Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

April 21, 2010 

Meeting Minutes 

On Wednesday, April 21, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Research, Engineering 

and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), held a meeting in the Round Room, at 800 

Independence Avenue, Washington, DC. Attachments 1 and 2 provide the meeting agenda and 

attendance, respectively. 

Welcome and Introductory Remarks

Dr. John Hansman, REDAC Chair, welcomed everyone and commented that several folks were 

on tight schedules and would be testifying on the Hill in the afternoon. 

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

thanked everyone for attending. Mr. Scott reviewed the agenda and introduced Dr. Karlin Toner. 

Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) – Dr. Karlin Toner

Dr. Karlin Toner, Director of the Joint Planning and Development Office, briefed the committee 

on the NextGen leadership and the impact of the new organization. She explained the role of the 

JPDO in implementation. Members engaged in a discussion of the following topics with 

Dr. Toner. 

- The coordination between JPDO and Vicki. 

- Future coordination with NASA, Department of Homeland Security, etc. 

- Nine working groups and review process of which are the right groups. 

- Focus more on policy issues, role to define research or passed off to implantation. 

- 2025 what are the driving requirements, no role for innovation. 

Dynamics for Change – Vicki Cox

Ms. Vicki Cox, Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning, discussed a 

potential working group for REDAC. Below are the details of how the committee can assist the 

Agency in addressing the dynamics of change. 

Dynamics of Change for 2018 and Beyond

Based on your experience dealing with fundamental change related to the insertion of advanced 

technologies, the FAA is requesting the REDAC provide an integrated set of recommendations 

regarding: 

• Strategies to foster FAA and industry acceptance of change associated with NextGen 

technologies for 2018 and beyond given the cultural and economic realities 

• Social and cultural factors to consider as we transition beyond 2018 (building on current 

research) 
Members engaged in a discussion with Ms. Cox relating to the issues that could be considered in 

a working work. 

- Overcoming cultural issues, ideas of how to move forward. 

- What are the gaps? 

- Barriers and the economic impact. 

- Struggle with innovation within FAA. 

- Plan for 2018 and the challenges. 

- Better position more acceptable to the community. 

- Develop set of issues for REDAC to address using their knowledge and expertise. 

Members were supportive of creating a working group. The terms of reference will be drafted 

and membership will be considered both from the committee and outside. 

NextGen Integration and Implementation – Ann Tedford

Ms. Ann Tedford, Manager, NextGen Planning Group, briefed the committee on what is 

happening with NextGen. She discussed the following items: 

- The 2010 NextGen Implementation Plan (members received a copy) 

- Consensus Target for 2018 

- RTCA Task Force 5 Recommendations (FAA response available on website) 

- Industry and FAA have agreed how to move forward. 

- Incremental Approach to Implementing NextGen. 

- Delivering Benefits Today and Tomorrow (Reduce delays, CO2 Emissions, & Fuel use) 

- Near-term NextGen Applications 

- Airfield Development FY 2009-10 

- Surface surveillance and data sharing. 

- FY 10 ADS-B deployment moving rapidly. 

- Current coverage for ADS-B Stations: on track for 2013 completion. 

- Approach: integrated airspace and procedures emphasis on high priority areas. 

- Performance Based Navigation (PBN). 

- Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). 

Ms. Tedford invited members to explore the on-line resource at www.faa.gov/nextgen. 

REDAC Membership – Barry Scott

Mr. Barry Scott, REDAC Executive Director, reviewed the REDAC membership, affiliations 

and process for appointing subcommittee members. The process below will be used for 

appointing members on a subcommittee. 

• Submit names to Gloria Dunderman 

• Names forwarded to REDAC chair, DFO, and Associate Administrators 

• If approved, Gloria Dunderman notifies subcommittee chairs and DFO 

• Members serve 2 years with optional 2 year renewals – no limit 
Each subcommittee chair should review their membership and decide if changes are needed. 

Below are items to consider when reviewing the membership. 

• Balanced Representation 

• Expertise 

• Budget (i.e. travel, logistics) 

• Size of Subcommittee 

• New Viewpoints 

• Harmony 

Mr. Scott commented that the FAA has changed drastically and that new viewpoints would be 

helpful for the subcommittees and the FAA. 

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 Amy Pritchett (for Chris Wickens) 

Airports Ed Gervais 

Aircraft Safety Joe Del Balzo 

NAS Operations Victor Lebacqz 

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

The members engaged in a discussion of recommendations that should be included in the letter 

to the Administrator. Dr. Hansman will prepare the draft and circulate for concurrence. Below 

are the topics members agreed would be included in the cover letter. 

- Level of expertise (i.e., software position). 

- R&D, full picture review for committee, suggest deep dive of one solution set at next 

subcommittee meeting(s). 

- What is not clear is whether FAA has identified programmatic risk areas and, if any, what 

research is planned to mitigate those risks. Human factors and software digital systems 

are two program areas that are good examples where there are program risks for 

NextGen. 

- What research do we need to do? What is in the plan and plan for success. FAA to 

identify research and how to achieve. 

Dr. Hansman thanked the members 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 21, 2010 

Agenda

9:00 am Welcome Barry Scott 

John Hansman 

9:15 am JPDO Karlin Toner 

10:15 am REDAC Membership Barry Scott 

10:30 am Break 

10:45 am NextGen Integration and Implementation Ann Tedford 

11:15 am Dynamics of Change Vicki Cox 

11:45 am Committee Discussion - Recommendations 

12:00 pm Lunch 

Subcommittee Reports 

1:00 pm Aircraft Safety Joe Del Balzo 

1:15 pm Human Factors Chris Wickens (Amy Pritchett) 

1:30 pm NAS Operations Victor Lebacqz 

1:45 pm Airports Ed Gervais 

2:00 pm Environment and Energy Steve Alterman 

2:15 pm Break 

2:30 pm Committee Discussion 

- Recommendations 

- Future Committee Activity 

John Hansman 

Barry Scott 

3:00 pm Adjourn 
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

April 21, 2010 

Attendance 

Members: 

John Hansman (Chair) Steve Alterman Joseph Del Balzo 

Ed Gervais Victor Lebacqz Agam Sinha 

Amy Pritchett 

Barry Scott (Executive Director) 

Other Attendees: 

Jens Hennig, GAMA Catherine Harrison, FAA Dawn Zimmer, FAA 

Mohan Gupta, FAA John Reinhardt, FAA Tom McCloy, FAA 

Cathy Bigelow, FAA Andrea Schandler, FAA Erik Amend, FAA 

Art Shantz, OIG Monique Morris, FAA Sonya Smith, Howard Univ. 

Nelson Miller, FAA Art Politano, FAA Richard Ozmore, FAA 

Karlin Toner, JPDO Lee Olson, FAA Ann Tedford, FAA 

Rob Pappas, FAA Denise Davis, FAA Jim White, FAA 

Mike Gallivan, FAA Vicki Cox, FAA Charlie Leocha, Media 

Nick Stoer Bill Spencer, PSD Charles Ruehle, FAA 

Gloria Dunderman, FAA John Hickey, FAA Carl Burleson, FAA 

Nancy LoBue, FAA Michele Whetstine, FAA Ed Feddeman, House Sci. Com. 
Attachment 3 

Subcommittee Presentation – Aircraft Safety Subcommittee – Chair/Joseph Del Balzo

The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development 

Committee, REDAC, met at MITRE’s Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development on 

March 9-11, 2010. The meeting included tours of the CAASD Integrated ATM Lab with 

demonstrations of CDTI/ADS-B Applications and Runway Incursion-Flight Deck-based Direct 

Warning. The primary purpose of the meeting was to review FY12 Research Requirements and 

included detailed reviews, “Deep Dives” into several research programs. 

General Observations 

• The SAS again found the presentations given by FAA managers and researchers to be of 

uniformly high quality. 

• The method of summarization and content presentation of the many complex topics 

continues to improve and were readily comprehensible at a management level. 

• The prioritization process of research proposals appears to be effective. 

• The SAS believes that the portfolio content is substantially correct, but is concerned that 

several research programs lack a sufficient level of technical expertise to assure success. 

• The SAS found no programs that should be eliminated. 

• The extent to which FAA leverages the work and expertise of other government agencies, 

industry and academia continues to be an effective way to conduct relevant research. 

• The SAS finds FAA to be extremely responsive in responding to subcommittee 

comments and recommendations. 

• Specific Findings and Recommendations on individual areas of research reviewed and 

discussed by the subcommittee follow. 

Icing Program

Finding: The Aircraft Icing program is well defined and poised to deliver high value. The icing 

program has built important collaborative research relationships with other FAA programs, 

NASA, Canadian research organizations, European research organizations and the aerospace 

industry. This is to be commended as it will enable the FAA to expand its icing research 

portfolio and increase their impact by conducting collaborative research programs on high 

priority programs of mutual interest. The high ice-water content, engine icing program is such a 

high priority program and leverages many of these relationships. This program addresses the 

engine malfunctions due to ice crystals that have occurred on many commercial flights in 
convective weather primarily in the tropics. The Appendix C research including the work on 3D 

ice accretion and icing aerodynamics certification methods is well conceived and is important to 

the FAA mission of flight safety. This program is currently building an international coalition 

and research plan and this should be encouraged. Finally, aircraft icing is an important safety 

area where the FAA has significant interests and responsibility. The icing program has several 

high priority programs and very limited in-house expertise. They rely heavily on partners and 

grantee/contractors to manage their programs. Concern exists within the Subcommittee 

regarding the lack of FAA “bench strength” in this important area. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue to support the high priority high ice-water 

content, engine icing research program and support the Appendix C research on 3D ice accretion. 

The Subcommittee recommends that FAA review the current “bench strength” and take 

appropriate hiring action to assure continuity in technical strength well into the future in the 

aircraft icing research area. 

Weather In The Cockpit

Finding: The Weather in the Cockpit program appears to be on the right track using a gap 

analysis to help define the needed research requirements. A concern remains regarding the 

planned timing of research completion in 2015 intended to support the mid term NextGen 

implementation of 2018. 

Recommendation: Assure the research deliverables are progressively released to enable 

industry to respond to them in formulating solutions to the Weather in the Cockpit imperative. 

Propulsion Malfunction Research

Finding: The Subcommittee found the planned Propulsion Malfunction research plan would 

benefit from deep engagement with engine and airframe manufacturers contributing their 

knowledge & expertise in this area. 

Recommendation: The FAA should develop an industry partnership approach to assist & 

accelerate the Propulsion Malfunction research activity. 

Unmanned Aircraft System

Finding: The ongoing Unmanned Aircraft System research is urgently needed to define a path 

to permit safe operation of UAS vehicles in the NAS. Although this broad and difficult area has 

been hampered by several leadership and organizational changes in the past few years, the SAS 

has noted good traction in the recent past. 
Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the research sponsoring office & the 

research performing technical community continue to jointly refine the development of the 

research requirements and firmly establish the optimum path to achieve the important goal of 

enabling UAS operation in the NAS. 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis Sharing- ASIAS

Finding: The SAS found that the ASIAS research project has made significant progress and 

continues to be directly responsive to the need of safety analysts within the FAA and aviation 

industry. The subcommittee commends the work being done by MITRE CAASD and notes the 

increased degree of trust that has developed from ASIAS industry participants. ASIAS is clearly 

an integral component of a Safety Management System designed to bring today’s safe aviation 

system to even higher levels of safety. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that the FAA continue efforts to increase the number 

of airline participants and ensure that the ASIAS program continues to be a safety tool that is 

increasingly used to identify emerging risks before they become potential safety issues. 

Conduct of Research and Development 

Finding: The SAS commends FAA for the advancing the development of a monthly reporting 

template to monitor progress in achieving measurable milestones and deliverables of all research 

activities in the Aviation Safety R&D portfolio. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that FAA adopt a monthly reporting template and 

move quickly to implement it across the entire Aircraft Safety R&D portfolio. 

Finding: The SAS continues to believe that successful conduct of research and development 

demands a series of sponsor-performer arrangements and conditions, all of them often urged on 

FAA by various groups. 

1. Although a partnership in the execution of the research including shaping the approving 

methods and products expected is required, it is essential that the responsible sponsor 

organization have a strong voice not only in the setting of requirements – but also the 

funding authority. 

2. The responsible sponsor organization must have a strong voice in the design and 

performance of the work, and must clearly monitor and have oversight of the work so that 

meaningful results can emerge. 
3. The responsible sponsor organization must itself have the technical and management 

skills to fully understand and monitor the work of the performing organization – whether 

it is within or outside the FAA. While this cadre of expertise may need to be small, it 

must be able to understand and guide the work. Experience in R, E&D has shown that in 

the absence of such skills in FAA, the results are almost always poor. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA review the structure of the 

Aircraft Safety Research Program to ensure that the current roles of the sponsor and performing 

organizations are best suited for successful conduct of safety research. This review should 

include roles related to authority over and management of research funds. 

The Proper Role of TCAS 

Finding: TCAS was intended to be an independent safety net in the ATC system. It was 

recognized from the beginning that the independence would not be total, since TCAS depends on 

the Mode S data link and the barometric altimeter. However, every attempt was made to provide 

as much real separation and independence from the ATC system tools as possible. 

Recommendation: The SAS believes that as the community explores the closer integration of 

TCAS with other systems such as ADS-B and aircraft autopilot systems the potential safety risks 

associated with the reduction of independence need to be carefully considered. The SAS requests 

further detail from the FAA on this issue and how these potential safety risks are assessed. 

Structural Integrity/Composites

Finding: The Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety considers the research effort on Structural 

Integrity/Composites to be a model program. With a very small but clearly expert internal FAA 

management resource, this effort leverages the work and expertise of other government agencies 

and the industry on a critical safety matter. The focus on developing standards and guidance 

based on theory and practical experience, and the emphasis on providing usable guidance to 

FAA people, and many others, makes this a valuable example of how to do things right. The 

Subcommittee endorses the proactive approach to composite structure maintenance and 

inspection being executed. Staying ahead of the composite aircraft fleet is very important to 

assure future continued operational safety. 

FAA FACILITIES AND LABORATORIES 

Finding: The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee wishes to reemphasize an earlier recommendation 

on FAA funding and support for facilities and efforts which serve not only FAA but are also 

resources for the world. These facilities and efforts – such as much of the work of the Civil 

Aeromedical Institute and the William J. Hughes Technical Center – have a world-wide impact 

and contribute in important ways to the eminence and high reputation of FAA. Support of these 
efforts and increasing public knowledge and understanding of these activities is critical to the 

success of research activities in support of NextGen, self-separation, human factors, reduction of 

spacing between parallel runways, RNP, etc. Even in difficult budget periods, adequate funding 

must be provided not only for the modernization, care and feeding and operation of existing 

facilities but funding must also be provided to ensure that laboratories with required capabilities 

to support future research are available when needed. Precedence for the use of F&E funding for 

the procurement, upgrade, repair or operation of facilities and equipment at the Tech Center and 

CAMI has been established. The procurement of equipment for CAMI, the support of the 

Pavement Test Facility and repair of R&D facilities at the Tech Center are examples recently 

cited by Tech Center Counsel. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA seriously explore creative ways 

outside of the RE&D budget to support the modernization and operation of existing laboratories 

and the establishment of laboratory capabilities to support future research requirements. 

Software and Digital Systems 

Finding: The Software and Digital Systems Program appears to be moving in the right direction 

to meet the near-term and mid-term needs of the NextGen program. A notable accomplishment 

in FY 10 was the development and submission of a SDS comprehensive research plan which is 

intended to consolidate the SDS research planning that has taken place and show how FAA 

objectives are being met. The baseline regulatory support programs in addition to the FY12 

research requirements provide a solid context within which to assess the research initiatives. 

It was also noted that the research currently planned will not meet the anticipated far-term needs 

of the NextGen. 

Recommendations: The FAA needs to continue to support the SDS program and ensure the 

staffing and resources needs are adequate to meet the research needs. In order to address 

NextGen far-term requirements the SDS program should develop a joint research plan with 

NASA to ensure the far-term research being done by NASA will transition to the FAA and 

address the complex system integration expectations of the NextGen by 2025. 

Finding: The SAS remains concerned about whether FAA’s internal core capability can 

successfully carry out the Software and Digital Systems research plan. It was noted that the Chief 

Scientific and Technical Advisory positions for Aircraft Computer Software and Advanced 

Avionics remain vacant. It was also noted that one hire was made at the Tech Center in FY 2010 

which puts the staff even with the FY09 with 1 additional hire planned for FY11. The SAS 

strongly asserts that the absence of a critical mass of talent in this program will lead to 

unsatisfactory research results. 

Recommendation: The SAS again recommends that FAA aggressively take action to acquire 

the specialized expertise to support this critical program. 
FAA Core Research Capability: 

Finding: The SAS is concerned that several research programs lack a sufficient level of 

technical expertise to ensure success. The Icing Program and. the Software and Digital Systems 

Program are obvious examples. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that the FAA Sponsor Organization and Performing 

Organization jointly undertake a study to quantify the core capability required for both 

organizations to support all critical research programs and take steps to obtain FAA support to 

acquire the needed core capability. 

The Impact of Computers/Automation on Aircraft Safety

Finding: The SAS noted the challenges related to obtaining the optimum balance between the 

role and power of the pilot and of the automation systems on the aircraft along with the optimal 

method of information display to the pilot. The challenges increase as computers and 

Automation Systems become more powerful. These same challenges and issues apply to the 

increasing levels of automation being introduced into the Air Traffic Management Systems on 

the ground. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that FAA consider the need for additional research to 

ensure that the optimum balance between the power of the pilot and of the automation systems. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that FAA consider the need for additional research to 

devise better, more fool-proof methods of testing automation systems for fault detection as well 

as for single and multiple fault survivability. 

Rotorcraft Research

Finding: The Subcommittee is pleased to see the rotorcraft research work being conducted in a 

coordinated effort with the Army as was recommended. The research supporting addressing 

tiltrotor safety assurance approach is very much needed. 

Recommendation: The Fly-by-Wire Research work being done in support of the certification 

approach for the advanced tiltrotor Bell 609 aircraft should be accelerated to assure it is rapidly 

transitioned to guidance and regulatory material. 

FAA Center of Excellence for General Aviation Research: CGAR

Finding: The SAS continues to be impressed with the research activities at the COE for GA 

Research. The CGAR is another example of how cost sharing arrangements, complemented by 

FAA management competence and leadership, can be an effective way to conduct relevant 

research and advance the knowledge of FAA staff. 
Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue to support relevant research activities at CGAR. 

Finding: The UAS/Conventional Aircraft certification requirements matrix developed at a COE 

appeared to be of value to the UAS community. It was not clear as to why the matrix is not yet 

publicly available. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee requests further details on the public availability and 

intended use of the UAS matrix. 
Subcommittee Presentation – Human Factors Subcommittee – Chair/Christoper Wickens 

(Amy Pritchett presented for Dr. Wickens)

Background: Previous recommendation and FAA response letter dated January 29, 2010. 

Recommendation: Continue to place strong emphasis on human factors issues, as reflected in the 

Human System Integration Roadmap 

FAA Response: We agree that the Human System Integration (HSI) Roadmap is pivotal to 

addressing human factors issues for NextGen. ATO-P Office of Human Factors Research and 

Engineering (AJP-61) is identifying and tracking areas for improvement in the next annual 

update to start in the second quarter of FY 2010, and will continue to keep the Human Factors 

Subcommittee abreast of these activities. 

Finding (1): As noted in the the FAA’s response to this recommendation, human factors is 

receiving gradually increasing emphasis as the FAA moves forward with NextGen. In particular, 

this evidence was provided by: 

• A sustained high budgeting level in critical human factors research areas, both within Flight 

Deck and Air Traffic , particularly with regard to self separation including the various 

options for delegating responsibilities to the flight crew, and air-ground integration (and 

their implications for human-automation interaction), as well as the F&E budgeting for the 

controller workforce. 

• The January meeting, held with Steve Bradford, that initiated discussions into key needs for 

R,E & D in NextGen to address human factors issues within. 

• The human factors portfolio about which we were briefed provides a very suitable vehicle for 

integrating and disseminating HF research to the wider NextGen design community. 

• The emphasis in the FAA’s response on understanding pilot and controller response to offnominal events. 

Recommendation (1a): Continue the progress toward deeper involvement of human factors in 

NextGen planning and research. We believe that continued development of the HSI roadmap is a 

major vehicle for making this happen. However, this planning effort must also extend beyond the 

research planning focus of AJP-61 to an extensive review of NextGen plans for the need to 

address human factors issues. This review should consider where assumptions about human 

performance in future NextGen operations establish technical and programmatic risks that need 

to be mitigated by a risk management strategy that preemptively identifies and seeks mitigations 

to the most likely and significant risks. Likewise, this planning effort must plan for the key 

decision points and critical path items contingent upon addressing human factors in NextGen 

development. 

 

Recommendation (1b): We recommend that the NextGen I&I office (AJP-A) vigorously pursue 

the appointment of a full time position for Chief Systems Engineer for-Human Factors. This 

position must be given the responsibility and authority to examine NextGen plans for situations 

where human factors considerations must be addressed, both to meet the NextGen plans as 

articulated, and to mitigate technical and program risks established by assumptions about human 
performance. In addition, this position should serve to foster the appropriate application of 

human factors knowledge throughout NextGen developments, as well as identifying areas 

needing research. Thus, this position will additionally serve as a vital link between the research 

focus of AJP-61 and development and engineering aspects of NextGen developments applying 

human factors. We recommend that AJP-61 personnel have input in assessing the qualifications 

of potential hires for this position 

Recommendation (1c): As we have in the past, we recommend that every effort be made to 

select a permanent replacement for the head of AJP-61, following the departure of Karlin Toner. 

Recommendation (1d): As we have in the past (September Rec 1c), we recommend that the 

subcommittee be briefed on two critical areas with HF components (but outside the funding lines 

of AJP-61): (1) Human factors aspects of the weather program by AJP-68, and (2) concepts of 

operations and research by AJP-66. We recognize that such briefings could not be scheduled for 

the recent March meeting because of time constraints. 

Recommendation (1e): Assure that the new human factors research portfolio makes contact 

with (articulates in general form) all of those HF efforts within the FAA that lie outside of the 

direct funding line of AJP-61. 

Recommendation (1f): We recommend that the current FAA research program continue to 

follow the guidance of the Administrator's response, and insure that human in the loop 

simulations include off-nominal events, and focus on evaluating pilot and controller responses to 

those events. 

Background: Previous recommendation and FAA response letter dated January 29, 2010. 

Recommendation: Continue the excellent progress of collaboration with NASA’s Integrated 

Intelligent Flight Deck project, within the Aviation Safety Program. 

FAA Response: We agree and AJP-61 will continue collaboration to ensure involvement with 

the NASA Aviation Safety Program’s Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck Project with particular 

emphasis on applications such as merging and spacing and closely spaced parallel operations. 

We will also emphasize transitioning NASA research products to FAA for integration as part of 

our NextGen Air Ground Integration research efforts. 

Finding (2): We were fully satisfied with the FAA’s response that such collaboration remains in 

force and is expanding. In particular the research portfolio of Flight Deck NextGen projects 

reflects a very high level of coordination with and FAA funding of research performed by NASA 

that leverages their expertise and resources. 

 

Recommendation: Continue this line of collaboration; in particular, we hope that the FAA will 

soon exploit the results of the FAA-funded NASA project that provides recommendations 

regarding ATC priority research issues for NextGen. 
Finding (3): The subcommittee received a series of excellent briefings from human factors 

researchers at MITRE, regarding HITL simulations of various concepts that will appear in 

NextGen. From this briefing it appeared that the FAA, through AJP-61 has taken a good step 

forward for keeping closely in touch with the conduct and products of this high quality and 

NextGen-relevant human factors-related research. This briefing also provided an opportunity for 

AJP-61 staff to learn about MITRE CAASD research in related areas, and establish direct 

contacts. 

Recommendation: The FAA (via AJP-61) should continue the coordination and look for 

opportunities to progress the coordination with MITRE, as much of it appears to fit directly into 

issues within the HSI roadmap, and has profound implications for future concepts (e.g., potential 

increase in controller workload, resulting from the more rapid updates associated with ADS-B 

driven displays.) 
Subcommittee Presentation – NAS Operations Subcommittee – Chair/Victor Lebacqz

General 

 Finding 

3⁄4 The subcommittee held its meeting at the MIT Lincoln Laboratory, and heard 

briefings on MIT/LL’s surveillance research, weather forecasting research, 

weather-ATM integration research, and air traffic control tower research. 

Additionally, briefings were given on the FAA’s PARTNER program, the FAA’s 

RED budget, and the FAA’s NAS Operations PPT research. The MIT/LL 

briefings were at an excellent level of technical depth, and gave the subcommittee 

members unusually clear insight into the way some of this work for the FAA is 

being conducted. 

Safety and Risk Management 

 Finding 

3⁄4 The committee was briefed on two programs which will require new approaches 

to evaluating safety: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Airspace Access, and 

Staffed NextGen Tower (SNT). Both introduce new operating paradigms, with 

new and significantly different human roles and responsibilities. Overly 

conservative requirements, with insufficient analysis, will inhibit the addition of 

new capabilities. The subcommittee reaffirms the statement in the October 19, 

2009 REDAC letter to the Administrator that “there does not appear to be a clear 

system-level process for managing risk and arbitrating safety requirements for 

new systems or procedures.” 

 Recommendation 

3⁄4 The NASOPS subcommittee recommends an independent, in-depth review of the 

safety standards and processes being applied to new systems, with appropriate 

risk management applications to safety. 

NextGen R&D Budget 

 Finding 

3⁄4 The budget briefing contained the RED budget request for FY11 and one line 

(BLI 1A08) from the F&E budget devoted to NextGen, but information from 

other CIP BLIs, such as those for the NextGen Solution Sets, was not 

forthcoming. Clearly, R&D (as defined by OMB) for NextGen is being 

performed in these other lines (e.g. RWI). Without complete budgetary and 

programmatic context of the FAA’s R&D program, NASOPS is unable to give 

balanced advice on the overall allocation of R&D efforts and whether the most 

important work is being undertaken. NASOPS has raised this issue before. 

 Recommendation 

3⁄4 All Research and Development for NextGen should be presented to NASOPS, 

which would include that performed in funding under Solution Sets, 

Transformational Programs, and/or cross-cutting R&D 

Long-Term NextGen Research 

 Findings 
3⁄4 The majority of NextGen R&D presented emphasizes Part 121 NextGen 

implementation, with little attention focused on on-demand commercial air 

carriers, air taxis, charter, business, corporate, private and other GA operators. 

 Without addressing the unique aspects of these operators, NextGen 

implementation may be delayed and opportunities for innovation will be missed. 

3⁄4 The FAA’s R&D investments are weighted to enable the mid-term 

implementation of NextGen capabilities. The leads for longer term NextGen 

outcomes require sustained investment beginning now to ensure timely 

implementation. The subcommittee is concerned that these areas are inadequately 

funded, and that the is FAA not planning to leverage innovation in the private 

sector (e.g., using incentives such as the “X prize” , public-private collaborations, 

or the establishment of notional performance requirements) for these long-term 

objectives. 

 Recommendations 

3⁄4 Develop an overall R&D strategy, identifying top research issues and key 

decisions the research will drive, for all classes of aviation, and recommend the 

overall strategy for fostering and maturing research and development for both 

mid-term and long-term time periods. The strategy should include R&D focused 

on activities in Parts 135 and 91, as well as UAS and rotorcraft operations. 

3⁄4 This R&D should explicitly include consideration of how to incentivize users to 

equip 

Concept Development 

 Finding 

3⁄4 There remains a need to better understand the overall context of the research 

needs and fit of the Concept Development work being done relative to NextGen 

development. Additionally, this area has been cut in funding, contrary to previous 

recommendations. 

 Recommendations 

3⁄4 Provide the subcommittee future briefings on context and fit between the concept 

development and exploration research and the NextGen plans and Enterprise 

Architecture. Specific focus on connecting the research to the solution sets and 

OI’s is needed. 

3⁄4 As was recommended by NASOPS previously, more resources should be devoted 

to this activity. Current funding does not permit far term concept development 

(e.g. > 2018), or research on concepts not currently in the portfolio (e.g. dynamic 

airspace resectorization, TFM evolution ConOps, 4-D trajectory management.) 

Weather and Weather-ATM Integration 

 Findings 

3⁄4 The MIT/LL briefings were a “deep dive” into weather forecast technology and 

the interaction with TFMM mechanisms. The committee was very pleased with 

the quality of the work. The evolution of weather research at MIT/LL, NOAA, 

ESRL, and NCAR into development of useful products now including CoSPA is a 

testimonial to the value of this research, and MIT/LL staff did an excellent job 

noting the inclusivity of efforts among these labs. 
3⁄4 These briefings showed progress in addressing some of the recommendations of 

the WAIWG by the work at MIT/LL, but the remainder of the weather-ATM 

integration R&D being accomplished elsewhere needs to be addressed in this 

regard. For example, the committee was told that the FY10 funding for the RWI 

and NNEW areas has been delayed due to internal FAA processes. 

 Recommendations 

3⁄4 NASOPS will request a complete FAA weather R&D briefing, with a strategy for 

addressing the WAIWG recommendations and equivalent levels of detail for work 

being funded elsewhere, at an upcoming meeting. 

Traffic Manager Selection and Training 

 Finding 

3⁄4 Traffic managers are concerned with managing the scarce NAS resources to best 

meet the needs of NAS users. They have become specialized in their roles as 

managers of the NAS assets and flows. This is a very different job from that 

performed by controllers, but traffic managers are nonetheless selected from the 

ranks of the Air Traffic Controllers and were originally selected with the 

controller skill set in mind. We were encouraged to hear that the FAA human 

factors research is exploring (mid-term) NextGen controller selection criteria and 

training, but, there is currently little or no human factors focus on the unique and 

growing role of Air Traffic Managers. 

 Recommendation 

3⁄4 Initiate a human factors research program to identify the specific skill set required 

for Air Traffic Managers in the present and 2018 NextGen systems. This research 

should culminate in selection and training standards for Air Traffic Managers. 

3⁄4 Initiate a research effort to identify the skill sets required for Air Traffic 

Controllers and Airspace Managers for 2025 and beyond, since the people who 

will be hired in the next 5-10 years will still be in these jobs in that time frame, 

but the role of controllers airspace managers will undergo significant changes in 

that timeframe. 

PARTNER Program 

 Findings 

3⁄4 NASOPS was impressed with the breadth of projects in the FAA’s COE E&E 

program PARTNER. Overall funding has increased to $8M for the current FY, 

and the funding appears to be stable. A strong cadre of partner universities 

participates in PARTNER with good support from industry in the projects. 

NASOPS did not, however, receive sufficient insight into the overall program to 

judge quality and portfolio adequacy. 

 Recommendation 

3⁄4 NASOPS requests “deep dive” briefings on PARTNER to (a) understand how it 

fits into the overall E&E program, (b) assess ATM-related projects being 

conducted, and (c) understand PARTNER processes for technology transfer 
Subcommittee Presentation – Airports Subcommittee – Chair/Ed Gervais

REDAC Airport Subcommittee - 

 Spring 2010 Recommendations 

Finding: The subcommittee appreciates the efforts of FAA to assess new technologies (new 

foaming agents, quantity requirements and delivery systems) in reducing the amount of ARFF 

agents to extinguish fires. 

Recommendation #1: Standards need to be developed from the culmination of test fires to 

establish firm requirements for the amount of ARFF agent needed at US Airports that are 

receiving NLA service. 

FOD & Wildlife Detection Systems: 

Finding: The subcommittee is pleased with the advances made on FOD detection equipment that 

is focused on performance standards, not product endorsements. 

Finding: The subcommittee is also pleased with the advances made with wildlife detection 

systems that is focused on criteria to alert tower personnel when avian or other wildlife presence 

is detected, as opposed to developing tools that would require full-time attention to monitoring 

devices. 

 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA partner with industry to implement 

best management practices in implementing new systems, and to develop performance and 

specification-based Advisory Circulars on these topics. 

Runway Friction & Condition Reporting: 

Finding: Friction research is coalescing with the Takeoff and Landing Performance Advisory 

Committee – Aviation Rulemaking Committee (the so-called “TALPA- ARC”). 

Participation from across the industry: 

Airports 

Airplane Manufacturers 

Airplane Operators (Parts 121 / 125 / 135 & 91) 

Regulatory Authorities 

Industry Associations 

The Goal is to establish a unified and standardized means of expressing runway friction in a way 

that will communicate braking action in to pilots and which will establish a single means by 

which surface contamination can be assessed and communicated. 

Recommendation: FAA should actively push for adoption worldwide 

Basic Steps of Runway Assessment: 

• Determine whether a runway is dry, wet or contaminated 

• If contaminated, identify the type, depth and percent of coverage 
• Determine the contaminate / runway surface temperature, or OAT if surface temperature 

is unavailable 

• Determine the Runway Condition Code 

• Report the Code and the Field Condition Description 

• Pilots will use the Runway Condition Code when they calculate landing performance 

requirements. 

.. a single, uniform, worldwide method will eliminate confusion. 

Alternative Paint and Marking materials: 

Finding: The subcommittee is pleased with the work of FAA on the effectiveness of various 

paints and markings that on runway, taxiway and apron surfaces. 

 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that future guidance on the application and 

effectiveness of proven materials should be included in Advisory Circulars and / or Engineering 

Briefs so that airports could benefit from the most up-to-date information available. 

Low Cost Ground Surveillance System:

Finding: The development of a low cost ground surveillance system by FAA shows remarkable 

effectiveness for both surveillance and promoting awareness of proximity to active runways. 

 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the FAA R&D Branch engage other lines 

of business (such as ATO) for possible synergies. 

GPS-based Ground Vehicle Navigation:

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA reach out to the Airport GIS 

Program to develop future technology and system requirements. 

Recommendation: In the area of digitizing airport surface and PDARS data, FAA should seek 

out vendors already integrating ASDE-X and PDARS into SIMMOD simulation software for 

possible applications. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA reach out to the Airport GIS 

Program to develop future technology and system requirements. 

Recommendation: In the area of digitizing airport surface and PDARS data, FAA should seek 

out vendors already integrating ASDE-X and PDARS into SIMMOD simulation software for 

possible applications. 
Subcommittee Presentation – Env. & Energy Subcommittee -Chair/Steve Alterman

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

Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) met in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 24-25, 

2010. Following is the report on the outcome of this meeting. 

Introduction – A review of the activities of the FAA Office of Environment and Energy 

(AEE) indicated that current priorities continue to remain intact, with an emphasis on NextGen 

and support of ICAO CAEP activities again dominating the Environment and Energy agenda. 

 In carrying out these program priorities, the Subcommittee notes that increased funding 

for the CLEEN program could accelerate achieving a number of environmental goals and that a 

small amount of additional funding will enable the work on the Noise Roadmap to continue at a 

faster pace. 

 The Subcommittee applauds the efforts of Environment and Energy to work 

cooperatively both within the FAA structure and with NASA. Stronger partnerships with the 

Department of Defense in the area of alternative fuel development and with the Environmental 

Protection Agency were strongly encouraged. 

 The Subcommittee appreciates the responses to the recommendations made in September 

2009 and accepts the decisions made. Specifically with respect to the decision that increased 

ACCRI funding is not necessary at this time, the subcommittee agrees, but requests that this 

issue be revisited later this year to determine if further funding is necessary at that time. 

 Finally, a consistent question to be addressed is whether the existing committee structure 

is effective. The answer is “yes” and we suggest that this question be dropped from future 

reports. 

 

Recommendations – The recommendations of the Subcommittee are broken down into 

two sections – the first recommendation is intended to be included in the REDAC submittal to 

the FAA Administrator, while the remainder of the recommendations is intended to address 

specific areas of Subcommittee discussion. 

(A) Recommendation for Inclusion in the REDAC Submittal to the Administrator 

Finding: In reviewing future year budget estimates for environmental research, the 

subcommittee noted that the proposed funding levels are essentially flat for the years 2013 and 

beyond. Since, as a practical matter, the costs of doing business in these years will increase, this 

“flat-lining” leads to an effective reduction in research funds available while the research needs 

and complexities are increasing. 

Recommendation: While the subcommittee understands the problems in 

projecting out-year funding levels, we recommend that out-year budgets at least 
provide a factor for inflation in order not to project a practical decrease in funding 

levels. In addition, the Agency should attempt to communicate to the 

subcommittee its actual needs in future years so effective advice can be given. 

(B) Recommendations to be Included in the REDAC Report 

(1) Finding: The subcommittee noted the progress being made in the development of a new 

noise roadmap. At the same time, it appears that there is a funding shortfall that has the potential 

of slowing progress in this area. Specifically, there does not appear to be funding to conduct 

required community surveys. 

Recommendation: The Office of Environment and Energy should work with the 

Office of Airports to determine whether funding in the airports research program 

to fund the $1.5 million necessary to conduct community noise surveys is 

available. 

(2) Finding: The subcommittee notes, and is encouraged by, the continuing cooperation with 

NASA in a variety of environmental research areas. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the growing cooperation 

between the FAA and NASA in the area of environmental research must continue 

and expand. This expansion is especially important in the Agency’s relationship 

with NASA’s Airspace Systems and Fundamental Aero programs. 

(3) Finding: The subcommittee notes that the FAA and the EPA appear to be better engaged in 

addressing aviation environmental issues. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that cooperation between the 

FAA and the EPA should expand. Specifically, the FAA should request that the 

EPA actively participate in the REDAC Environmental Subcommittee. 

(4) Finding: The subcommittee finds that the cooperation between the Office of Environment 

and Energy and ATO is an excellent example of breaking down barriers between Agency 

organizations. One specific area of cooperation that merits mention is the requirement for NEPA 

compliance in the modernization effort. The subcommittee appreciates these continuing efforts 

to integrate environmental considerations into operational decisions. 

 

 Recommendation: Building on the growing relationship between the operational 

and environmental components of NextGen will be crucial as the Agency moves forward with its 

modernization efforts. This intra-agency cooperation should therefore continue and expand. In 

order to facilitate the subcommittee’s assessment of ongoing environmental research needs, we 

recommend and request that ATO provide a briefing to the subcommittee on exactly how 

environmental considerations are being integrated into the NextGen models. 
(5) Finding: AEE’s research efforts to support the ICAO/CAEP process continue to be a 

priority. The issues being considered in the ICAO process are increasingly complex and 

need to be informed by good science. Communication of these efforts to the stakeholder 

community is essential, especially the explanations of how the research underpinnings are 

integrated into the formation of the U.S. policy. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue communicating strategic planning 

and the status of research efforts that inform environmental policy decisions. 

Specifically, it is recommended that the FAA should conduct a workshop for 

stakeholders, including the international community, to communicate the status 

and underlying assumptions of the use of the Agency’s Aviation Environmental 

Portfolio Management Tool (APMT). 

(6) Finding: The PARTNER Center of Excellence appears to be maturing and making 

excellent contributions to the environmental research effort. We continue to remain 

concerned about proposed Congressional language in the FAA Reauthorization bill that 

calls for the establishment of a new Center of Excellence on alternative fuels. The 

existing PARTNER structure already has the capacity to conduct this research. 

 Recommendations: If an additional Center of Excellence is established, existing 

COE’s should be encouraged to compete for selection and the Agency should consider the 

additional costs associated with administering a new COE when conducting its source selection. 

 
Attachment 4 

May 10, 2010 

The Honorable J. Randolph Babbitt 

Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dear Administrator Babbitt: 

On behalf of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), I am enclosing the summary findings 

and recommendations from the fall meetings of the standing REDAC Subcommittees (Aircraft Safety, NAS Operations, 

Environment and Energy, Airports, and Human Factors). 

In response to a request from the Senior VP for NextGen, the REDAC is planning to form a working group to investigate the 

dynamics of change of the NAS. The objective is to identify strategies and research which would increase the probability of 

success of NextGen. 

The full committee also made the following general observations: 

Concern on Level of Technical Expertise in Key Areas - The FAA has a unique need for expertise in key areas such as critical 

software and digital systems and human factors both for certification and acquisition. The REDAC reiterates its concern that 

there has been inadequate progress in developing the core competency and technical workforce in this and other key areas. The 

problem is recognized by the agency but progress has been limited due to the inability of the FAA to compete on the market for 

highly desirable talent. The REDAC recommends maintaining the priority in this area and investigating internal approaches for 

workforce development in key areas including hiring high potential junior staff with “fast track” training and responsibility paths. 

NextGen Technical and Program Risk Management - The REDAC observes that much of the NextGen planning has been success 

based and it is unclear if technical and program risks have been fully identified. The REDAC recommends that the FAA should 

review NextGen plans to identify assumptions which establish technical and program risk in key areas such as human factors and 

software certification. These risks should be mitigated by risk management strategies which validate or dispute assumptions 

through early research and identify mitigations to the most likely and significant risks. In addition, there should be consideration 

given to how the NextGen plans would adapt to unfavorable research and development test results. 

Need for a Comprehensive View of FAA Research and Development Portfolio - The REDAC has had difficulty meeting its 

responsibility to evaluate the FAA R&D portfolio due to the complexity of how research and development are funded and 

managed within the agency for historical and operational reasons. It would be useful to the REDAC and the Agency to have a 

comprehensive mapping of all research and development related activity. 

Nav Lean - The REDAC was encouraged by the plan to investigate Lean processes for certification, safety and operational 

approval motivated, in part, by prior REDAC concerns regarding excessive safety standards for new systems. The REDAC looks 

forward to the results of this study and would like to support this effort. 

We hope that these observations are useful to you and the agency. The REDAC stands ready to assist if there is any way we can 

help in our common objectives of improving the safety, efficiency and capability of the air transportation system. 

Sincerely, 

R. John Hansman 

Chair, FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Enclosure 
Recommendations on the FY 2012 R&D Portfolio 

Subcommittee on Airports

The Subcommittee was pleased to learn that the funding for the Airport Technology Branch was 

$22.47M in the Omnibus Appropriation, that staff at the Tech Center are creating 10-year 

research plans for both the Safety and Pavements area, and that the many projects underway are 

being handled responsibly and with obvious expertise. 

Finding (1): In the ARFF area, the subcommittee expressed significant interest in the research 

to develop standards for determining the amount of agent needed on New Large Aircraft (NLA). 

The subcommittee appreciated the point that new technologies may offset the need for new agent 

types, quantities, or delivery systems, but the highest priority remains to complete the research 

that will establish if FAA needs to change its requirements for the amount of firefighting agent 

needed for U.S. airports receiving NLA service. 

Recommendation: The FAA should continue the high priority ARFF research to answer the 

question on the amount of firefighting agent require for airports receiving NLA service. 

Finding (2): The Subcommittee was pleased with the advances made on FOD detection 

equipment, and is pleased that the research is focusing on performance standards rather than 

individual product acceptance. Likewise, in the area of wildlife detection equipment, the 

research is aiming at criteria that will provide alerts to tower personnel as opposed to demanding 

full time attention to what amounts to yet another monitoring device. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that in the case of both the FOD detection 

and the Wildlife detection radars the FAA provide guidance on best management practices in 

implementing and operating the systems along with the system performance specifications.. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee also found that FAA's friction research is coalescing with the 

Takeoff and Landing Performance Advisory Committee. Research is close to concluding a 

single runway friction assessment tool that will resolve pilot inputs, airport operations inputs and 

even friction measuring devices into a single classification to assess and declare the condition of 

a runway. 

Recommendation: FAA should support the implementation of the TALPA-ARC method and 

should promote its use worldwide. 

Finding (4): The subcommittee was pleased with the presentation from the FAA's National 

Planning and Programming Office (APP) on the progress of the NextGen program and the 

impact on airports. The Subcommittee believes this is a very important area, and the brief 

demonstrated that FAA has considered the recommendations stated in previous REDAC reports. 

Recommendation: The FAA should continue to provide updates at future subcommittee 

meetings on NextGen and its impact on airports. 
Finding (5): The Subcommittee was pleased with the research in the area of alternative 

paint /marking materials. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that future guidance should contain 

information on how to apply the materials. Also, the subcommittee recommends that guidance 

on the use of Type I / III glass beads in airport paints should clearly state which type would be 

more appropriate for airport use. There is currently a disparity in the existing guidance and 

recent research results, and airports would benefit by having the latest, up-to-date information on 

this topic. 

Finding (6): The subcommittee also found that the research on developing a low cost ground 

surveillance (LCGS) system for airports is very promising. The purpose of the research is to 

review and evaluate LCGS systems, with a focus on how they can be used by airports to improve 

airport surveillance. The subcommittee commented that the proposed Airports solution appears 

to be much more robust than that being investigated in Air Traffic Organization's LCGS 

program. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommended that whatever solution is found for the 

LCGS program needs to have ATO involvement, since both systems may be used by either 

airport operations or ATC. The subcommittee felt that it is critical that LCGS be focused on the 

airport operator. 

Finding (7): In the GPS ground-vehicle navigation project, a project has been initiated to 

evaluate current technologies, provide a list of implementation and operational 

recommendations, and to provide cost estimates for equipment procurement. The subcommittee 

found that the research currently underway is well executed. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the research team work with the 

Airport GIS program to develop future technology / system requirements (e.g. maps in vehicle 

display). The GPS ground vehicle research team is also investigating the challenge of how the 

equipment might provide zone / proximity alerts to the driver of a vehicle operating on an airport 

with a complex geometry. The subcommittee recommends that human factors issues should be 

considered when determining how often a driver is alerted. A system that provides constant 

alerts may give drivers a false sense of security and cause them to not be as vigilant as they 

otherwise would be when traversing an airport. 

Finding (8): The subcommittee is pleased that the research aimed at developing an airport and 

airspace simulation model is being coordinated with the Airports GIS program staff. The main 

elements of this project are to: build the airport database; improve the digitization of airports; 

develop a process to use PDARS data; and build airport latitude and longitude data in a way that 

is consistent with the directives of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-18B (Airport Data – 

Geographic Information System Standards). 
Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA follow-up with a vendor who 

may have already been able to incorporate ASDE-X and PDARS data into typical simulation 

software. 

Finding (9): Pavement research continues to provide benefits to the airport industry. 

Recommendation (a): In the area of Alkali-Silica Reactivity (ASR) testing, the subcommittee 

recommends that the existing research projects construct additional slabs of known non-reactive 

aggregates that have been appropriately screened with the proper ASTM testing protocols as a 

control group. This approach would provide data to indicate if the anti-icing agents are causing a 

deleterious reaction or exacerbating the deleterious reaction of inferior materials. Preliminary 

research through the IPRF indicates that improper screening of aggregates may in fact pose a 

greater threat to deleterious reactions in concrete than the anti-icer itself. 

Recommendation (b): Additionally, the subcommittee recommends that the Technical Center 

consider research into the load-transfer effectiveness of dowelled and un-dowelled pavements. It 

is recommended the FAA consider constructing "dummy" contraction joints following the 

specifications listed in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6E, and measure the load transfer 

across these joints. This data would also provide engineers valuable information when designing 

and specifying joint types for airfield pavements. The national costs for using steel dowels in 

pavement construction are rising, and research into this subject may help airport operators reduce 

future construction costs by eliminating unnecessary design features. 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety

The Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety (SAS) of the FAA Research, Engineering and 

Development Committee (REDAC) met at MITRE’s Center for Advanced Aviation Systems 

Development on March 9-11, 2010. The meeting included tours of the CAASD Integrated ATM 

Lab with demonstrations of CDTI/ADS-B Applications and Runway Incursion-Flight Deckbased Direct Warning. The primary purpose of the meeting was to review FY12 Research 

Requirements and included detailed reviews, “Deep Dives” into several research programs. 

General Observations 

• The SAS again found the presentations given by FAA managers and researchers to be of 

uniformly high quality. 

• The method of summarization and content presentation of the many complex topics 

continues to improve and were readily comprehensible at a management level. 

• The prioritization process of research proposals appears to be effective. 

• The SAS believes that the portfolio content is substantially correct, but is concerned that 

several research programs lack a sufficient level of technical expertise to assure success. 
• The SAS found no programs that should be eliminated. 

• The extent to which FAA leverages the work and expertise of other government agencies, 

industry and academia continues to be an effective way to conduct relevant research. 

• The SAS finds FAA to be extremely responsive in responding to subcommittee 

comments and recommendations. 

• Specific Findings and Recommendations on individual areas of research reviewed and 

discussed by the subcommittee follow. 

Finding (1): (Icing Program) The Aircraft Icing program is well defined and poised to deliver 

high value. The icing program has built important collaborative research relationships with other 

FAA programs, NASA, Canadian research organizations, European research organizations and 

the aerospace industry. This is to be commended as it will enable the FAA to expand its icing 

research portfolio and increase their impact by conducting collaborative research programs on 

high priority programs of mutual interest. The high ice-water content, engine icing program is 

such a high priority program and leverages many of these relationships. This program addresses 

the engine malfunctions due to ice crystals that have occurred on many commercial flights in 

convective weather primarily in the tropics. The Appendix C research including the work on 3D 

ice accretion and icing aerodynamics certification methods is well conceived and is important to 

the FAA mission of flight safety. This program is currently building an international coalition 

and research plan and this should be encouraged. Finally, aircraft icing is an important safety 

area where the FAA has significant interests and responsibility. The icing program has several 

high priority programs and very limited in-house expertise. They rely heavily on partners and 

grantee/contractors to manage their programs. Concern exists within the Subcommittee 

regarding the lack of FAA “bench strength” in this important area. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue to support the high priority high ice-water 

content, engine icing research program and support the Appendix C research on 3D ice accretion. 

The Subcommittee recommends that FAA review the current “bench strength” and take 

appropriate hiring action to assure continuity in technical strength well into the future in the 

aircraft icing research area. 

Finding (2): (Weather In The Cockpit) The Weather in the Cockpit program appears to be on 

the right track using a gap analysis to help define the needed research requirements. A concern 

remains regarding the planned timing of research completion in 2015 intended to support the mid 

term NextGen implementation of 2018. 

Recommendation: Assure the research deliverables are progressively released to enable 

industry to respond to them in formulating solutions to the Weather in the Cockpit imperative. 

Finding (3): (Propulsion Malfunction Research) The Subcommittee found the planned 

Propulsion Malfunction research plan would benefit from deep engagement with engine and 

airframe manufacturers contributing their knowledge & expertise in this area. 
Recommendation: The FAA should develop an industry partnership approach to assist & 

accelerate the Propulsion Malfunction research activity. 

Finding (4): (Unmanned Aircraft System) The ongoing Unmanned Aircraft System research is 

urgently needed to define a path to permit safe operation of UAS vehicles in the NAS. Although 

this broad and difficult area has been hampered by several leadership and organizational changes 

in the past few years, the SAS has noted good traction in the recent past. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the research sponsoring office & the 

research performing technical community continue to jointly refine the development of the 

research requirements and firmly establish the optimum path to achieve the important goal of 

enabling UAS operation in the NAS. 

Finding (5): (ASIAS) The SAS found that the ASIAS research project has made significant 

progress and continues to be directly responsive to the need of safety analysts within the FAA 

and aviation industry. The subcommittee commends the work being done by MITRE CAASD 

and notes the increased degree of trust that has developed from ASIAS industry participants. 

ASIAS is clearly an integral component of a Safety Management System designed to bring 

today’s safe aviation system to even higher levels of safety. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that the FAA continue efforts to increase the number 

of airline participants and ensure that the ASIAS program continues to be a safety tool that is 

increasingly used to identify emerging risks before they become potential safety issues. 

Finding (6): (Conduct of Research and Development) The SAS commends FAA for the 

advancing the development of a monthly reporting template to monitor progress in achieving 

measurable milestones and deliverables of all research activities in the Aviation Safety R&D 

portfolio. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that FAA adopt a monthly reporting template and 

move quickly to implement it across the entire Aircraft Safety R&D portfolio. 

Finding (7): The SAS continues to believe that successful conduct of research and development 

demands a series of sponsor-performer arrangements and conditions, all of them often urged on 

FAA by various groups. 

4. Although a partnership in the execution of the research including shaping the approving 

methods and products expected is required, it is essential that the responsible sponsor 

organization have a strong voice not only in the setting of requirements – but also the 

funding authority. 

5. The responsible sponsor organization must have a strong voice in the design and 

performance of the work, and must clearly monitor and have oversight of the work so that 

meaningful results can emerge. 
6. The responsible sponsor organization must itself have the technical and management 

skills to fully understand and monitor the work of the performing organization – whether 

it is within or outside the FAA. While this cadre of expertise may need to be small, it 

must be able to understand and guide the work. Experience in R, E&D has shown that in 

the absence of such skills in FAA, the results are almost always poor. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA review the structure of the 

Aircraft Safety Research Program to ensure that the current roles of the sponsor and performing 

organizations are best suited for successful conduct of safety research. This review should 

include roles related to authority over and management of research funds. 

Finding (8): (The Proper Role of TCAS) TCAS was intended to be an independent safety net in 

the ATC system. It was recognized from the beginning that the independence would not be total, 

since TCAS depends on the Mode S data link and the barometric altimeter. However, every 

attempt was made to provide as much real separation and independence from the ATC system 

tools as possible. 

Recommendation: The SAS believes that as the community explores the closer integration of 

TCAS with other systems such as ADS-B and aircraft autopilot systems the potential safety risks 

associated with the reduction of independence need to be carefully considered. The SAS requests 

further detail from the FAA on this issue and how these potential safety risks are assessed. 

Finding (9): (Structural Integrity/Composites) The Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety considers 

the research effort on Structural Integrity/Composites to be a model program. With a very 

small but clearly expert internal FAA management resource, this effort leverages the work and 

expertise of other government agencies and the industry on a critical safety matter. The focus on 

developing standards and guidance based on theory and practical experience, and the emphasis 

on providing usable guidance to FAA people, and many others, makes this a valuable example of 

how to do things right. The Subcommittee endorses the proactive approach to composite 

structure maintenance and inspection being executed. Staying ahead of the composite aircraft 

fleet is very important to assure future continued operational safety. 

Finding (10): (FAA Facilities and Laboratories) The Aircraft Safety Subcommittee wishes to 

reemphasize an earlier recommendation on FAA funding and support for facilities and efforts 

which serve not only FAA but are also resources for the world. These facilities and efforts – 

such as much of the work of the Civil Aeromedical Institute and the William J. Hughes 

Technical Center – have a world-wide impact and contribute in important ways to the eminence 

and high reputation of FAA. Support of these efforts and increasing public knowledge and 

understanding of these activities is critical to the success of research activities in support of 

NextGen, self-separation, human factors, reduction of spacing between parallel runways, RNP, 

etc. Even in difficult budget periods, adequate funding must be provided not only for the 

modernization, care and feeding and operation of existing facilities but funding must also be 

provided to ensure that laboratories with required capabilities to support future research are 

available when needed. Precedence for the use of F&E funding for the procurement, upgrade, 

repair or operation of facilities and equipment at the Tech Center and CAMI has been 

established. The procurement of equipment for CAMI, the support of the Pavement Test Facility 
and repair of R&D facilities at the Tech Center are examples recently cited by Tech Center 

Counsel. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that FAA seriously explore creative ways 

outside of the RE&D budget to support the modernization and operation of existing laboratories 

and the establishment of laboratory capabilities to support future research requirements. 

Finding (11): (Software and Digital Systems) The Software and Digital Systems Program 

appears to be moving in the right direction to meet the near-term and mid-term needs of the 

NextGen program. A notable accomplishment in FY 10 was the development and submission of 

a SDS comprehensive research plan which is intended to consolidate the SDS research planning 

that has taken place and show how FAA objectives are being met. The baseline regulatory 

support programs in addition to the FY12 research requirements provide a solid context within 

which to assess the research initiatives. It was also noted that the research currently planned will 

not meet the anticipated far-term needs of the NextGen. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue to support the SDS program and ensure the 

staffing and resources needs are adequate to meet the research needs. In order to address 

NextGen far-term requirements the SDS program should develop a joint research plan with 

NASA to ensure the far-term research being done by NASA will transition to the FAA and 

address the complex system integration expectations of the NextGen by 2025. 

Finding (12): The SAS remains concerned about whether FAA’s internal core capability can 

successfully carry out the Software and Digital Systems research plan. It was noted that the Chief 

Scientific and Technical Advisory positions for Aircraft Computer Software and Advanced 

Avionics remain vacant. It was also noted that one hire was made at the Tech Center in FY 2010 

which puts the staff even with the FY09 with 1 additional hire planned for FY11. The SAS 

strongly asserts that the absence of a critical mass of talent in this program will lead to 

unsatisfactory research results. 

Recommendation: The SAS again recommends that FAA aggressively take action to acquire 

the specialized expertise to support this critical program. 

Finding (13): (FAA Core Research Capability) The SAS is concerned that several research 

programs lack a sufficient level of technical expertise to ensure success. The Icing Program and. 

the Software and Digital Systems Program are obvious examples. 

Recommendation: The SAS recommends that the FAA Sponsor Organization and Performing 

Organization jointly undertake a study to quantify the core capability required for both 

organizations to support all critical research programs and take steps to obtain FAA support to 

acquire the needed core capability. 

Finding (14): (The Impact of Computers/Automation on Aircraft Safety) The SAS noted the 

challenges related to obtaining the optimum balance between the role and power of the pilot and 

of the automation systems on the aircraft along with the optimal method of information display 

to the pilot. The challenges increase as computers and Automation Systems become more 
powerful. These same challenges and issues apply to the increasing levels of automation being 

introduced into the Air Traffic Management Systems on the ground. 

Recommendation (a): The SAS recommends that FAA consider the need for additional 

research to ensure that the optimum balance between the power of the pilot and of the 

automation systems. 

Recommendation (b): The SAS recommends that FAA consider the need for additional 

research to devise better, more fool-proof methods of testing automation systems for fault 

detection as well as for single and multiple fault survivability. 

Finding (15): (Rotorcraft Research) The Subcommittee is pleased to see the rotorcraft research 

work being conducted in a coordinated effort with the Army as was recommended. The research 

supporting addressing tiltrotor safety assurance approach is very much needed. 

Recommendation: The Fly-by-Wire Research work being done in support of the certification 

approach for the advanced tiltrotor Bell 609 aircraft should be accelerated to assure it is rapidly 

transitioned to guidance and regulatory material. 

Finding (16): (FAA Center of Excellence for General Aviation Research: CGAR) The SAS 

continues to be impressed with the research activities at the COE for GA Research. The CGAR 

is another example of how cost sharing arrangements, complemented by FAA management 

competence and leadership, can be an effective way to conduct relevant research and advance the 

knowledge of FAA staff. 

Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue to support relevant research activities at CGAR. 

Finding (17): The UAS/Conventional Aircraft certification requirements matrix developed at a 

COE appeared to be of value to the UAS community. It was not clear as to why the matrix is not 

yet publicly available. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee requests further details on the public availability and 

intended use of the UAS matrix. 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy

Finding (1): In reviewing future year budget estimates for environmental research, the 

subcommittee noted that the proposed funding levels are essentially flat for the years 2013 and 

beyond. Since, as a practical matter, the costs of doing business in these years will increase, this 

“flat-lining” leads to an effective reduction in research funds available while the research needs 

and complexities are increasing. 

Recommendation: While the subcommittee understands the problems in projecting out-year 

funding levels, we recommend that out-year budgets at least provide a factor for inflation in 

order not to project a practical decrease in funding levels. In addition, the Agency should 
attempt to communicate to the subcommittee its actual needs in future years so effective advice 

can be given. 

Finding (2): The subcommittee noted the progress being made in the development of a new 

noise roadmap. At the same time, it appears that there is a funding shortfall that has the potential 

of slowing progress in this area. Specifically, there does not appear to be funding to conduct 

required community surveys. 

Recommendation: The Office of Environment and Energy should work with the Office of 

Airports to determine whether funding in the airports research program to fund the $1.5 million 

necessary to conduct community noise surveys is available. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee notes, and is encouraged by, the continuing cooperation with 

NASA in a variety of environmental research areas. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that the growing cooperation between the 

FAA and NASA in the area of environmental research must continue and expand. This 

expansion is especially important in the Agency’s relationship with NASA’s Airspace Systems 

and Fundamental Aero programs. 

Finding (4): The subcommittee notes that the FAA and the EPA appear to be better engaged in 

addressing aviation environmental issues. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends that cooperation between the FAA and the 

EPA should expand. Specifically, the FAA should request that the EPA actively participate in 

the REDAC Environmental Subcommittee. 

Finding (5): The subcommittee finds that the cooperation between the Office of Environment 

and Energy and ATO is an excellent example of breaking down barriers between Agency 

organizations. One specific area of cooperation that merits mention is the requirement for NEPA 

compliance in the modernization effort. The subcommittee appreciates these continuing efforts 

to integrate environmental considerations into operational decisions. 

Recommendation: Building on the growing relationship between the operational and 

environmental components of NextGen will be crucial as the Agency moves forward with its 

modernization efforts. This intra-agency cooperation should therefore continue and expand. In 

order to facilitate the subcommittee’s assessment of ongoing environmental research needs, we 

recommend and request that ATO provide a briefing to the subcommittee on exactly how 

environmental considerations are being integrated into the NextGen models. 

Finding (6): AEE’s research efforts to support the ICAO/CAEP process continue to be a 

priority. The issues being considered in the ICAO process are increasingly complex and need to 

be informed by good science. Communication of these efforts to the stakeholder community is 

essential, especially the explanations of how the research underpinnings are integrated into the 

formation of the U.S. policy. 
Recommendation: The FAA needs to continue communicating strategic planning and the status 

of research efforts that inform environmental policy decisions. Specifically, it is recommended 

that the FAA should conduct a workshop for stakeholders, including the international 

community, to communicate the status and underlying assumptions of the use of the Agency’s 

Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT). 

Finding (7): The PARTNER Center of Excellence appears to be maturing and making excellent 

contributions to the environmental research effort. We continue to remain concerned about 

proposed Congressional language in the FAA Reauthorization bill that calls for the establishment 

of a new Center of Excellence on alternative fuels. The existing PARTNER structure already 

has the capacity to conduct this research. 

Recommendation: If an additional Center of Excellence is established, existing COE’s should 

be encouraged to compete for selection and the Agency should consider the additional costs 

associated with administering a new COE when conducting its source selection. 

Subcommittee on Human Factors

Background: Previous recommendation and FAA response letter dated January 29, 2010. 

Recommendation: Continue to place strong emphasis on human factors issues, as reflected in the 

Human System Integration Roadmap 

FAA Response: We agree that the Human System Integration (HSI) Roadmap is pivotal to 

addressing human factors issues for NextGen. ATO-P Office of Human Factors Research and 

Engineering (AJP-61) is identifying and tracking areas for improvement in the next annual 

update to start in the second quarter of FY 2010, and will continue to keep the Human Factors 

Subcommittee abreast of these activities. 

Finding (1): As noted above in the FAA’s response to this recommendation, human factors is 

receiving gradually increasing emphasis as the FAA moves forward with NextGen. In particular, 

this evidence was provided by: 

• A sustained high budgeting level in critical human factors research areas, both within Flight 

Deck and Air Traffic , particularly with regard to self separation including the various 

options for delegating responsibilities to the flight crew, and air-ground integration (and 

their implications for human-automation interaction), as well as the F&E budgeting for the 

controller workforce. 

• The January meeting, held with Steve Bradford, that initiated discussions into key needs for 

R,E & D in NextGen to address human factors issues within. 

• The human factors portfolio about which we were briefed provides a very suitable vehicle for 

integrating and disseminating HF research to the wider NextGen design community. 

• The emphasis in the FAA’s response on understanding pilot and controller response to offnominal events. 
Recommendation (a): Continue the progress toward deeper involvement of human factors in 

NextGen planning and research. We believe that continued development of the HSI roadmap is a 

major vehicle for making this happen. However, this planning effort must also extend beyond the 

research planning focus of AJP-61 to an extensive review of NextGen plans for the need to 

address human factors issues. This review should consider where assumptions about human 

performance in future NextGen operations establish technical and programmatic risks that need 

to be mitigated by a risk management strategy that preemptively identifies and seeks mitigations 

to the most likely and significant risks. Likewise, this planning effort must plan for the key 

decision points and critical path items contingent upon addressing human factors in NextGen 

development. 

Recommendation (b): We recommend that the NextGen I&I office (AJP-A) vigorously pursue 

the appointment of a full time position for Chief Systems Engineer for-Human Factors. This 

position must be given the responsibility and authority to examine NextGen plans for situations 

where human factors considerations must be addressed, both to meet the NextGen plans as 

articulated, and to mitigate technical and program risks established by assumptions about human 

performance. In addition, this position should serve to foster the appropriate application of 

human factors knowledge throughout NextGen developments, as well as identifying areas 

needing research. Thus, this position will additionally serve as a vital link between the research 

focus of AJP-61 and development and engineering aspects of NextGen developments applying 

human factors. We recommend that AJP-61 personnel have input in assessing the qualifications 

of potential hires for this position 

Recommendation (c): As we have in the past, we recommend that every effort be made to 

select a permanent replacement for the head of AJP-61, following the departure of Karlin Toner. 

Recommendation (d): As we have in the past (September Rec 1c), we recommend that the 

subcommittee be briefed on two critical areas with HF components (but outside the funding lines 

of AJP-61): (1) Human factors aspects of the weather program by AJP-68, and (2) concepts of 

operations and research by AJP-66. We recognize that such briefings could not be scheduled for 

the recent March meeting because of time constraints. 

Recommendation (e): Assure that the new human factors research portfolio makes contact with 

(articulates in general form) all of those HF efforts within the FAA that lie outside of the direct 

funding line of AJP-61. 

Recommendation (f): We recommend that the current FAA research program continue to 

follow the guidance of the Administrator's response, and insure that human in the loop 

simulations include off-nominal events, and focus on evaluating pilot and controller responses to 

those events. 

Background: Previous recommendation and FAA response letter dated January 29, 2010. 

Recommendation: Continue the excellent progress of collaboration with NASA’s Integrated 

Intelligent Flight Deck project, within the Aviation Safety Program. 
FAA Response: We agree and AJP-61 will continue collaboration to ensure involvement with 

the NASA Aviation Safety Program’s Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck Project with particular 

emphasis on applications such as merging and spacing and closely spaced parallel operations. 

We will also emphasize transitioning NASA research products to FAA for integration as part of 

our NextGen Air Ground Integration research efforts. 

Finding (2): We were fully satisfied with the FAA’s response that such collaboration remains in 

force and is expanding. In particular the research portfolio of Flight Deck NextGen projects 

reflects a very high level of coordination with and FAA funding of research performed by NASA 

that leverages their expertise and resources. 

 

Recommendation: Continue on-going collaboration in the areas of Air Traffic and Airspace 

Systems. Of note out of FAA-funded reimbursable tasks to be completed by NASA, we hope 

that the FAA will soon exploit the results of the task generating recommendations regarding 

ATC priority research issues for NextGen. 

Finding (3): The subcommittee received a series of excellent briefings from human factors 

researchers at MITRE, regarding HITL simulations of various concepts that will appear in 

NextGen. From this briefing it appeared that the FAA, through AJP-61 has taken a good step 

forward for keeping closely in touch with the conduct and products of this high quality and 

NextGen-relevant human factors-related research. This briefing also provided an opportunity for 

AJP-61 staff to learn about MITRE CAASD research in related areas, and establish direct 

contacts. 

Recommendation: The FAA (via AJP-61) should continue the coordination and look for 

opportunities to progress the coordination with MITRE, as much of it appears to fit directly into 

issues within the HSI roadmap, and has profound implications for future concepts (e.g., potential 

increase in controller workload, resulting from the more rapid updates associated with ADS-B 

driven displays.) 

NAS Operations Subcommittee

Observation: The subcommittee held its meeting at the MIT Lincoln Laboratory, and heard 

briefings on MIT/LL’s surveillance research, weather forecasting research, weather-ATM 

integration research, and air traffic control tower research. Additionally, briefings were given on 

the FAA’s PARTNER program, the FAA’s RED budget, and the FAA’s NAS Operations PPT 

research. The MIT/LL briefings were at an excellent level of technical depth, and gave the 

subcommittee members unusually clear insight into the way some of this work for the FAA is 

being conducted. 

Finding (1): The committee was briefed on two programs which will require new approaches to 

evaluating safety: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Airspace Access, and Staffed NextGen 

Tower (SNT). Both introduce new operating paradigms, with new and significantly different 

human roles and responsibilities. Overly conservative requirements, with insufficient analysis, 

will inhibit the addition of new capabilities. The subcommittee reaffirmed the statement in the 

October 19, 2009 REDAC letter to the Administrator that “there does not appear to be a clear 
system-level process for managing risk and arbitrating safety requirements for new systems or 

procedures.” At the REDAC meeting in April, the Chair learned with pleasure of the “lean” 

process instituted by AVS and ATO as an excellent first step to have such a process. 

Recommendation: The NASOPS subcommittee requests a briefing to the full subcommittee on 

the new processes for assessing safety levels developed by AVS and ATO. 

Finding (2): The budget briefing contained the RED budget request for FY11 and one line (BLI 

1A08) from the F&E budget devoted to NextGen, but information from other CIP BLIs, such as 

those for the NextGen Solution Sets, was not forthcoming. Clearly, R&D (as defined by OMB) 

for NextGen is being performed in these other lines (e.g. RWI). Without complete budgetary 

and programmatic context of the FAA’s R&D program, NASOPS is unable to give balanced 

advice on the overall allocation of R&D efforts and whether the most important work is being 

undertaken. NASOPS has raised this issue before. 

Recommendation: All Research and Development for NextGen should be presented to 

NASOPS, which would include that performed in funding under Solution Sets, Transformational 

Programs, and/or cross-cutting R&D 

Findings (3): The majority of NextGen R&D presented emphasizes Part 121 NextGen 

implementation, with little attention focused on on-demand commercial air carriers, air taxis, 

charter, business, corporate, private and other GA operators. Without addressing the unique 

aspects of these operators, NextGen implementation may be delayed and opportunities for 

innovation will be missed. 

Recommendation: Develop an overall R&D strategy, identifying top research issues and key 

decisions the research will drive, for all classes of aviation, and recommend the overall strategy 

for fostering and maturing research and development for both mid-term and long-term time 

periods. The strategy should include R&D focused on activities in Parts 135 and 91, as well as 

UAS and rotorcraft operations. 

Findings (4): The FAA’s R&D investments are weighted to enable the mid-term 

implementation of NextGen capabilities. The lead for longer term NextGen outcomes require 

sustained investment beginning now to ensure timely implementation. The subcommittee is 

concerned that these areas are inadequately funded, and that the is FAA not planning to leverage 

innovation in the private sector (e.g., using incentives such as the “X prize” , public-private 

collaborations, or the establishment of notional performance requirements) for these long-term 

objectives. 

Recommendation: This R&D should capitalize on innovation from the private sector, partly by 

including consideration of how to incentivize users to equip (e.g. “first adopters”). 

Finding (5): There remains a need to better understand the overall context of the research needs 

and fit of the Concept Development work being done relative to NextGen development. 

Additionally, this area has been cut in funding, contrary to previous recommendations. 
Recommendations (a): Provide the subcommittee future briefings on context and fit between 

the concept development and exploration research and the NextGen plans and Enterprise 

Architecture. Specific focus on connecting the research to the solution sets, infrastructure 

roadmaps (e.g. automation and human factors), and OI’s is needed. 

(b) As was recommended by NASOPS previously, more resources should be devoted to this 

activity. Current funding does not permit far term concept development (e.g. > 2018), or 

research on concepts not currently in the portfolio (e.g. dynamic airspace resectorization, TFM 

evolution ConOps, 4-D trajectory management.) 

Finding (6): The MIT/LL briefings were a “deep dive” into weather forecast technology and the 

interaction with TFMM mechanisms. The committee was very pleased with the quality of the 

work. The evolution of weather research at MIT/LL, NOAA, ESRL, and NCAR into 

development of useful products now including CoSPA is a testimonial to the value of this 

research, and MIT/LL staff did an excellent job noting the inclusivity of efforts among these 

labs. 

These briefings showed progress in addressing some of the recommendations of the WAIWG by 

the work at MIT/LL, but the remainder of the weather-ATM integration R&D being 

accomplished elsewhere needs to be addressed in this regard. For example, the committee was 

told that the FY10 funding for the RWI and NNEW areas has been delayed due to internal FAA 

processes. 

Recommendation: NASOPS will request a complete FAA weather R&D briefing, with a 

strategy for addressing the WAIWG recommendations and equivalent levels of detail for work 

being funded elsewhere, at an upcoming meeting. 

Finding (7): Traffic managers are concerned with managing the scarce NAS resources to best 

meet the needs of NAS users. They have become specialized in their roles as managers of the 

NAS assets and flows. This is a very different job from that performed by controllers, but traffic 

managers are nonetheless selected from the ranks of the Air Traffic Controllers and were 

originally selected with the controller skill set in mind. We were encouraged to hear that the 

FAA human factors research is exploring (mid-term) NextGen controller selection criteria and 

training, but, there is currently little or no human factors focus on the unique and growing role of 

Air Traffic Managers. 

Recommendations (a): Initiate a human factors research program to identify the specific skill 

set required for Air Traffic Managers in the present and 2018 NextGen systems. This research 

should culminate in selection and training standards for Air Traffic Managers. 

(b) Initiate a research effort to identify the skill sets required for Air Traffic Controllers and 

Airspace Managers for 2025 and beyond, since the people who will be hired in the next 5-10 

years will still be in these jobs in that time frame, but the role of controllers airspace managers 

will undergo significant changes in that timeframe. 
Finding (8): NASOPS was impressed with the breadth of projects in the FAA’s COE E&E 

program PARTNER. Overall funding has increased to $8M for the current FY, and the funding 

appears to be stable. A strong cadre of partner universities participates in PARTNER with good 

support from industry in the projects. NASOPS did not, however, receive sufficient insight into 

the overall program to judge quality and portfolio adequacy. 

Recommendation: NASOPS requests “deep dive” briefings on PARTNER to (a) understand 

how it fits into the overall E&E program, (b) assess ATM-related projects being conducted, and 

(c) understand PARTNER processes for technology transfer