develop a more efficient and 

timely reporting system for the general aviation fleet as a means of gathering factual data on the 

aging GA fleet to proactively prevent in-flight catastrophic structural failures by enabling timely, 

appropriately focused, data based, high priority GA R&D activities leading to improved 

structural assessment guidance material and potentially Airworthiness Directives. This is 

directly aligned with the FAA mandate to assure Continued Operational Safety as well as 

complimentary to the ongoing Small Airplane Directorate Part 23 Certification Process Study. 

Finding 10: The Subcommittee was asked to review a Volcanic Ash Risk Assessment paper that 

was provided at the meeting. Although the risk assessment was very limited and there have been 

no accidents to date due to Volcanic Ash encounters, the Subcommittee recognizes there is 

legitimate concern within the transport pilot community about the potential hazards of volcanic 

ash. The subcommittee concludes that these concerns probably warrant further research. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that research be limited to a very focused 

approach on how to detect and avoid a volcanic ash encounter. The Subcommittee does not 

believe the research related to the development of onboard technologies to detect or harden an 

aircraft against volcanic ash is warranted. The Subcommittee recommends that the research be 

limited to the development of procedures for getting tactical information to flight crews so they 

can effectively avoid the hazardous areas. Finally the Subcommittee believes that even this 

limited scope for research is relatively low in the broad research portfolio.