Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

Holiday Inn Rosslyn Westpark Hotel 

1900 North Fort Meyer Drive, Arlington, VA 

Meeting Minutes 

April 17-18, 2001 

On Tuesday and Wednesday, April 17-18, 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) Advisory Committee 

(REDAC) held a meeting at the Holiday Inn Rosslyn Westpark Hotel, 1900 North Fort 

Meyer Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Attachments 1 and 2 provide the meeting agenda and 

attendance, respectively. 

Tuesday, April 17

Welcome and Introductory Remarks 

Dr. Herman Rediess, Executive Director and Designated Federal Official of the 

Committee, welcomed members and audience participants and read the public meeting 

announcement. 

Mr. Robert Doll, the out-going Chairman of the Committee, welcomed members and 

audience participants and announced the end of his term as REDAC Chairman, as he 

would be retiring off of the Committee after this meeting. 

Dr. Rediess recognized retiring members for their contributions over the years. These 

included: Mr. Viggo Butler, Ms. Angela Gittens, Mr. Robert Doll, Mr. Paul Fiduccia, and 

Mr. Wilson Felder. Dr. Rediess welcomed new members Mr. David Ashley, Mr. John 

Klinkenberg, Mr. Richard Marchi, Mr. Ron Swanda (not in attendance), Dr. Hans Weber, 

and Dr. Andres Zellweger. Dr. Rediess announced the in-coming Chair Dr. Deborah 

Boehm-Davis. 

Mr. Doll welcomed members of the AeroSpace Technology Advisory Group (ASTAC), 

an advisory committee similar to the FAA REDAC but under National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). These members were attending the meeting as members 

of the Aerospace Transportation Advisory Group (ATAG), a joint REDAC and ASTAC 

subcommittee. The ASTAC members attending were Mr. Robert Spitzer, ATAG CoChair, Dr. George Donohue, and Mr. William Hoover. 

Remarks 

Mr. Steve Zaidman, FAA Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, 

provided an update on current events at FAA. He discussed FAA’s interaction with 

Congress, the President’s budget, the performance-based organization (PBO), and a 

recent independent review of the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). 

 1 
 

FAA expects more rigorous oversight by Congress due to concern over delays, 

management accountability, and safety issues such as runway incursions. On March 15th

Administrator Garvey provided testimony on delays before Chairman Harold Rogers and 

the House Appropriations Committee. She committed to six initiatives. 

(1) Streamline the approval process for environmental issues. (2) Achieve consensus in 

the aviation community on the Operational Evolution Plan. (3) Issue capacity 

benchmarks for the top 31 airports. (4) Define “delay” as being late at the arrival gate by 

15 minutes or more. (5) Continue activity under Free Flight Phase 1 and 2. (6) Eliminate 

system choke points or bottlenecks that are causing congestion, particularly in time for 

the summer season. 

 

The President recently released the fiscal year (FY) 2002 budget. FAA’s budget has four 

parts. The facilities and equipment (F&E) budget is $2.9 billion, a 10 percent increase 

over FY 2001. The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) budget is $3.3 billion, a 3.5 

percent increase over FY 2001. The R,E&D budget is $188 million, a $1 million increase 

over FY 2001. The operations budget is $6.9 billion, a 5.7 percent increase over FY 

2001. The operations budget, which is 75 percent salaries in addition to supplies and 

travel costs, continues to be FAA’s biggest concern. 

Executive Order and the authorization legislation resulted in FAA establishing a 

performance-based organization (PBO) for the air traffic control system. The Chief 

Operating Officer for the PBO, who has not yet been named, will report directly to the

Administrator. The PBO may submit its budget directly through the Secretary of 

Transportation to the President, who will transmit it without revision to the appropriate 

Congressional Committees. Legislation established two boards: the Aviation 

Management Advisory Council (MAC) and the Air Traffic Services (ATS) 

Subcommittee referred to as the “mini MAC”. The MAC consists of 18 members that 

represent aviation interests. It provides advice and counsel to the Administrator and 

functions as an oversight resource for the entire FAA organization with respect to 

management, policy, spending, and regulatory matters. The ATS Subcommittee or mini 

MAC falls under the MAC. It is a smaller group comprised of five executives from

outside of the aviation industry and provides management oversight of the PBO similar to 

a board of directors. This includes review, approval and monitoring duties related to the 

budget, major acquisitions, management initiatives, and strategic and operational plans. 

The five members selected for the ATS Subcommittee or mini MAC are as follows: 

(1) Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former U.S. senator, who served as chairperson of the 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation; (2) John J. Cullinane, president, The 

Cullinane Group, a computer software company; (3) Leon Lynch, international vice 

president for human affairs for the United Steelworkers of America; (4) Sharon Patrick,

co-founder and president and COO of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.; and (5) 

John W. Snow, chairman, president, and CEO of CSX, a transportation company 

involved in rail, container shipping. 

The Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) is a short-term (1-2 year), mid-term (3-4 year), 

and long-term (10 year) look into operational changes required for the future of the air 

 2 
 

traffic control system. It is one of the foundations for the PBO requirement to create a 

business plan. The OEP contains 21 major action items focused on operational changes 

that will provide relief and improvement to the system. These include expanding the 

number of direct routes, reducing vertical separation over the U.S. and changing 

separation standards over oceans. The OEP is in the final stages of review, and it is 

available on the Web at http://www.caasd.org. FAA will distribute the latest draft to 

REDAC members. 

Last year, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey requested that the Institute for Defense 

Analyses (IDA) conduct an independent review of the Wide Area Augmentation System

(WAAS). The WAAS is an FAA program to augment the Department of Defense’s 

(DoD) Global Positioning System (GPS). The IDA formed an independent review board

(IRB) to accomplish the task. Dr. John Hansman, a REDAC member, served on the IRB. 

The group published its report on January 18, 2001. The report finds that although the 

program schedule has slipped in the past, the WAAS is technically feasible. It 

recommends that FAA identify a credible schedule as soon as possible and suggests a 

program completion date of early 2003. It identifies one weakness throughout the 

program in both the Government and contractor teams, and that is systems engineering. 

FAA has taken steps to strengthen systems engineering through the WAAS Integrity and 

Performance Panel. The IRB report is available on the Web at http://gps.faa.gov. 

Meeting Process and Objectives 

Dr. Herman Rediess, FAA Director of Aviation Research, explained the meeting process 

and objectives. The primary objective of the meeting was to have the Committee 

generate recommendations on FAA’s planned research and development (R&D) 

investments for FY 2003. Dr. Rediess would present FAA’s planned R&D investment 

portfolio. Each standing subcommittee, having already reviewed FAA’s respective R&D 

program, would present its recommendations. The six standing subcommittee areas are 

air traffic services, airport technology, aircraft safety, human factors, aviation security, 

and environment and energy. After the standing subcommittee presentations, the 

Committee would discuss issues and generate recommendations for the Administrator. 

In addition to the standing subcommittee reports, the Committee would hear 

presentations by the Federal Transportation Advisory Group (FTAG) and three ad hoc 

subcommittees: Aerospace Transportation Advisory Group (ATAG), Small Aircraft 

Transportation System (SATS), and Tiltrotor and Advanced Rotorcraft Technology in the 

National Airspace System (TARTNAS). 

Vision 2050: An Integrated Transportation System 

The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) established the Federal 

Transportation Advisory Group (FTAG) in June 2000 under the auspices of the FAA 

REDAC and the NASA ASTAC. The objective of the FTAG was to develop a vision for 

the transportation system of the 21st century. The vision was to address the period of 

 3 
 

time between the years 2020 and 2050 and include a series of “stretch goals” to guide 

future transportation research and development. 

FTAG members represented aerospace, water, surface, and multi-modal transportation

stakeholders. Members were from the National Academy of Science including the 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board 

(ASEB) as well as Federal advisory committees including FAA REDAC, NASA 

ASTAC, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Marine Transportation 

System National Advisory Council (MTSNAC). 

Mr. Robert Spitzer, FTAG Chairman, presented the group’s report titled Vision 2050: An 

Integrated National Transportation System, which was completed in February. He 

planned to brief the NASA ASTAC on April 19-20 in Huntsville, Alabama. Vision 2050 

argues for an integrated, multi-modal national transportation system that can 

economically move anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime, on time. In addition, the 

vision stresses a system without fatalities and injuries, not dependent on foreign energy, 

and compatible with the environment. The Vision 2050 document forms a framework 

under which each mode can generate a more detailed document on how to contribute to 

achieving the vision. 

Aerospace Vision (Ad hoc Subcommittee) 

At the April 12, 2000, joint meeting of the FAA REDAC and NASA ASTAC, both 

committees voted to approve a joint task force to guide the vision development process 

for the aviation system after next. Following the completion of the FTAG Vision 2050 

report in February 2001, the REDAC chartered the Aerospace Transportation Advisory 

Group (ATAG) as an ad hoc subcommittee. The objective of the ATAG is to define an 

aerospace vision that fits under the framework of the FTAG Vision 2050 document and 

supports the nation’s transportation needs to mid-century. Dr. Andres Zellweger and 

Mr. Robert Spitzer co-chair the subcommittee. 

Dr. Andres Zellweger presented the ATAG report. The report concludes that airlines, 

airports and FAA must undergo cultural and institutional changes involving radically new 

air transportation management concepts in order to achieve a modern, automated national 

air transportation system. It recommends that the Secretary of Transportation champion 

the modernization effort and charge the National Academy of Science with defining the 

aerospace vision and the research, technologies and concepts required to achieve it. 

Mr. Doll deferred the Committee’s vote on the report until the second day of the meeting. 

BREAK 

Small Aircraft Transportation System (Ad hoc Subcommittee) 

On September 14, 1999, REDAC voted to approve a working group led by Mr. Paul 

Fiduccia to examine NASA’s Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) program and 

recommend whether REDAC should form an ad hoc subcommittee to study the program

 4 
 

in more depth. On April 12, 2000, during the joint meeting of the REDAC and NASA 

ASTAC, the committees voted to approve a joint SATS subcommittee chartered under 

the REDAC for a period of one year, through April 2001, with Mr. Fiduccia as chairman. 

The objective of the ad hoc subcommittee is to review and monitor the plans and 

activities of NASA, FAA, industry, and the National Research Council (NRC) with 

respect to SATS and report its findings to the REDAC and ASTAC. 

Mr. Fiduccia presented the subcommittee’s findings. SATSLab is a 5-year NASA 

program to demonstrate the SATS concept and technologies and conduct systems 

analyses and engineering. The subcommittee has concern over the complexity of the 

program organization and provided recommendations for both FAA and NASA. The 

Committee discussed the recommendations and agreed that Mr. Fiduccia should prepare a 

letter for the REDAC to transmit the recommendations to the Administrator. 

Mr. Fiduccia explained an issue regarding the joint SATS subcommittee, which NASA 

surfaced due to concern over procedural differences between the REDAC and ASTAC. 

Mr. Terry Hertz, NASA Director, Research and Technology Division presented NASA’s 

proposal to resolve the issue. It involved moving the SATS subcommittee from REDAC 

sponsorship to ASTAC sponsorship, and inviting REDAC members to participate on it. 

Mr. Fiduccia presented another alternative on behalf of the existing subcommittee. It 

involved allowing REDAC to continue the SATS subcommittee; then, the two SATS 

subcommittees (REDAC and ASTAC) could meet concurrently, and the subcommittee 

chairs could agree on a common agenda and report back to their respective advisory 

committee. Members were concerned that the charter proposed by NASA for the 

ASTAC subcommittee did not address issues important to FAA; therefore, it was 

important to continue the REDAC subcommittee to address these issues. The Committee 

voted to approve the continuation of the SATS subcommittee under the REDAC 

according to the proposal presented by Mr. Fiduccia. 

LUNCH 

Terminal Area and Runway Safety R&D 

Mr. Archie Dillard, FAA Flight Standards Service National Research Specialist for 

Simulation Engineering (AFS-400) and Mr. Ken Leonard, FAA Deputy Product Lead for 

Safe Flight 21 and Surface Technology (AND-501), presented FAA’s terminal area and 

runway safety research and development (R&D). Originally, FAA presented this briefing 

to the Aircraft Safety Subcommittee, who recommended that the full REDAC hear it. 

FAA Response to Committee Recommendations 

Dr. Rediess presented a follow-up, interim response to the Committee’s 

recommendations on FAA’s planned R&D investments for FY 2002, which the 

Committee developed at the April 2000 meeting and presented to Administrator Garvey 

by letter dated July 13, 2000. Dr. Rediess’ initial response at the September 2000 

Committee meeting reflected FAA’s budget prior to submitting it through the Executive 

 5 
 

Branch. This response reflected FAA’s budget as it appears in the President’s budget for 

FY 2002, which was recently presented to Congress. Dr. Rediess plans a third 

presentation for the next Committee meeting on October 30-31 that will reflect the 

Congressional budget. A formal response from FAA will follow that presentation. 

Presentation of FAA’s R&D Investments for FY 2002 and FY 2003 

Dr. Rediess provided an overview of FAA’s R&D investments including a review of the 

FY 2002 President’s budget request and an in-depth review of FAA’s proposed R&D 

investments for FY 2003. 

Subcommittee Recommendations 

In February and March 2001, the six standing subcommittees reviewed FAA’s six R&D 

investment areas including air traffic services; airport technology; aircraft safety; aviation 

security; human factors; and environment and energy. After reviewing the respective 

investment portfolio proposed by FAA, each subcommittee generated recommendations 

on the portfolio. Each standing subcommittee chair, as listed below presented these 

recommendations to the Committee. Attachment 3 provides the subcommittees’ reports. 

Subcommittee on Air Traffic Services Mr. Paul Drouilhet 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy Mr. James DeLong 

Adjourn 

Mr. Doll adjourned the Committee meeting for the day at 5:30 p.m.

Wednesday, April 18

Reconvene Meeting 

Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis, incoming Chair, welcomed members and attendees and 

reconvened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 18. Dr. Rediess read the 

public meeting announcement. 

Tiltrotor & Advanced Rotorcraft Technology in the NAS (Ad hoc Subcommittee) 

The Subcommittee on Tiltrotor and Advance Rotorcraft Technology in the National 

Airspace System (TARTNAS) is an ad hoc subcommittee initiated on April 8, 1997, as 

the Subcommittee on General Aviation and Vertical Flight. On January 21, 1999, its 

terms of reference was extended for two years, and on April 12, 2000, the Committee 

approved the current name of the subcommittee with a revised terms of reference. 

The objective of the subcommittee is to determine the research activities and criteria 

necessary to establish the means of exploiting the combination of Global Positioning 

 6 
 

System (GPS), tiltrotor and advanced vertical flight technology to serve the air traveling 

public and air commerce and, in doing so, to address issues of safety, performance and 

technology. Mr. John Olcott and Mr. John Zugschwert co-chair the subcommittee. 

Mr. John Zugschwert presented the subcommittee’s report along with team leaders 

including Dr. John Everton, Mr. Chuck Stancel, and Mr. Ron Reber. The Committee 

provided feedback to the subcommittee and expressed concern that the majority of 

recommendations in the report did not address research. The Committee decided to defer 

voting on the report until a later date to allow the subcommittee time to generate 

additional information and recommendations on what research was required to implement 

TARTNAS. 

Vote on ATAG Report 

The Committee voted to approve the ATAG report and cover letter. The Committee 

decided that Dr. Boehm-Davis, REDAC Chair, would prepare an additional cover letter 

on behalf of the REDAC to transmit the report to Administrator Jane Garvey and ask her 

to forward the report to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Mr. Spitzer, ATAG 

Co-chair and member of the NASA ASTAC, would work to accomplish the same

endorsement from the NASA ASTAC during its April 19-20 meeting in Huntsville, 

Alabama. The ASTAC would send its endorsement through NASA Administrator Dan 

Goldin. 

Subcommittee Recommendations (Continued from Day 1) 

The standing subcommittee chairs continued their reports and recommendations on 

FAA’s planned FY 2003 R&D investments. This was a continuation of the standing 

subcommittee presentations, which began on the previous afternoon. Attachment 3 

provides the subcommittees’ reports. 

Subcommittee on Human Factors Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis (outgoing chair) 

Dr. John Hansman (incoming chair) 

Subcommittee on Airport Technology Ms. Angela Gittens 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety Dr. Lou Mancini 

Subcommittee on Aviation Security Mr. Viggo Butler 

Committee Recommendations 

Dr. Boehm-Davis opened the floor to the Committee members to discuss

recommendations on FAA’s planned FY 2003 R&D investments. The Committee held 

discussions and generated recommendations, which Dr. Boehm-Davis provided on behalf 

of the Committee to the Administrator by letter dated July 10, 2001. The following 

paragraphs provide the recommendations. 

The members of the R,E&D Advisory Committee represent a significant wealth of 

industry, university, association, and consumer knowledge and experience. I believe that, 

 7 
 

because of the way that the Committee now operates, the FAA is not getting the full 

benefit of this knowledge and experience. First, it has been difficult to brief 

subcommittees at the appropriate level of detail and in a timely fashion. Thus, 

committees often feel that their input is not based on as much information as they would 

like and that they cannot provide the appropriate feedback on important, strategic level 

issues regarding research and development. Second, as we discussed, it is difficult for 

the Committee to deliberate in an open setting. Having some time available for a closed 

session is important to a full and open discussion of recommendations. Finally, the low 

attendance by associate administrators and other senior FAA officials at our meetings 

gives the impression that the FAA does not appear to be interested in receiving our 

advice and that research is not a very high priority for the FAA. I would like to explore 

with you ways of raising the level of presentation and discussion of the FAA’s R,E,&D 

program (and budget) so that we can provide you with better and more useful 

recommendations. 

The Committee supports continued work on the Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) and 

Operational Concepts Plan (OCP), which covers the next 10 to possibly 15 years. They 

provide a common framework for the entire aviation community and will guide 

investments for government, operators and manufacturers. However, we are concerned 

that no research plan has been developed to complement the OEP and to provide the 

technology base for the future. Since this research is likely to be done largely by NASA, 

it is imperative that NASA's program planning become tightly integrated with FAA 

planning. 

We also are concerned that although the activities defined in the OEP and OCP are 

important first steps in alleviating the capacity crisis, they will not meet the demand for 

2010 and beyond. We believe the incremental evolutionary steps outlined in these plans 

will not overcome gridlock by the years 2010 to 2015. With demand projected to 

increase at 8 percent per year, and capacity improvements expected at only 3 percent per 

year, demand will soon overcome capacity. The nation must invest more heavily in 

aviation research to meet future needs, and we would like to help you work with NASA 

to achieve this outcome. 

We believe that a major paradigm shift, supported by a substantial research effort, is 

required to move us beyond the 2010 to 2015 timeframe. Year after year, we express our 

concern over the lack of investment in aviation related research, but we have been 

ineffective in achieving any results. At the same time, the committee recognizes a 

number of obstacles to ensuring a viable, healthy air transportation system beyond 2010, 

including: 

• The lack of a national transportation policy and national objectives to be 

achieved;

• The lack of a sense of "urgency" on the part of Congress to address aviation 

issues, perhaps due in part to the fact that aviation is the safest mode of 

transportation in the world; 

 8 
 

• The increasing reliance on NASA to help support the FAA RE&D mission, 

without a mechanism for ensuring closure of the technology readiness gap; 

• The lack of OMB and Congressional support for an increased budget; and 

• The lack of compelling stories to make an argument for the need for increased 

funding. 

The Committee would hate to have a serious accident, incident, or system interruption as 

the driver for an increased RE&D budget. Rather, we would hope to work with you to 

secure increased funding to prevent future accidents. We feel that one possible approach 

to making this case might be to put forward specific goals to be achieved by a specific 

deadline. Recognizing that FAA and NASA both have the same Senate authorization 

committee, and that the NASA and FAA R,E&D budgets are both authorized by the same

House committee, we would hope to go with you to ask for support so that FAA and 

NASA can work together to achieve these goals. 

For example, the Committee feels that there are two achievable goals that would increase 

capacity if the research issues could be resolved -- reduced wake turbulence separation in 

appropriate weather conditions and implementation of low noise arrival and departure 

procedures. By specifying, for example, that separation could be reduced by some

specified percentage by the year 2005, FAA could argue for increased funding while 

providing benchmarks to ensure that predicted outcomes are being achieved. 

Another concern arises from the development of the PBO within FAA. Because the 

R,E&D Advisory Committee currently is aligned along the lines of business, we believe 

there may be a need to rethink its function and structure as a result of the PBO. We 

would like to provide recommendations to you on this as the PBO unfolds. 

 

The Committee developed specific recommendations that could be acted on without 

changes in the RE&D budget. First, the Committee recommends that all FAA R,E&D 

programs be reviewed after they have been in place for a certain amount of time (e.g., 3 

years) and/or after a certain amount of funds has been spent (e.g., $1million). Further, 

the Committee recommends that an internal process be developed for carrying out those 

reviews. 

The Committee expressed concern about some items in the RE&D portfolio that the 

Committee strongly feels belongs in the Operations portfolio. For example, the Human 

Factors Subcommittee feels that the bulk of the aeromedical work being conducted at 

CAMI (particularly in the areas of medical/toxicological factors) is directed towards the 

support of actual accident investigations, not at research that could improve safety by 

improving the accident investigation process. Similarly, the Air Traffic Services 

Subcommittee feels that the work being done on system capacity, planning, and 

improvements is not a focal point for FAA's more general work on capacity R&D. 

Individual subcommittees recommended moving forward on specific research programs, 

which were supported by the full Committee. These include: 

 9 
 

• Research examining wake vortex and aviation weather; 

• Research examining whether new large aircraft (group 6) can operate at group 5 

airports; 

• Research to find a replacement for aqueous film forming foam (AFFF). This 

foam is the primary fire-fighting agent currently in use. However, this foam is 

now considered toxic and will no longer be manufactured. Thus, research is 

urgently needed (and is planned in conjunction with DOD) in this area; 

• Research on wildlife control and mitigation;

• Research into visual guidance that can be used to prevent runway incursions; and 

• Research on high payoff solutions (e.g., trace technologies and other passive 

devices) rather than active devices for aviation security. 

Future Committee Activity 

Dr. Boehm-Davis announced a change for the fall REDAC meeting, which was originally 

scheduled in September. The next REDAC meeting would be October 30-31, 2001, and 

part of this October meeting would be conducted as a joint meeting with the NASA 

ASTAC. Dr. Boehm-Davis asked members to consider material for discussion with their 

NASA ASTAC counterparts. Dr. Rediess requested that the material be action-oriented. 

Adjourn 

Dr. Boehm-Davis adjourned the meeting at 2:40 p.m. 

 10 
Attachment 1 

 

Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

Holiday Inn Rosslyn Westpark Hotel

1900 North Fort Myer Drive, Arlington, VA 

(703) 807-2000 FAX: (703) 522-7480 

April 17-18, 2001 

AGENDA

Day 1 – April 17 

9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. Welcome and Introductory Remarks 

- Announcement of In-coming Chair 

- Farewell to Retiring Members 

 (Viggo Butler, Angela Gittens 

 Robert Doll, Paul Fiduccia, Wilson Felder) 

- Welcome New Members 

 (David Ashley, John Klinkenberg, 

 Richard Marchi, Ron Swanda, 

 Hans Weber, Dres Zellweger) 

Mr. Robert Doll, Chair 

Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis, Chair 

Dr. Herman Rediess, FAA 

9:30 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Remarks Mr. Steve Zaidman, FAA 

9:45 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Meeting Process and Objectives Dr. Herman Rediess, FAA 

10:05 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. “Vision 2050: An Integrated Transportation 

System” -- Presentation of Report 

Mr. Robert Spitzer, ASTAC

10:45 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. BREAK

11:00 a.m. – 11:40 a.m. Aerospace Vision (Ad hoc Subcommittee) --

Status Report

Dr. Andres Zellweger 

Mr. Robert Spitzer 

11:40 a.m. – 12:20 p.m. Small Aircraft Transportation System 

(Ad hoc Subcommittee) – Status Report

Mr. Paul Fiduccia 

Mr. Terry Hertz, NASA 

Mr. Pete McHugh, FAA 

12:20 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. LUNCH 

1:30 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. Terminal Area and Runway Safety R&D Mr. Archie Dillard, FAA 

Mr. Dave Ford, FAA 

2:15 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. FAA Response to Committee 

Recommendations

Dr. Herman Rediess, FAA 

2:45 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. Presentation of FAA’s R&D Investments for 

FY 2002 and FY 2003 

Dr. Herman Rediess, FAA 

3:15 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. BREAK 

Subcommittee Recommendations 

3:30 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. Subcommittee on Air Traffic Services Mr. Paul Drouilhet 

4:15 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Environment and Energy Mr. James DeLong 

 11 
Attachment 1 

 

5:00 p.m. Adjourn 

Day 2 – April 18 

8:00 a.m. Reconvene Meeting Mr. Robert Doll, Chair 

Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis, Chair 

Dr. Herman Rediess, FAA 

8:05 a.m. – 8:45 a.m. Tiltrotor & Advanced Rotorcraft Technology in 

the NAS (Ad hoc Subcommittee) – 

Presentation of Report 

Mr. John Zugschwert

Subcommittee Recommendations (Continued from Day 1) 

8:45 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Human Factors Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis

9:30 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Subcommittee on Airports Ms. Angela Gittens 

10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. BREAK 

10:30 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety Dr. Lou Mancini 

11:15 a.m. – 12 noon Subcommittee on Security Mr. Viggo Butler 

12:00 noon LUNCH 

1:00 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. Committee Discussion on Recommendations Mr. Robert Doll, Chair 

Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis, Chair 

2:45 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Review Future Committee Activity Mr. Robert Doll, Chair 

Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis, Chair 

3:00 p.m. Adjourn 

 12 
Attachment 2 

 

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) 

April 17-18, 2001 

Attendance 

 REDAC Members

Deborah Boehm-Davis, Chair Robert Doll, Chair David Ashley 

Mike Benzakein Viggo Butler James DeLong 

Paul Drouilhet Chester Ekstrand Wilson Felder 

Paul Fiduccia Angela Gittens John Hansman 

John Kern John Klinkenberg Louis Mancini 

Richard Marchi John O’Brien Hans Weber 

Andres Zellweger Robert Pearce (for Sam Venneri) 

Herman Rediess (Executive Director) 

ATAG Members

Robert Spitzer, Co-chair William Hoover George Donohue 

Audience

Herb Bachner, FAA Tony Freck, GE Aircraft Mike Gallivan, FAA 

Ken Knopp, FAA Jerry Chambers, AA Warren Fellner, FAA 

Jim Poage, Volpe Bill Edmunds, ALPA Chuck Friesenhahn, FAA 

Charles Huettner, OSTP Andre Broom, GAMA Greg Burke, FAA 

Ken Cobb, TRW Satish Agrawal, FAA Sharon Darnell, FAA 

Ed Feddeman, House Science 

Committee 

Frank Alexander, Northwest 

Airlines 

Geoff Mumford, American 

Psychological Association 

Terry Hertz, NASA Archie Dillard, FAA Ken Leonard, FAA 

James Rogers, FAA Marshall Potter, FAA Nick Stoer, Stoer Associates 

Tom Proeschel, FAA Chris Peterson, SRI Roger Stern, Lockheed Martin 

Bennie Sanford, FAA Erwin Williams, AvMet George Greene, FAA 

George Marania, FAA Rosanne Marion, FAA Lee Olson, FAA 

Chuck Larsen, FAA Paul Murphy, SETA Dennis Kershner, JHU/APL 

Mike Perie, AT/CA Roy Reichenbach, NASA Keith Murray, MITRE 

Tom McCloy, FAA Vic Lebacqz, NASA ARC Gloria Kulesa, FAA 

Jim Washington, FAA Paul Jones, FAA Chris Seher, FAA 

Dave Smith, FAA Glenn Roberts, MITRE Thomas Harman, Inside FAA 

Nancy Lane, FAA Quinten Johnson, FAA Ed Schuman, FAA 

Karen Stewart, FAA Chuck Ruehle, FAA Randy Stevens, FAA 

Jim White, FAA John Rekstad, FAA Paul Polski, FAA 

Mary Powers-King, FAA Frank Petroski, MITRE Steve Pansky, FAA 

Richard Young, AvMet George Chang Barry Scott, FAA 

Nan Shellabarger, FAA Ron Reber, Bell Helicopter Mike Webb, FAA 

Bill Wallace, FAA Jerry Wright, ALPA Norm Mowbray, BHTI 

John Zugschwert Sandra Warren, BAE Chuck Stancil, GA Tech. 

June Lidder, BAE Vergenia Embry-Brock Marv Nuss, FAA

Kolie Lombard, FAA Jan Brecht-Clark, FAA J. Leverton, AHS International 

Paul Murphy, SETA Thomas O’Brien, FAA Gloria Dunderman, CSSI, Inc. 

Tom Hetrick, BAE John Rybka, FAA Latonia Swell, CSSI, Inc. 

 13 
Attachment 3 

 

Recommendations on FAA’s 2003 R&D Investments 

Report from the Air Traffic Services Subcommittee 

Chairman: Mr. Paul Drouilhet 

The ATSSC reviewed the proposed FAA ATS R&D program at its meeting on February 21-22, 

2001. Table I (attachment 1) lists each R&D program with its current year (FY01) and proposed 

FY03 funding. (Proposed FY02 funding is not available until the President’s budget is submitted 

to Congress.) The table includes both R,E&D-funded programs and F&E(Activity 1)-funded 

programs. Also shown are funding for related MITRE/CAASD and NASA programs. 

PORTFOLIO CONTENT

The ATSSC felt that all of the programs were important activities. However, some were viewed 

as not appropriate as R&D-funded efforts. This is discussed in greater detail below. 

PARTNERSHIPS

In ATS R&D, the FAA has partnerships with NASA, Eurocontrol, and academia (through 

NEXTOR). 

The partnership with NASA is especially important, as NASA is doing or supporting almost all 

of the R&D on advanced ATS technologies and procedures, which is being done in the U.S. It is 

important that the FAA continue to play an active role in the formulation and guidance of the 

NASA programs so that the products of these efforts can be transitioned to the FAA for 

implementation. 

The FAA has an effective R&D partnership with Eurocontrol, with joint activities being carried 

out in some areas (e.g. data link). However, with the increased role that the European 

Commission is playing in ATS R&D in Europe, the ATSSC recommends that the FAA interact 

more directly with the relevant EC offices. 

The FAA also has an ATS R&D partnership with a consortium of universities through the 

NEXTOR program. The FAA established NEXTOR several years ago, but has made relatively 

little use of this partnership. NEXTOR has been funded at substantially less than the originallystated intent. The ATSSC feels that the FAA could get substantially more benefit from this 

partnership with academia, but that more involvement and support by the FAA would be 

required. 

PROCESS

The current Advisory Committee structure is meeting the statutory requirement for an 

independent review of the FAA’s R,E&D portfolio. However, because of the size and

complexity of the portfolio, especially in the ATS area, the review is quite superficial. The 

ATSSC has suggested in the past that the FAA use it to carry out ad hoc in depth studies of 

 14 
Attachment 3 

 

topics of special importance. The format of such studies could be a series of meetings over a 

several month time period, or a one-to-two week full time study. Two possible subjects for such 

studies are discussed below. 

The current subcommittee structure is appropriate. However, with the currently ongoing 

reorganization of the FAA, involving the creation of a PBO responsible for all ATS-related 

activities, the reporting structure of the ATSSC should change accordingly. This is discussed in 

greater detail below. 

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Role of ATSSC in a reorganized FAA

The FAA is currently creating a Performance-Based Organization (PBO), headed by a Chief 

Operating Officer (COO), to manage all aspects of Air Traffic Services. It is anticipated that the 

ATS research will fall within the responsibility of the COO/PBO. The ATSSC endorses this. 

However, the ATSSC is a subcommittee of the REDAC, which reports to the Administrator. It 

is expected that the REDAC will continue to make its recommendations to the Administrator, as 

it has oversight of the other FAA R&D activities (safety, security, airports, etc.) which are not 

within the PBO. 

The function of the ATSSC will still be required in the new organization. However, to be 

effective it should be viewed by the PBO/COO as its advisory committee, not the 

Administrator’s. Therefore the ATSSC recommends that its de facto reporting chain be to 

the COO (perhaps through the MAC), while de jure it remains part of the REDAC to 

satisfy the statutory requirements. (An alternative, of course, is to disestablish the ATSSC as 

a subcommittee of the REDAC, and create a new ATS R&D advisory committee for the COO. 

This is the “cleanest” approach, but may require legislation.) 

Budget structure

While essentially all the R&D programs elements briefed to the ATSSC are important activities, 

many of them appear miscategorized as R&D activities. Many address the application of 

existing technologies and procedures to provide near-term solutions of current operational 

problems, and would appear to be more appropriately part of the operational or F&E(2) budget 

lines. 

This leads to a distorted view of the level of resources actually being devoted to R&D. As it has 

in the past, the ATSSC recommends that the FAA adopt a more descriptive categorization 

of its ATS R&D activities, perhaps based on the five-category system (6.1 through 6.5) used 

by the Department of Defense (DoD). The creation of the PBO provides an opportunity for the 

introduction of such a budget structure. 

A related budget issue of concern to the ATSSC is the frequent lack of budgeting for follow-on, 

or P3I, activities. While the FAA has nominally adopted the “spiral development” paradigm, it 

seldom appears to budget for the post-initial-deployment stages of development. The ATSSC 

 15 
Attachment 3 

 

recommends that these costs be more explicitly recognized and planned for during 

program planning. 

Recommendations on FAA’s 2003 R&D Investments 

Report from the Airports Subcommittee 

Chair: Ms. Angela Gittens 

The Subcommittee met on February 20/21 at the FAA Technical Center to review ongoing work 

and the FY 2003 proposed initiatives. 

We note the congressional action that retained the Airports Technology Research in F&E in FY 

2001 despite the Administration’s initiative to include Airport Research in AIP. The FAA’s FY 

2002 budget proposal once again proposes to include Airport Research in AIP under the rationale 

that it is appropriate to have AIP fund Airports Research because this research directly supports 

improvement in the safe operation of airports and increases in airport capacity and efficiency. 

Airports research supports the development of standards and specifications in airport design, 

lighting and marking, and fire and rescue that are necessary to protect the $3.3 billion annual 

Federal investment from AIP in the same manner as Air Traffic Research supports F&E 

acquisition of air traffic control equipment. 

For FY 2003, the subcommittee is proposing a significant increase in Airport Technology 

Research from the $7.58M in the FY 2002 request to $16.27M in FY 2003. Although this is a 

large increase, it is certainly justified to support an AIP program that has recently been increased 

by Congress from less then $2 billion to over $3 billion. The $16.27M request is only one half 

of one percent of the $3.3 billion AIP budget in FY 2003. That amount seems the minimum that 

should be allocated to airport research. 

In FY 2003 the Subcommittee particularly supports the initiatives to accelerate research to 

prepare for introduction of new large aircraft (NLA) such as the A380 that has received 

production orders and will be operating in FY 2005. Research is needed to conduct computer 

modeling, statistical analysis, and risk assessment to determine if these group 6 aircraft can 

safely operate at group 5 airports. If this can be sufficiently demonstrated, very expensive 

redesign of taxiways and runways could be avoided. Research is also needed in the area of fire 

and rescue response to address double decker NLA’s with more than 600 passengers. The 

Subcommittee believes the FAA should seek financial support from Airbus for this research in a 

similar manner that Boeing helped fund the construction of the Pavement Test Center. 

Of particular concern is the problem with replacement of the fire agent Aqueous Film Forming 

Foam (AFFF). AFFF is the principle fire fighting foam product. The major supplier of this 

product has stopped production because of EPA concern’s on the toxicity to humans from one of 

the AFFF components (perfluorooctyl sulfonates). FAA has initiated plans with the Department 

of Defense for a joint program to develop an environmentally friendly replacement for AFFF. 

 16 
Attachment 3 

 

This will be a significant new initiative and the FAA contribution for this research will require 

approximately $1,000,000 in FY 03. 

Research in wildlife control and mitigation continues to be the highest safety project. Data 

indicates that the number of Canada Geese has increased from 2 million in 1990, to over 6 

million today, with projections increasing to 17 million by 2010. Combining this with increasing 

aircraft operations and increasing percentages of two engine aircraft, all points to a significant 

increase in risk to aircraft from wildlife strikes. 

The Subcommittee also supports the continued research into visual guidance, lighting and 

marking, and reductions in runway incursions. This is a key area where a total systems approach 

and human factors input is required to evaluate new lighting technology such as LEDs and fiber 

optics for signs and marking, as well as advanced taxiway guidance systems. 

The Subcommittee strongly supports continued operation of the National Pavement Test Facility. 

Good data is being obtained and continued operation is essential to developed improved 

pavement design and construction models and standards. In particular, the Subcommittee 

supports the FY 2003 request to acquire pavement test equipment that is necessary for quality 

control; and rapid test results. 

The Subcommittee supports research into airport planning and design but believes it should 

focus on airside issues and not terminals and ground access areas. 

In summary, the Subcommittee is pleased with the ongoing airport technology research program

and fully supports significant increases in FY 2003. The type research being done in airport 

pavement, wildlife control, lighting and marking, and fire and rescue will not be done anywhere 

else if it is not done in this program. 

Software Engineering

In recognition of the pervasiveness and importance of software in FAA ATS programs, the FAA 

has created a Software Engineering Resource Center (SERC). This was done at least in part as a 

result of earlier recommendations of the ATSSC. However, as briefed to the ATSSC, the scope 

and focus of the SERC are much more limited than envisioned in the earlier ATSSC 

recommendation. (Subsequent conversations between ATSSC members and cognizant FAA 

personnel suggest that the ATSSC did not get a complete picture of the software R&D activities.) 

Because of the continuing criticality of software in FAA ATS systems, the ATSSC will establish 

a small (five to six member) Software R&D working Group to review in greater detail current 

FAA Software R&D activities and needs, and provide an updated report and recommendation to 

the FAA. 

Wake Vortex R&D

Wake-vortex-based interaircraft arrival and departure spacing are a major capacity-reducing 

factor in airport operations. As in the past, the ATSSC believes that the FAA is giving 

 17 
Attachment 3 

 

inadequate attention to R&D aimed at eliminating unnecessary spacing when conditions allow it 

to be done safely. 

Currently the funding for wake vortex R&D is part of the Aviation Weather budget line. 

The ATSCC believes that wake vortex R&D is an important and separate activity, and 

recommends that a separate Wake Vortex R&D funding line be established. (Since the 

meeting, it has come to the attention of the ATSCC that a substantial portion of the FY02 

funds allocated for wake vortex R&D has been reallocated to support implementation of 

weather sensors at Juneau, AK. The ATSCC objects strongly to this transfer, both because 

of the importance of the wake vortex R&D and because it is inappropriate to use RE&D 

funds for implementing operational systems. The ATSCC recommends that these funds be 

restored, and that funding for the operational sensors at Juneau be obtained elsewhere – 

perhaps from AIP.) 

The ATSSC has established a Wake Vortex Working Group to review current wake vortex 

detection and prediction technologies, and develop specific recommendations for FAA R&D 

activities. This working group will take as a primary input the results of an already on-going 

wake vortex review being carried out jointly by MIT Lincoln Laboratory and Mitre/CAASD. 

Aviation Weather Analysis and Forecasting

The ATSSC continues to be favorably impressed with this program, which is effectively using its 

resources to provide weather products which will contribute to aviation safety and operating 

efficiency. The ATSSC recommends that increased emphasis be placed on moving 

products from the experimental to operational status. An intermediate step, in which a 

product is available for guidance but is not yet fully certified, is viewed as useful to provide an 

opportunity for user feedback before the product is finalized. It is also important that the 

program recognizes that products will continue to evolve even after becoming operational, and 

provides resources for such evolution. 

The program should be funded at least at the base level, with additional resources if 

possible to expedite fielding of products. As in the case discussed above under Wake 

Vortex R&D, funds have also been transferred from the weather R&D activities to support 

implementation of operational weather sensors. The ATSCC believes that this transfer is 

also inappropriate, and urges the restoration of these funds to the R&D activities. 

Runway Incursion Reduction Program (RIRP) 

Runway incursion reduction is one of the highest priorities within the FAA. However, the 

ATSSC believes that the current “shotgun” program, centered around a BAA soliciting 

relevant industry ideas, is ill-considered and will result in a delay in the operational 

implementation of proven technologies. 

Surface surveillance and runway incursion prevention are not new problems; much R&D has 

been accomplished, including a BAA a number of years ago. These activities have resulted in 

the identification of useful technologies and procedures, including beacon-based multilateration, 

 18 
Attachment 3 

 

ADS-B, ASDE-X, and automatic, surveillance based runway status lights. The ATSSC believes 

that FAA resources should be devoted to completing the development and opeval of these 

technologies, and their early deployment, rather than devoting resources to seeking and 

evaluation new ideas. Further, the emphasis should be on systems for large, complex airports. 

Runway incursion prevention at smaller airports is an important but less critical issue, and should 

be addressed at lower priority. 

System Capacity, Planning, and Improvements

(This program was not briefed to the ATSSC due to a schedule conflict. ATSSC comments are 

based on the written program plan together with previous briefings.) 

This is an important activity, but not appropriately categorized as R&D. It is focused on 

providing short-term fixes to local problems at airports using existing technologies and 

procedures. Contrary to its title, it is not the focal point for FAA R&D on system capacity, 

The ATSSC recommends that this activity be continued at an appropriate funding level, but not 

as part of the RED or F&E(1) budget lines. 

General Aviation and Vertical Flight Technology

This activity is devoted almost entirely to vertical flight issues. As in the past, the ATSSC 

recommends that “General Aviation” be dropped from the program title, as it give the incorrect 

impression that GA-related R&D is being carried out. 

Recommendations on FAA’s 2003 R&D Investments 

Report from the Aircraft Safety Subcommittee 

Chairman: Dr. Louis Mancini 

General Comments 

1. There is continuing need to obtain feedback from different perspectives in industry and 

academia 

2. Safety research must be coordinated between all the transportation modes 

3. Aircraft Safety R&D is over-arching and at the very center of the FAA’s research program

Program Enhancements 

 Cross-cut Programs 

• Subcommittee interaction, oversight, direction in critical Agency research programs

− Terminal Area Safety -- Aircraft Safety, Air Traffic, and Airports subcommittees 

− Communication, Navigation, Surveillance -- Aircraft Safety, Air Traffic 

SAS believes safety must be integrated into all areas of research. 

 19 
Attachment 3 

 

 Special Focus Areas 

• Risk Management/Systems Approach to Safety Oversight 

− improve data quality 

− insure industry involvement in model development 

− aim for more rapid development 

• Software research should accelerate establishing standards and certification

 

 Generic Focus Area 

• Results-oriented assessments

− SAS program reviews 

− results achieved 

− cost/benefit 

• Automatic review after research program has been in existence for “x” years and “y” 

dollars spent 

SAS Supports 

1. Terminal Area Safety

- includes support for LAHSO operations 

2. General Aviation 

- targeted to address most critical GA accident areas 

3. Nanotechnology 

- participate in other industry-wide activity and explore potential impact on standards 

and policy 

Future Direction 

• Subcommittee learned about 

− ongoing NASA research program 

− industry work to develop and deploy synthetic vision technologies 

• Subcommittee will 

− develop a position and recommendation about the direction of the technology 

− provide SAS position to the REDAC Chair 

− provide recommendations to AVR-1 

SAS.com: The Bottom Line 

We are actively working within the Aircraft Safety research community and look forward to

− future research program reviews 

− continued interaction with Agency executives 

− adding value to the aviation industry

 20 
Attachment 3 

 

 

Recommendations on FAA’s 2003 R&D Investments 

Report from the Security Subcommittee 

Chairman: Mr. Viggo Butler 

The Aviation Security Sub-committee recommendations are based on meetings with the Aviation 

Security research and policy staffs February 22 at the William J. Hughes Technical Center, 

Aviation Security Laboratory (ASL). The program was well presented. FAA funded research 

has resulted in the fielding of advanced aviation security technologies in airports in the United 

States and abroad. Customer near and mid term requirements are being met. Partnerships, with 

industry, academia, as well as within the Federal Government and the international Aviation 

Security community, are well established, efficient, and are leading to collaborative products. 

The Advisory Panel briefing process has improved significantly from 2 years ago, and should be 

continued in its present form. 

The panel discussed the four line items in the Security budget that goes to Congress: Explosives 

and Weapons Detection, Human factors, Aircraft Hardening and Airport Security Technology 

Integration. The balance of funding between the lines and the baseline level of funding for 2003 

appears appropriate. 

The primary concern of the advisory panel is the continuation of the apparent disconnect 

identified last year. The sponsor has identified the goal of beginning to implement automated 

explosive detection (EDS) equipment in 2009 to do 100% inspection of checked baggage. There 

has been no technology identified that can do this efficiently and effectively and there does not 

appear to be the research funding available to reach this goal. The challenges of beginning 100% 

checked baggage EDS screening in 2009 will be compounded by the projected growth to 1 

Billion passengers per year. Chairman Butler questioned the wisdom of the 100% EDS 

screening approach at the expense of leaving other vectors under-addressed. His question -- Is 

this the best way to spend the limited aviation security budget? 

A new concept, “Free Flow” was discussed. With Free Flow, the passenger does not encounter 

any delays due to security; he and his carryon are screened as they move through the system. 

Funding required to develop Free Flow is estimated at $10 Million per year after the first year of 

$3 Million. The technology to do this is not identified. The panel was concerned with the 

impact funding Free Flow would have on the rest of the program. Free Flow needs a better 

definition i.e. what are the metrics and exactly what is the problem we are trying to solve? Also, 

the panel would like to see a report on the use of hardened containers, should they be used for 

cargo and mail? 

A presentation was made identifying a requirement and proposed solution for the shortage of 

laboratory space to certify and operationally test explosive detection equipment and integrated 

systems. This requirement is driven by the change in mission of the ASL. When built, the 

demand for multivendor certification, the operational testing of large integrated screening 

 21 
Attachment 3 

 

systems and life cycle support of deployed systems were not anticipated. The panel was 

supportive of the proposal to increase testing space. 

The panel is interested in receiving a classified intelligence brief the next time they meet in 

Washington. They would also like to be briefed on the prioritized threat as identified by the 

pending Advanced Technical Means of Attack Workshop. The panel wants a feel for how good 

aviation security must be, that is, how hard a target does aviation security need to be before the 

terrorists will go to a softer one. 

The panel recommends that the FAA should reexamine the goal of 100% checked baggage 

screening beginning in 2009 and look at putting resources into neutralizing other vectors. FAA 

should conduct an operational evaluation of 100% baggage screening; it is projected to require 

the use of nonexistent technology and airport screening space. There is not enough money in the 

R&D budget to identify and develop the screening technology to get to 2009. The panel needs to 

see a concrete plan to get to 2009 before it will support the expanded strategy. 

The panel thinks that current R&D funding is appropriate and should not be cut, however, the 

panel does not support the unconstrained budget. Several of the areas identified for 

unconstrained funding, i.e. Micromechanical systems (MEMS), high brightness x-ray sources 

and microstructure analysis should not be aggressively funded. Trace explosive detection is 

already a relatively low cost approach; the low cost advantages of MEMS although promising 

are overshadowed by the anticipated lack in specificity and anticipated 8 year to product delay. 

A modest level of activity in MEMS is recommended. FAA does not have the resources to move 

these areas and should follow the developments resulting from the major funding of others. Xray technology appears to have inherent limitations and has been pushed about as for as it can go 

alternatives such as trace detection need to be explored for baggage. Research should go into 

high operational payoff areas such as reducing EDS nuisance alarms. 

Recommendations on FAA’s 2003 R&D Investments 

Report from the Human Factors Subcommittee

Chair: Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis 

The committee met twice since the last full meeting of the REDAC: in July 2000 at Volpe in 

Massachusetts, and in February 2001 at NASA-Ames Research Center in California. In the 

meetings, the committee heard briefings on current research projects from researchers at that 

location. The committee also heard briefings on the overall portfolio, mechanisms for developing

priorities in the research program, as well as issues, concerns, and funding levels. Finally, some

time at each meeting was reserved for committee discussion of what we had heard. The 

committee's goal is to have a full review of current projects -- both in-house and sponsored, as 

well as review of planned future investments over each two-year period. This should allow the 

committee to evaluate the execution of the work as well as what is in the pipeline for the future. 

The current portfolio under the direction of the Chief Advisor for HF includes three primary 

areas, in order from area of greatest investment to least: 

 22 
Attachment 3 

 

• Air Traffic and Airway Facilities (2003: $10,233,586) 

• Flight Deck/Aircraft Maintenance (2003: $10,182,097) 

• Aeromedical (2003: $6,377,000). 

Within the first two areas (air traffic and airway facilities and flight deck/aircraft 

maintenance), the research falls into a number of common topics. This creates an alternate way 

of describing the portfolio content (in $000). 

• Flightdeck/Maintenance/Systems Integration & Air Traffic Control/Airways Facilities 

($11,537) 

– Human-Centered Automation ($3,359) 

– Selection & Training ($3,190) 

– Information Management & Display ($3,051) 

– Human Performance Assessment ($1,385) 

• Aeromedical ($6,377) 

– Medical/Toxicology/Factors of Accident Investigation ($3,232) 

– Human Survival & Protection in Civil Aviation ($2,057) 

– Cabin Health & Environmental Guidelines ($587) 

• Personnel/Other Costs ($15,306) 

A more complete description of the programs contained within each of these research areas is 

shown in the Appendix. The committee noted that again this year, this funding represents a “flat” 

investment in research. The increase requested (less than 3%) is roughly equal to the rate of 

inflation for this year. This is disturbing at a time when the FAA is talking about increasing 

throughput and maintaining or decreasing error. As it did last year, the committee finds it 

difficult to believe that this goal can be achieved with a lesser investment in the human factors 

arena. Further, personnel/other costs are increasing, leaving a smaller amount and proportion of 

funding for sponsored research. 

More specifically, the committee members expressed concern with expenditures in the 

aeromedical area. Last year, the committee expressed concern about the proportion of funds 

being directed to this area. In this upcoming year, that percentage has increased (in fact, more 

than any other area supported). Although the committee recognizes the importance of the work 

to supporting accident investigation and litigation, the committee feels strongly that much of the 

work being done is an operational function, not an R&D function and that the FAA needs to find 

a more logical method for supporting this work. 

In the area of partnerships, the committee specifically focused on the partnerships between 

NASA and the FAA and between Volpe and the FAA. With NASA and the FAA, the committee 

felt that efforts are being expended by both agencies to ensure some connectivity between their 

programs. However, they do not appear to be working towards a fully integrated research 

program, where long-term needs are specified by the FAA and studied by NASA. Further, 

connectivity that does exist could be improved. As just one example, at the individual NASA 

locations (e.g., Ames, Langley), there is no one focal individual for work in human factors. With 

NASA and Volpe, there appeared to be good coordination. More of Volpe’s work is specified 

and structured through specific input from the FAA; thus, their work appears to be responsive to 

the FAA’s needs. 

 23 
Attachment 3 

 

Also during this year, the committee took a much more in-depth look at the process by which 

the FAA identifies its research priorities than it had in past meetings. The committee received 

briefings from the Chief Scientist for Human Factors, as well as a representative from the AVR 

Office, who discussed how requirements were developed internally. The primary direction for 

the human factors program comes from a number of internal “customers” (such as Certification 

and Flight Standards). In addition, guidance comes from Congress, Industry, the Human Factors 

Plan, and Expert Advice. The committee noted some coordination problems, as well as some

more general issues. 

First, the committee feels that the FAA is not sufficiently broad in their perspective as they 

develop their research priorities, both within and outside of the agency. Within the agency, issues 

and priorities are derived primarily from the “bottom up”, as is done within AVR and several 

other operational organizations. This process tends to focus on “today’s” problems, not future 

problems. Thus, important problems that are developing may not be addressed through this 

process. For example, there are issues associated with crew augmentation for ultra long-haul 

routes, systems engineering, noise reduction programs, and with moving out of VNAV at 10,000 

feet. Outside of the agency, the committee feels there is a need for the FAA to see their work in 

the context of all government work in the area of aviation, not just in terms of what they 

accomplish with their research activities. 

Second, the committee felt that there were important issues that are not being addressed in the 

proposed 2003 research plans. One of the most important of these areas is the trade-off between 

safety and capacity. For example, there is a desire to reduce separation standards in order to 

improve the throughput of aircraft. However, the impact of those changes on safety has not been 

assessed. As we enter an era where the limits on our aviation system are due to capacity, we need 

research to inform us about the safety decrements to be expected with increased capacity. The 

committee also feels that more research is needed to support informed acquisition, especially 

since those individuals charged with acquiring new products do not have expertise in evaluating 

the safety of those systems. 

In this regard, the committee had specific recommendations about research issues that should 

be addressed by the FAA. The first is concerned with the development of certification guidelines. 

There are always new systems being developed. Currently, there is no mechanism for developing 

safety guidelines for these systems. As new systems are presented to the FAA for certification, 

this becomes an issue, but it is too late to begin research at this stage. Thus, the committee 

recommends that the FAA invest in developing measurement techniques to assess the safety 

associated with new on-board systems, and particularly for capacity-enhancing automated 

systems. 

The second issue has to do with systems management and the overall assessment of safety. 

The agency needs to understand what makes up safety and conduct risk analyses. Currently, 

there are gaps between individual programs that create system-wide safety hazards. The 

committee recommends that the FAA develop ongoing approaches for conducting human factors 

risk analyses. Further, this should be done in a manner that allows for the identification of 

emerging issues. 

The third issue concerns the trade-offs between safety and capacity. The committee feels that 

the agency has not sufficiently addressed the philosophical issue of whether safety or capacity is 

more important. The committee recommends that the agency discuss this issue explicitly and 

 24 
Attachment 3 

 

take a stand on whether research resources should be invested in capacity growth techniques or 

safety-enhancing techniques. 

Finally, the agency needs to recognize that the pace of technology is accelerating. Thus, it is 

harder for research to keep up with technological developments. The committee recommends 

that the FAA consider how they might alter their process for developing research priorities to 

address the issue of anticipating technological changes that will affect the safety of aviation. 

Appendix 

Listing of Topics Funded within Each Research Area 

 Air Traffic Control/Airways Facilities 

Information Management and Display

Computer-Human Interface Integration 

Human Factors Design Guidance 

AF Information Display and Management

Dynamic Resectorization Information Requirements 

Human Centered Automation 

Flight Strip Replacement 

Electronic Flight Data

Controller Impacts from Shared Air/Ground Spacing and Separation Responsibility 

Enhanced Vision Systems 

Situational Awareness in Centralized Monitor and Control 

Controller Decision Making

Human Performance Assessment

Examination of Causal Factors Related to Operational Errors 

Runway Safety Human Factors Analysis and Guidance 

Sector Team Communications 

Controller Shift Work, Work Schedules, and Fatigue 

Task Load and Performance Assessment of the Display System Replacement and Decision Support Automation 

Team Processes in Centralized Monitor and Control Systems 

Organizational Assessment

Integrate Human Performance Modeling 

Selection andTraining

Prototype ATS Applicant Screening System 

Develop and Validate Computerized Application Evaluation Systems 

Prototype Workforce Analysis Tool Development and Analysis

 25 
Attachment 3 

 

Flight Deck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors 

Selection and Training

Analyze Data from Line Observations/Laboratory Studies to Provide Guidance on Human Error Management

Validate Guidance for Simulator Motion Requirements 

Distribute Advanced Data Analysis Methods Linking FOQA and Simulator Data

Expand Realistic Radio Communications in Simulator Training to Include Data Link/Non-verbal Communication 

Develop Methodologies to link Performance Data to Curriculum Modification in Air Carrier Training

Develop Web-based General Aviation Weather Training/Refresher System

Develop and Distribute “Best Practices” Guidance for FOD 

Human Performance Assessment

Provide Expanded APMS Methodologies and Analysis Capabilities 

Develop Aviation Maintenance Proactive Safety Assessment Tool

Provide Technical Guidance to “Land-and-Hold-Short” Operations 

Human Centered Automation 

Provide Industry and FAA Expanded Guidance Addressing Training for Automated Cockpits

Complete Certification Job Aid Version 3.0/4.0 for FAR Part 25 Flight Deck Displays

Provide Technical Information on Airport Surface Maps and Vertical Profile Displays for Moving Map Displays 

Information Management and Display

Develop Flight Data Recording and Analysis Capability for Flight Simulators 

 Complete Human Factors Design and Evaluation for Electronic Flight Bags, Version 3.0 

Develop and Implement Guidelines for Maintenance Error Investigating and Reporting Systems 

Determine Operational Criteria and Training Guidance for Night Vision Goggles in Rotorcraft Operations

Define Display Location Boundaries that correspond to Eye/Head Position for General Aviation Aircraft

Complete Initial Computational Model to Address Information Accessibility for/Head-up/Head-down Displays 

Develop Guidance Specifications for Flight Instrument Design to Counter CFIT in General Aviation 

 26 
Attachment 3 

 

Aeromedical 

Cabin Health and Environmental Guidelines 

Assessment of Flight Crew Health Risks During a Flying Career 

Models of Air Flow and Disease Transmission in Aircraft Cabins 

Human Survival and Protection in Civil Aviation

Analyze the Suitability for Component Tests as an Alternative for Showing Regulatory Compliance with 

Crashworthiness Standard for Aircraft 

Assess Impact Protection Performance of Aircraft Seating Systems 

Develop Performance-Based Narrow and Wide Bodied Aircraft Cabin Evacuation Approval Guidelines

Develop Aircraft Cabin Evacuation Model as a Partial Replacement for Evacuation Tests with Human Subjects 

Development of Protective Equipment Fit, Comfort, and Performance Standards 

Develop Dynamic Modeling Capabilities in Support of Cabin Safety, Protection, and Aircraft Accident Research

Medical/Toxicology Factors of Accident Investigations 

Perform Epidemiological Assessment of Toxicology Factors from Fatal Civilian Aviation Accidents 

Develop Guidelines to Reduce In-flight Sudden/Subtle Incapacitation

Evaluate Autopsy Data from Fatal Aviation Accidents to Determine Protective Equipment and Design Practices 

Develop Advanced Molecular Biochemical Techniques to Enhance Aviation Forensic Toxicology

Develop Instructional Material on the Radiation (Cosmic and Visual) Environment during Air Travel

Survey of Inflight Medical Emergencies and Defibrillator Usage on Commercial Airline Flights 

Establish an Aircraft Accident Medical Database 

Recommendations on FAA’s 2003 R&D Investments 

Report from Environment & Energy Subcommittee 

Chairman: Mr. James DeLong 

“Airport planners and consultants are warning that today’s air traffic delays will 

worsen in the coming decade as strong air transport growth continues to outpace 

runway-building projects in much of the world.” 

“It’s a situation business advocates say will drive up the price of air travel if left 

untreated—and one that environmentalists warn could ignite the ire of armies of

airport neighbors here and abroad if governments mandate new runways or create 

shortcuts in environmental safeguards.” 

Aviation Week & Space Technology 

October 23, 2000 

Aviation environmental compatibility is a highly contentious issue for which the FAA 

obviously has responsibility to assure that the public interest is protected in related policy 

decisions. In its 1997 report, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security 

 27 
Attachment 3 

 

recommended that the “FAA should develop better quantitative models and analytic techniques 

to inform management decision-making.” That is certainly also an essential element of the 

FAA environmental compatibility role. It is similarly essential that the REDAC and the FAA 

properly coordinate advocacy of environmental and efficiency goals. 

It is widely accepted, as noted I the 1999 White House National Science and Technology 

Council report, “National Research and Development Plan for Aviation Safety, Security, 

Efficiency and Environmental Compatibility,” that “understanding the effects of aviation on the 

environment and developing technology for reducing noise and emissions are essential to 

sustaining aviation’s vitality.” This is a direct response to a concern that “environmental issues 

are likely to impose the fundamental limitation on air transportation growth in the 21st century,”

which was stated, among other places, in the 1995 NSTC report, “Goals for a National 

Partnership in Aeronautics Research and Technology.” 

Although others generally have the responsibility to develop necessary technology for 

mitigating aviation’s environmental impacts, the FAA has a central, leading role in 

“understanding the effects of aviation on the environment.” That results from Congress 

assigning responsibility to the FAA for aircraft noise regulation. Similar responsibility for 

aircraft engine emissions regulations is assigned to the EPA under the Clean Air Act, but the 

FAA has practical responsibility for that areas as well because it represents the U.S. at the 

ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), where standards have most 

recently been developed. The FAA also has responsibility for certifying compliance with both 

noise and emissions standards. 

A related time critical matter that requires FAA environmental assessment methodologies is 

consideration of the recent reduction in NASA’s Aeronautics Program. The National Research 

Council’s Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board is currently considering that situation 

while evaluating “whether existing research policies and programs are likely to foster the 

technological improvements needed to ensure that environmental constraints do not become a 

significant assessment, to be reported in June, the REDAC Subcommittee on Environment and 

Energy has proposed the following study: 

The Subcommittee proposed that FAA budget for and manage a study by the National Research 

Council Transportation Research Board, an appropriately informed university, DOT Inspector 

General, or GAO to accomplish the following: 

1. Assess the validity and timetables for prior noise and emissions technology goals 

established by NASA or the National Science & Technology Council and adopted by the 

FAA. 

2. Establish what is currently being done by all interested parties (e.g., FAA, NASA, 

academia, aircraft and engine manufacturers, air carriers, airport authorities) to facilitate 

accomplishment of these goals. 

3. Assess whether or not these initiatives will result in achievement of the goals in the 

indicated timetables. 

4. If these efforts are failing to collectively achieve the goals, recommend plans that better 

promise success, including organizational responsibility, budgets and schedules. 

 28 
Attachment 3 

 

Estimated Cost: $500,000 

Along with similar requirements in the current, very active CAEP work program, such tasks 

require authoritative assessment methodologies to understand, for example, the environmental 

benefits of CNS/ATM, along with advanced aircraft and engine technology. 

With the ability to properly conduct such assessments, the FAA will have the necessary tools to 

productively participate in ICAO and other international forums, as well as lead national 

advocacy for development of additional technology and operational measures to further improve 

aviation’s environmental performance. Such advocacy is likely necessary for the foreseeable 

future because of aviation’s continuing robust growth. 

However, in this era of especially tight Federal budgets, the necessary resources for these 

functions have apparently not been appropriated because environmental compatibility goals are 

not properly coordinated with the FAA’s high priority NAS efficiency mission goal. Therefore, 

REDAC should recommend an overall better-integrated budget presentation and advocacy, as 

well as continuing support of the proposed budget increase for the FAA Environment and Energy 

Program. And besides coordination with the FAA organizations responsible for air traffic 

services, airports infrastructure and certification of regulatory standards, the budget presentation 

should also recognize NASA’s responsibility to maintain national leadership in aeronautical 

science and technology, which includes the fundamental aspects of environmental assessment 

methodologies. 

 29