October 14, 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). 

The full committee also made the following general observations: 

Complexity of NextGen Research and Development Plans – The REDAC is concerned that there does not appear to 

be a clear high level Research and Development plan for NextGen that articulates the critical NextGen needs and 

links them to the R&D portfolio. The REDAC understands the challenge of defining such a plan for a complex 

system such as NextGen. However, the plans and roadmaps that have been presented to the REDAC do not 

articulate a high level vision and are so detailed and complex that they are intractable. This makes it difficult to 

evaluate if the necessary R&D is being accomplished and how R&D results will be used. The REDAC recommends 

that a high level R&D plan be developed from the existing more detailed plans and enterprise architecture to 

articulate the R&D vision and identify the critical path of R&D for NextGen. 

Concern on Level of Technical Expertise in Key Areas – As noted in prior recommendations 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 REDAC is further concerned that the 

mechanisms identified to address this issue which accompanied your letter of 16 September, 2010 only discuss the 

process for developing research needs and do not address any plans for attracting talent to the FAA or increasing the 

level of technical expertise of existing personnel in key technical areas. The REDAC recommends that a strategy be 

developed and executed to improve the ability of the FAA to compete in the market for highly desirable talent. 

UAS Research - The REDAC applauds progress in defining a clearer path toward certification and routine operation 

of UAS in the NAS. In light of the significant community pressure on the FAA to accelerate the safe integration of 

UAS in the NAS, the REDAC questions if the research is sufficient to address the complexity of the operational, 

technical and policy changes associated with safe integration of UAS and whether the timeline could be accelerated 

if additional resources were available. The REDAC also notes significant related R&D efforts at other government 

agencies such as NASA and the Department of Defense, which could leverage FAA efforts and benefit from 

stronger FAA involvement. 

Nav Lean - The REDAC was pleased to learn that the investigation of Lean processes for certification, safety and 

operational approval is nearing completion and looks forward to the findings of this study. 

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 
 

 

 

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee
 

Guidance on the FY 2013 R&D Portfolio 


Subcommittee on Airports
 

Observation: Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) research is progressing steadily. A 

project to estimate the amount of fuel released during an accident involves the modification of 

9/11 computer models and previous Boeing test results. Current computer models are designed 

to focus on the accurate modeling of fundamental aircraft structural features. The Subcommittee 

notes that the focus on structural features allows for historical data to support the simulation of 

current aircraft designs, and recent test results have validated that modeling strategy. 

Observation: As part of the ARFF research studying new fire fighting agents, methods, and 

equipment, the Subcommittee is concerned about the influence that manufacturers may have in 

the research process. Specifically, there is a significant reliance placed on the innovation of 

manufacturers to develop improved ARFF items. The FAA notes that the manufacturers are 

generally bounded by two opposing factors: a desire to innovate in response to new federal 

regulations that require the use of environmentally-friendly materials; and the opposite desire to 

maintain the status quo, given the disincentive of developing new products when federal 

procurement laws require competition from multiple sources. 

Observation: The Subcommittee is encouraged by the positive results of the alternative runway 

grooving project conducted within the runway safety and design program. Initial results show 

that alternative grooves accumulate less rubber than standard grooves, allowing for rubber 

removal operations at one test airport to be extended 7-9 months. Testing has also shown that 

more snow can be removed from alternative grooves than from standard grooves using common 

winter operations equipment. However, the Subcommittee notes that there are currently only 

two manufacturers of alternative groove cutting blades, and if these blades were patented then 

operational costs could increase dramatically. The FAA indicated that while the current costs to 

cut alternative grooves are higher than for standard grooves, future increased usage by airports 

would allow for costs to decrease to the point where both methods would have equal costs. 

Observation: The Subcommittee supports the FAA efforts to work with the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) in order to streamline the airport security research program. The 

Branch currently provides oversight of the National Safe Skies Alliance (NSSA) program, which 

is a research effort funded by FAA through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). NSSA 

conducts research in five main security areas: perimeter; cargo; access control; checkpoint; and 

checked baggage. As of August 2010, NSSA has completed 238 projects with 29 currently 

underway. The FAA is currently negotiating an agreement to have TSA take full control of the 

airport security program. 

Observation: The wildlife mitigation program continues to record favorable progress. There 

has been significant progress over the past year to improve the wildlife strike database and strike 

reporting program. The FAA notes that they are working to enhance the web presence of the 

website by improving the dataflow of reported strikes, reducing the amount of time for reported 
 

 

2 

strikes to appear on the database, and develop a dashboard for project managers to manipulate 

database content. 

Finding: Research activities in the visual guidance / runway incursion reduction program focus 

on three main areas: marking materials; lighting technologies; and sign technologies. The 

project on using LED technology in improved runway approach signs is of particular interest to 

the Subcommittee. They mentioned that any effort to reduce confusion and improve the human 

factors associated with these airfield signs would be extremely valuable for aircrew at certain 

problematic airports. 

Recommendation: Research into the evaluation of GPS navigation devices for preventing 

runway incursions is complete, and the FAA indicates that they are now writing the final project 

report. Results have indicated that the devices are most effective when used as a situational 

awareness tool and not for providing directions. The Subcommittee is concerned that the 

combination of this program and a similar effort by the Air Traffic Organization (development of 

ADS-B technology) would confuse airports, since the different specifications for tracking assets 

on the ground are not fully interchangeable. The Subcommittee believes that airports would 

ultimately like to use a system that can provide all users with a shared data set (as this was the 

initial promise of the ADS-B system). If the ADS-B systems are able to work as initially 

designed, then the GPS systems in this project would be redundant. The Subcommittee 

recommends that the Branch carefully considers the context in which this project is taking place, 

and produce results that can clearly tell airports the effectiveness of equipment. 

Observation: The Subcommittee is concerned about the initial results of the visual guidance 

project on evaluating runway end / threshold lights. In analyzing varying light spacing and 

intensities, the Subcommittee believes that pilots could potentially mistake the evenly spaced 

lights with takeoff hold lights. Such confusion could cause an aborted takeoff, especially in 

reduced visibility conditions at night. The FAA states that since the lights are located at the end 

of the runway it shouldn’t be a concern to pilots, however, that specific situation would be 

studied to ensure that no potential safety risk would exist. 

Observation: The Subcommittee is very pleased with the brief from Paul Devoti of the FAA’s 

National Planning and Programming Office (APP) on the airport NextGen implementation plan 

and JPDO airport working group. He states that elements of the NAS Enterprise Architecture 

(e.g. Airport Roadmap) are currently being revised. A source of the confusion by the 

Subcommittee members is due to the fact that the Enterprise Architecture is not completely 

aligned with the other NextGen plans. The Subcommittee is interested in understanding the 

interface between the Branch’s research program and the NextGen requirements. A clearer 

understanding of this relationship would allow for airports to perhaps facilitate and sponsor 

related projects and also provide feedback to researchers. 

Observation: The Subcommittee questions the extent to which the Branch’s research crosses 

over into the NextGen scope of work. The Subcommittee states that there is a tremendous need 

for analytical resources in the JPDO working group, and enabling a Branch project manager to 

perform work identified by the JPDO would be tremendously helpful. The JPDO currently lacks 

the full complement of analytical resources to perform all of the work that needs to be done. The 
 

 

3 

FAA explains that any requests would originate from the FAA representative on the JPDO 

working group, and if there is a research/data analysis need that would benefit the FAA Airports 

Organization, appropriate arrangements could be considered. 

Observation: The Subcommittee believes that is it important to have Paul Devoti return to 

future meetings and provide updates on NextGen and the Airport Roadmap. Paul’s continued 

presence provides an additional benefit by allowing for the Subcommittee to have a direct 

connection to the APP Office, which plays an important role in the NextGen /Airport Roadmap 

process. 

Observation: The aircraft braking performance research program is moving forward as planned. 

The goal of the program is to accurately predict aircraft braking performance from real-time 

measurements of an aircraft brake’s response to braking commands. There are four components 

to this effort: measure aircraft tire braking forces on ice and snow covered surfaces; use a fullmotion aircraft simulator; develop mathematical models of aircraft braking systems during 

operation on contaminated surfaces; and test and verify with full-scale aircraft testing. The 

Subcommittee is concerned that the current simulator models for icing and snow on taxiways are 

inadequate and do not simulate reality. If the FAA could provide the full-scale test data to Flight 

Standards, then it would be very helpful in improving simulator conditions. The FAA states that 

it would be worthwhile to do so if the deficiency exists. 

Observation: The Subcommittee commended the research team for their excellent work in the 

airport capacity / pavement program. The FAA states that previous recommendations to conduct 

research into ASR impacts and the load transfer effectiveness of dowelled and un-dowelled 

joints have been implemented and research is currently underway. Other projects include the 

preparations to purchase of a heavy vehicle simulator in FY11, which will support research into 

high tire pressure testing, asphalt overlays, and green/sustainable pavement products and 

methods. The goal of the current construction cycle testing is to determine the effect of gear 

interaction on low-strength subgrade flexible pavement life. Additional efforts to upgrade the 

test vehicle with new load controllers, servo valves, and an operating system conversion have 

also been successfully implemented. 

Observation: The Subcommittee is interested in the status of the PAVAIR / MicroPaver 

pavement software relationship. Particularly, as one program is operated commercially, the 

Subcommittee believes that future coordination efforts may be very difficult once the FAA 

decides to produce software with improved capabilities. Additionally, the Subcommittee is 

concerned about the FAA’s ability to manage the software database and user access. The FAA 

notes that that the server will be held on site and provisions are being made to fully support the 

issues related to the software transition. 

Observation: The Subcommittee is pleased with the research project on the methods to quickly 

and accurately evaluate the condition of airport pavements. Digital imaging equipment is being 

investigated. Though human factors issues still present a potential hurdle, the technology does 

provide some improvement over existing methods, such as higher scanning speeds. The 

proposed product will be a report describing how well each product works and the minimum 

requirements for airport authorities to operate equipment. The Subcommittee believes that 
 

 

 

 

 

4 

taking an objective look at the various kinds of common equipment is very useful, and the 

corresponding report of best practices for equipment use would be very beneficial to the airport 

community. 

Finding: The Technical Center’s research into avian radar and wildlife hazard mitigation is 

progressing steadily. Airports participating in the testing with the Technical Center have been 

very supportive of the new capabilities that the project offers. Airports have been able to extend 

their wildlife observations to 24 hours/day coverage. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee is very pleased with the progress of the avian radar 

assessment project, and noted that the airports that participated in the testing have been highly 

supportive of the new capabilities the system offers. The Subcommittee notes that those airports 

were able to benefit by extending wildlife observations to 24 hours a day, identifying movement 

patterns/trends, educating staff, and taking appropriate action. The Subcommittee recommends 

that the next step in bird radar research should be to investigate the integration of bird radar into 

the air traffic control tower environment. 

Finding: The Subcommittee was presented with two projects that were deferred by the ACRP: 

one on through-the-fence security and another on aircraft airport accident data. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee was presented with two research proposals that were 

deferred to the FAA by the ACRP Oversight Committee. On a project that involved the 

collection and evaluation of aircraft accident data on airports, the Subcommittee recommends 

that the FAA integrate the elements of the proposal into the Branch’s recently formed project on 

the same topic. Regarding a project on the investigation of “through the fence” operations that 

impact airport security, the Subcommittee recommends that no further action is taken, as the 

subject matter is outside of the scope of the Branch’s current research portfolio. 

Finding: Research on runway roughness and real-time aircraft braking are important projects. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee believes that the research project on investigating 

runway roughness is an excellent idea and can produce results that have many potential 

applications. As the research progresses on the separate project to investigate aircraft braking 

performance, the Subcommittee recommends that the FAA investigate any potential correlation 

of that data with the runway roughness studies. The Subcommittee also strongly recommends 

that the FAA investigate any application of the roughness data to initial pavement construction 

standards. Airports are currently dealing with problematic construction issues that involve 

runway smoothness, and the Subcommittee believes that any revised or supplemental standard 

on that topic would be a tremendous benefit to the industry. 

Finding: The Subcommittee is concerned that the research effort to investigate 

sustainable/green technology in airport pavement construction, such as warm mix asphalt, is 

being delayed until 2012. 

Recommendation: Although questions about the performance of such methods exist, the 

Subcommittee recommends that the Branch accelerate the testing of sustainable/green 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

technologies, using the results from other research programs (ACRP, AAPTP, IPRF, etc.) as a 

starting point. 

Finding: The Subcommittee held an extensive conversation on the content of the Branch 

Manager’s 10-year R&D "look-ahead" plan. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that future versions of the plan contain 

thoughts as to not only how the Branch can support the Headquarters program (including 

elements from the FAA Flight Plan, ARP Business Plan, NextGen plans) but also contain ideas 

of what could (or needs to) be done outside of the existing programmatic constraints. Highlevel goals are: reducing runway incursions; reducing excursion fatalities; pavement 

improvements (reduced costs, increased life, improved maintenance and construction, etc.); 

airport/environmental sustainability; ramp safety; and safety during construction, etc. 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy 

Finding: The subcommittee discussed research drivers, needs and gaps. Members reaffirmed 

previous priorities (solutions, with a focus on aircraft technology and alternative fuels, science, 

particularly climate impacts) but also questioned whether FAA’s research efforts are addressing 

evolving issues with general aviation leaded avgas and water quality, both driven by EPA 

regulatory activity. While these issues are addressed by the Office of Aviation Safety and the 

Office of Airports, the subcommittee had two specific requests/recommendations. 

Recommendation (a): In conjunction with EPA, the general aviation industry, and other 

interested stakeholders, the FAA should develop an integrated aviation gasoline program to 

research and test new piston engine technology and fuels with reduced or no lead additives in 

order to find safe alternatives to leaded aviation gasoline. This program is necessary for FAA to 

provide the required technical support for anticipated EPA rulemaking activities on lead 

emissions from piston engine aircraft in light of statutory and regulatory requirements to also 

consider the impacts of safety, noise, costs, and technology in the development and adoption of 

standards. The subcommittee asked for a briefing on the status of avgas research at its next 

meeting. 

Recommendation (b): In conjunction with Airport Council International-North America (ACINA), the FAA should assess the implications of water quality regulations on airports and identify 

any research needs. The subcommittee asked for a briefing at its next meeting. 

Finding: The subcommittee noted substantial progress in the NextGen Environmental 

Management System (EMS) work. The concept is extremely complex and development requires 

input from many stakeholders. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee suggested that the Office of Environment and Energy 

conduct a Focus on NextGen EMS for all relevant stakeholders to educate the community and 

ensure their views are integrated into the development of NextGen EMS. 
 

 

 

6 

Finding: The subcommittee noted that FAA’s environmental science efforts are maturing and 

that FAA needs to develop plans for using these results to inform policy. The committee felt that 

a “science readiness scale” might facilitate this transition 

Recommendation: The subcommittee should form a small task force to develop a “science 

readiness scale” in conjunction with the FAA 

Finding: The subcommittee was pleased with progress made by the Office of Airports and the 

Office of Environment and Energy identifying funds for noise research. This is a critical issue 

that must be addressed. While the availability of funds is encouraging, the committee was 

concerned about the ability of keeping oversight of so many funding strings. 

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

Office of Airports through the budgeting process through the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to ensure funding is available for noise research, in particular to conduct community 

noise surveys. The subcommittee also recommends that the Office of Environment and Energy 

work with funding partners to ensure the noise research program is well integrated and is given 

sufficient priority. 

Finding: The subcommittee was pleased with progress standing up the Continuous Low Energy 

Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program. Excellent projects are underway and appear on track to 

deliver substantial environment and energy efficiency and diversity gains. 

Recommendation: The FAA should continue to provide robust funding for CLEEN and explore 

ways of increasing investment in the future. 

Finding: The environment and energy program has experienced substantial growth; however 

staff growth has been slower. The Office of Environment and Energy has added some well 

qualified staff but still has many vacancies. The subcommittee understands that hiring well 

qualified staff in aeronautics is a national issue and requires focused attention. 

Recommendation: The Office of Environment and Energy should develop a recruitment plan 

and make use of subcommittee members to help fill vacancies. 

Finding: The subcommittee noted progress developing the NextGen environmental policy and 

standing up an effort to assess and quantify goal targets. The subcommittee noted that these 

efforts require refinement and continued attention, 
 

 

 

 

 

7 

Recommendation: The subcommittee urged the Office of Environment and Energy to continue 

advancing the computational capabilities to quantify the contribution of various strategies toward 

environmental goals. This information should inform refinements of the NextGen environmental 

policies, but should not hold up release of the policy document. The subcommittee asked for 

updates at the next meeting. 

NAS Operations Subcommittee 

Finding: Reviewing the FAA’s NextGen research portfolio continues to be very difficult, 

particularly with regard to demonstrable connections between the research elements being 

briefed and the development of required NextGen attributes while eliminating existing gaps in 

technology and policy. First, the linkages of the research to a needed NextGen requirement, the 

basis for that requirement, and the costs, anticipated benefits and priority of the research activity, 

are rarely evident in the briefings. New concepts for NextGen should be linked to the needs of 

the key customers and stakeholders outside of the FAA, and explicitly incorporate the interests 

and capabilities of each; this linkage is also rarely evident in the briefings. Several of the 

specific findings and recommendations from this briefing stem from the difficulty of finding 

these linkages. 

Recommendation: The Solution Set taxonomy the FAA has adopted may be a useful construct 

in which to define the NextGen R&D program and to brief its research activities, and NASOPS 

recommends trying this approach. The R&D program should articulate clearly the intended roles 

and responsibilities of the customers and stakeholders as a basis for performing needs 

assessments, defining resulting NextGen system design requirements, and conducting 

operational demonstrations to achieve system performance metrics. The costs and anticipated 

benefits of projects or research elements that make up the program should be explained, and their 

prioritization to develop the system should be defined. NASOPS recommends that the I&I 

Coordinator should be included in briefings to REDAC, and address the issues of (1) 

stakeholder/customer involvement across the portfolio, (2) connection of the ongoing research to 

specific NextGen needs, and (3), the extent to which research concepts will be validated in 

operational demonstrations to demonstrate system performance improvements. The individuals 

performing the work should, in the briefings, link the individual research activities that comprise 

the solution set back to these considerations. This connectivity will assure the REDAC of the 

strategic alignment needed and ensures the same internally within the FAA. 

Finding: The subcommittee was appreciative of the presentations discussing CAASD’s work in 

Collaborative ATM, which included IDRP, Probabilistic TFM, Flow Contingency Management, 

and High Density Area Departure/Arrival Management. While all of the work presented had 

demonstrable value, it was clearly limited to an internal ANSP focus. The subcommittee was not 

presented with any research on advanced collaboration capabilities to enable increased 

user/operator roles in addressing capacity constraints and limitations. 

Recommendation: It is essential that user engagement in true collaboration be emphasized fully 

in the research. The subcommittee recommends that the FAA research focus, including the work 

program at CAASD, have a more balanced approach that gives greater weight to the 
 

 

8 

participation and leverage of the NAS operator’s role in collaborative ATM. Specific example 

emphases might include: 

1)	 Greater emphasis on enabling the operators to provide a first response to the adjustment, 

clarification, and balancing of demand to meet and alleviate constraints and limitations. 

2)	 Greater emphasis on negotiations of constraints, slots, trajectories and throughput
 

between ANSP and operators to allow fleet-wide optimization, with less focus on 


reactive and/or unilateral actions by the ANSP. 


3)	 Mapping specific linkages between the NextGen CATM solution set and the research, 

including that in the CAASD work program 

Finding: The briefing on incremental, probabilistic, congestion resolution was well received by 

the subcommittee. The work provides a very useful framework for conceptualizing next 

generation traffic flow management during severe weather conditions. The subcommittee is 

aware that the FAA has agreed to develop CATM capabilities in their response to the RTCA TF5 

report, but has not been briefed on the progress or the scope of this effort. The subcommittee did 

express an interest in moving the concepts forward more rapidly with an aim towards 

prototyping, high fidelity simulation and, eventually, operational evaluation. 

Recommendation: The FAA should: 

1) Develop a detailed research and implementation roadmap within the NextGen CATM 

program and solidify necessary multiyear funding resources. Broaden the research team 

to include outside expertise in areas such as ensemble weather forecasting, airline 

operations decision making and terminal and en route capacity impact modeling. 

2)	 Refine and validate methods for probabilistic weather forecasting as applied to this 

concept. The aviation weather forecasting community is currently experimenting with 

various ensemble techniques for characterizing forecast uncertainty. The efficacy of 

these methods relative to this concept of use should be rigorously assessed. 

3)	 Refine and validate methods for "weather impact translation" as applied to capacity 

forecasting for en route sectors (e.g. dynamic MAP values), individual flows, terminal 

airspace and airports. This is a big job and will require participation from multiple 

research organizations as well as the operational community, working in an integrated, 

cross-research manner, from fundamental research in weather, to means of translation to 

ATM tactical and strategic decision aids. 

4)	 Articulate and validate the concepts for Traffic Management Initiatives (TMI) that would 

be used to incrementally adjust demand relative to constrained resources. It is not clear 

that today's TMIs (e.g. ground delay or ground stops, airspace flow programs, miles or 

minutes in trail) would support this incremental congestion resolution concept 

effectively. 
 

 

 

 

9 

Incorporate, as a key element of the concept, the impact of airline operators in modulating 

demand in response to forecasts of reduced capacity. As with several of the briefings, the 

subcommittee felt that the work did not adequately consider the essential role of the operator in 

developing solutions to the capacity-demand imbalance. Operational demonstration with airline 

operators will be key to entrain users in concept validation. 

Finding: As examples of areas in which the user/operator community is supportive of 

expediting the implementation of FAA research, the subcommittee heard two briefings of 

specific interest. Although not covered in the weather briefing, operators are currently using 

their own wind estimates for TOD computations, which could lead to a variety of “optimal” 

descent profiles. In a different area, the subcommittee was pleased with the presentations of the 

research on Relative Position Indicator (RPI) and Automation for Monitoring RNP/RNAV 

Operations (AMRO) tools. These tools will assist Air Traffic Control in utilizing these 

procedures and delivering the benefits of the RNP/RNAV procedures. Since RNP/RNAV 

procedures are currently being developed, expediting these automation tools would accelerate 

benefits in environment and fuel consumption to appropriately equipped users. 

Recommendation: FAA, in conjunction with the NWS who generates the core wind data, 

should work with the user/operator community to ensure that consistent, certified wind 

information is provided to equipped operators for use in developing descent profiles. FAA and 

CAASD should expedite the development and implementation of the Relative Position Indicator 

(RPI) and the Automation for Monitoring RNP/RNAV Operations (AMRO) tools to enable full 

use of these procedures. 

Finding: TCAS has been a significant safety element in the National Airspace System since first 

deployed in 1993. Its design was carefully coordinated with existing ATM procedures to 

minimize false alarms while reducing the risk of mid air collisions. As NextGen introduces new 

procedures, it is appropriate to consider whether TCAS will continue to operate effectively while 

maintaining an acceptably low false alarm rate. The NASOPS Subcommittee was briefed on a 

new IRAD CAASD program to explore changes to TCAS surveillance, communications and 

threat logic to achieve compatibility with proposed NextGen flight procedures while preserving 

its collision avoidance capability. For example, a 2008 CAASD study concluded that of twelve 

proposed NextGen procedures in Oceanic/Non-Radar, Enroute and Terminal airspace, six would 

probably not increase the chances of unwanted TCAS Resolution Advisories, four might increase 

them and two would likely increase them. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee applauds the CAASD NextCAS IRAD effort, but 

modifying TCAS or creating a new collision avoidance system to achieve compatibility with 

NextGen would be a particularly complex problem, and that work would need to be based on a 

clear understanding of changed requirements and be a mainstream activity within CAASD’s 

FAA-funded work program, to be done in concert with existing TCAS experts at FAA, MIT/LL 

and other organizations. 

Finding: The CAASD analysis to determine how many sectors might lend themselves to generic 

airspace operations did not consider a mix of aircraft that is different from today’s mix and did 

not consider the possible introduction of trajectory based operation (TBO). The Subcommittee 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 

believes that in the timeframe when generic airspace might be implemented there will be a 

greater diversity of aircraft flying at high altitudes (RJs for example). This mix of aircraft might 

well change the eligibility of a sector for generic airspace operation. The analysis assumed the 

current sector layout, but, it is likely that the current sector layout could well change because of 

TBO. 

Recommendation: To get a more realistic assessment of how many sectors lend themselves to 

generic airspace operation, the analysis should be repeated, taking into account the fleet mix that 

might be expected at high altitude and possible changes, such as new sector boundaries, resulting 

from TBO. 

Finding: As briefed, it appeared that CAAD’s System-Wide Model is perhaps two generations 

beyond the NASPAC tool currently in use by the FAA. The subcommittee would like to 

understand the FAA plans for adopting the System-Wide Model as a NASPAC update, if doing 

so is, in fact, the case. 

Related Finding: In existing modeling and simulation tools (e.g., NASPAC, System-Wide 

Model, ACES), there is a gap in the ability to account for the effects of dynamically changing 4D 

trajectories on NAS performance. Such ability is required to assess the impacts of weather 

avoidance field dynamics, traffic flow dynamics, and airspace dynamics, for example, on NAS 

capacity and safety. Additionally, the modeling of NAS demand and operations with tools such 

as FATE, NASPAC, System-Wide Model, ACES, and others focuses on IFR traffic between a 

limited number of U.S. airports. Specifically, the modeling has limited accounting for the effects 

of VFR and VFR-Flight-Following operations predominantly by Part 135/91 operations, on total 

system capacity, workloads, and safety. The ability to model these effects and operations is 

important to the future implementation of trajectory-based operations of the NAS. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee requests the FAA to provide it with a strategic view of 

the modeling and simulation needs for NextGen, contrasted with the tools currently available. 

The FAA should begin to develop modeling and simulation capabilities and related requirements 

for analyzing the effects of dynamically changing 4D trajectories on NAS performance, in 

accounting for the VFR operations and UAS operations, and in accounting for operations at 

airports not currently included in NAS modeling tools. 

Finding: The subcommittee is encouraged that the FAA has developed an initial Weather-ATM 

integration plan. To initiate the implementation of integrated weather-ATM capabilities, 

however, the FAA needs to develop a detailed implementation plan that ensures needed activities 

are in place to support investment decisions. The subcommittee was pleased to see that FAA and 

NWS have made substantial progress in defining clear roles and responsibilities, as illustrated in 

the FAA briefing figure which identifies the four key functions: 1, developing and maintaining 

the NWS 4D weather cube, 2) determining potential weather constraints on NAS resources, 3) 

assessing ATM impacts, and 4), developing proposed mitigations. This framework is a positive 

step forward in defining roles and responsibilities between the NWS and FAA meteorological 

communities, and ATM stakeholders. The committee notes, however, that weather research in 

the FAA and NWS should not be firewalled from Wx-ATM integration research, which would 

be directly counter to the integrated research processes emphasized in the Weather – Air Traffic 
 

 

 

 

 

 

11 

Management (ATM) Integration Working Group (WAIWG) Report of the National Airspace
 

System (NAS) Operations Subcommittee of the FAA’s Research, Engineering and Development 

Advisory Committee (REDAC). 

Recommendation: The FAA should develop a detailed weather-ATM integration 

implementation plan, consistent with the JPDO strategy for NextGen weather improvements, that 

ensures requirements are established, develops needed operational concepts, and establishes a 

clear business case for weather-ATM integration investments. This detailed plan should address 

needed activities across FAA lines of business and identify needed external stakeholder actions. 

Specific suggestions include: 

1)	 Improve coordination between NWS, AJP, AJW and NextGen I&I office in 

developing foundational NextGen weather capabilities (forecasts, processing, 

distribution) 

2)	 Improve the process for coordinating weather-ATM concept development and 

demonstration projects across AJP and AJR. RAPT/IDRP is a successful example. 

Analogous projects dealing with weather impacts on strategic traffic flow 

management, time-based metering, en route conflict-probe and high-density arrival 

management are needed 

3)	 Empower traffic flow management researchers to exploit experimental strategic 

forecast products like CoSPA for the development and demonstration of advanced 

concepts, in conjunction with weather researchers 

4)	 Articulate commitments to all of the user community by demonstrations for near and 

mid-term advances in operational weather capability 

Finding: The Subcommittee received an interesting briefing on the development of Metroplex 

study teams in preparation for NextGen. While the studies are, appropriately, focused on areas 

recommended by the RTCA, some early work on these complex airspaces has been 

accomplished by NASA, and the FAA has not utilized that work. Doing so might permit a more 

aggressive approach to addressing some of the more complex situations than those currently 

under consideration. Additionally, the committee was struck by the FAA's desire to examine 

situations in which they would not need to do comply with NEPA requirements to perform an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for new airspace 

usage because of the time associated with such a requirement. As the committee has noted 

before, the FAA needs to find a way to streamline compliance with NEPA requirements for new 

routings, as well as to give credit for offsetting savings. Similarly, in the Metroplex 

environment, it is clear that separation standards will need to be addressed from the same 

perspective of developing approaches to tackle complex challenges. 

Recommendation: The FAA should not shy away from addressing these long-pole issues in 

the Metroplex studies, as solving them now will enable much faster implementation of possible 

NextGen improvements and savings. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

12 

Subcommittee on Human Factors
 

Finding: FAA mechanisms for guiding NextGen developments across organizations within the 

FAA require significant workforce time and effort, yet are insufficient or inappropriate for the 

range of activities required to develop NextGen. Of particular concern is, first, safety assessment 

activities that drive research units to make estimates of failure mechanisms and error rates to 

calculate quantitative reliability estimates at an inappropriate level of detail early in the design 

process, rather than guiding developments that promote safety. This is of particular concern for 

safety-risk-assessments which are demanding detailed estimates of human error rates given fairly 

notional concepts of operation while not considering safety-enhancing behaviors, as noted in 

many prior studies, including RTCA Task Force 4. Second, significant effort is required to 

maintain and compare ‘roadmaps,’ yet it is unclear from these roadmaps what major goals or 

capabilities their entries represent, whether redundancies or gaps exist, and what are the critical 

decision paths and system dependencies. While the roadmaps may provide some valuable 

functions, they should only be viewed as one of several representations required to drive design; 

for example, immediate human factors research requires greater specificity of scenarios 

(including degraded modes) and of roles and responsibilities. 

Recommendation (a): The Subcommittee recommends the FAA examine methods of 

examining safety throughout the development of NextGen, including the human contribution to 

safety and human error, at an appropriate level of detail and in a manner that guides development 

to improve safety. 

Recommendation (b): Likewise, the Subcommittee recommends the FAA examine the 

roadmaps for their ability to clearly articulate the critical paths, system dependencies and critical 

decision points; the standard by which they should be examined is not just whether these effects 

are captured in theory, but also whether they are clearly documented in a manner sufficient for 

the range of domains and stakeholders involved in NextGen development. These roadmaps 

should be able to address the other immediate research needs to achieve NextGen; for example, 

greater definition is needed for scenarios and role definitions to enable effective research on 

critical human factors concerns. Where the roadmaps are not a sufficient representation, the 

FAA should clarify other mechanisms to guide NextGen development. Likewise, the FAA 

should evaluate the appropriate resources for maintaining these NextGen development 

mechanisms to ensure that they are used only where there is a clear need without requiring 

excessive personnel time. 

Finding: We agree with the conclusions of the GAO report that much has been done to 

coordinate FAA and NASA Human Factors NextGen Research, but that these activities could be 

enhanced through “a cross-agency plan developed [by the FAA] in cooperation with NASA to 

identify, prioritize, and coordinate NextGen human factors issues.” Such a plan should 

additionally include other entities as appropriate, and should recognize the disparate approaches 

taken by each entity, such as the orientation of FAA NextGen research towards the Enterprise 

Architecture and FAA NextGen Concepts of Operation whereas the orientation of NASA 

NextGen research is towards the JPDO visions of NextGen and Concepts of Operation. 
 

 

 

 

13 

Recommendation: We recommend to the Director of Research and Technology Development 

that a small high-level ‘human factors coordinating committee,’ comprised of individuals with 

appropriate authority for the development of agency NextGen plan development at both the FAA 

and NASA, meet and come to an agreement on a vision for the ‘initial focus areas’ as 

recommended by the GAO report. Within the FAA, this coordinating committee must extend 

beyond the Human Factors Research and Engineering Group (HFREG) to other research groups 

that are conducting human factors research or whose activities require human factors research. 

For this activity to have the greatest utility, this committee should also include other NextGen 

stakeholders, such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the 

JPDO, as well as Federally Funded Research and Development Centers supporting research such 

as MITRE/CAASD. 

Finding: The Subcommittee was heartened to hear that two senior leadership positions – the 

head of the Human Factors Research and Engineering Group and the Integration Lead for 

Human Factors in NextGen – have been either filled or are actively been solicited. However, the 

committee was concerned to see that these positions have been effectively downgraded from 

their original conception; in particular, the head of the HFREG was created as a Senior Executive 

Service (SES)-rank job. This suggests a de-emphasis of human factors and a diminished 

visibility and priority to ensure that human performance considerations are factored agency-wide 

into programmatic decisions across the system life cycle. Likewise, it remains unclear what 

resources and authority the Integration Lead will have, and, thus, whether it will be situated to 

identify and resolve particularly cross-cutting human factors concerns that may require, for 

example, changes in technology, operational procedures, and concepts of operation on both air 

and ground sides. Finally, the HFREG remains short-staffed with research program management 

staff. 

Recommendation: We recommend that the FAA senior leadership responsible for defining 

these positions and for allocating SES and research program management staff positions review 

the positions currently being hired and clarify their roles, ensure that the HFREG has sufficient 

research program management staff, without establishing excessive supervisory chain and 

management overhead, clarify the mechanisms by which the Human Factors Integration Lead 

can identify human factors issues in NextGen and guide effective cross-cutting resolutions, and 

ensure that the position has the appropriate resources and staff to do so. 

Finding: The Subcommittee was pleased to see the extent to which the high-level plan to 

validate NextGen Con Ops accounts for human factors concerns, to the degree that they were 

covered in the high level briefing provided. The committee also appreciates the mechanisms at 

both the researcher and management level to coordinate human factors research where possible 

between this effort and the HFREG. 

Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends to the Manager for ATS Concept 

Development and Validation Group to continue coordination between this effort and the 

HFREG. The subcommittee requests some deep-dives into the human factors component of 

validating NextGen con ops. This should include the strategy for identifying relevant human 

factors issues and examining them in tests of fidelity relevant to the concept maturity level, from 

early-on methods such as cognitive walk through to detailed human-in-the-loop simulations, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 

through the data analysis and conclusions based on these research activities. The Subcommittee 

also notes the need to carefully consider off-nominal and degraded operations and recommends 

further development (or elaboration) of the strategy for addressing this. 

Finding: The Human Factors Subcommittee has not been briefed on the Weather Technology in 

the Cockpit (WTIC) program and understands that it is in the process of replanning in response 

to earlier recommendations made by other sub-committees. However, the presentation and 

repeated questions did not present a clear, consistent vision for this project, and identified several 

proposed objectives of this research where government research does not appear to be justified. 

It is unclear what the research will provide beyond developments already taking place in 

industry, and how specifically it will support NextGen and/or AVS activities. Human factors 

efforts appeared to be vague and disparate, without clear, technically sound approaches; the 

presentation and use of weather information in the flightdeck should be better coordinated with, 

or actually conducted by, specialists in this area associated with the FAA Human Factors 

Research and Engineering Group (HFREG). 

Recommendation: As in earlier recommendations, the Human Factors sub-committee strongly 

recommends to the Director of Research and Technology Development that the vision, intended 

deliverables and anticipated customers of the WTIC program be clearly articulated. The role of 

government research in this area needs to be carefully examined, as should whether an isolated 

project in weather in the cockpit is more appropriate than broader inclusion of weather concerns 

in other NextGen programs and by the HFREG. An expert review of the project is warranted. 

Following that, the project should be resourced and staffed appropriately to its goals and 

intended impact relative to other NextGen research areas. 

Finding: The Subcommittee applauds the FAA for attempting to develop a Human Systems 

Integration (HSI) Roadmap that encompasses all human system integration aspects of NextGen 

and is developed in accordance with Operational Improvements (OIs) as they are represented in 

the NAS Enterprise Architecture (EA). While the Subcommittee recognizes the limitations of 

roadmaps as an agency mechanism for guiding NextGen development, the committee applauds 

their use by the HFREG. The Subcommittee also respects the careful consideration given to 

balancing the workload of maintaining the HSI roadmap with the benefits it provides for withinagency coordination. However, the Subcommittee also recognizes the limits of the roadmaps 

and the need for human factors research to also use other representations of NextGen as input to 

their research activities, such as scenarios (including degraded modes) and storyboards. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends to the Director of Research and 

Technology Development a coordinated approach across FAA R & D efforts where the HFREG 

and, as appropriate, the new HF NextGen Integration Lead and other programs examining human 

factors concerns use the insights of the road map to create other representations that serve other 

important purposes. This would include fleshing out the job requirements of all important 

personnel sufficiently to identify key research needs, to ‘storyboard’ their future positions 

sufficiently to provide a common vision within HF research and to highlight concerns with 

assumptions about human roles in a sensible way to the community, and to identify 

programmatic and technical risks, redundancies, and gaps that require near-term action. To the 

maximum extent possible this effort should build on any NextGen descriptions developed 
 

 

 

 

15 

elsewhere within the FAA, both for efficiency and to foster coordination with, and transition of 

human factors results to, other NextGen research and development efforts. 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

General Observations 

•	 The SAS believes that the Aircraft Safety R&D portfolio content is substantially correct, 

but remains 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. 

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

discussed by the subcommittee follow. 

Finding: Aeromedical Research program (CAMI) is conducting research on the subject of 

human fatigue both from the human factors and aero-medical perspectives. The expertise at 

CAMI and the output from their research is an essential technical resource available to the FAA 

in support of recent and future rulemaking activities on pilot fatigue. The SAS understands that 

the Human Factors expertise at CAMI has been well integrated into this rule making activity. 

However there may be a gap in the coordination and integration with aero-medical expertise at 

CAMI with regard to their input to new rulemaking activities on fatigue. While this may be a 

unique case, it was not clear to the SAS that a sufficient process is in place to ensure that the in 

house FAA science community is integrated into the rulemaking process, in particular for future 

rulemaking to address human fatigue. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee receive a review on how FAA integrates its’ in house 

technical expertise into the rule making process to ensure new rules are based upon and 

influenced by publicly available scientific findings. 

Finding: AFS recently issued the first significant revision to pilot flight and duty time 

regulations in over 30 years. This regulation is science based and will require carriers to manage 

risk using SMS principles. It also permits compliance using a Fatigue Risk Management System 

(FRMS) for all or part of a carrier’s operation. There are gaps in some of the scientific 

knowledge that must be filled in order to improve the effectiveness of the regulation. CAMI is 

currently providing oversight on industry funded research and data collection. CAMI, in 

conjunction with FAA, industry and labor has the expertise to either conduct this scientific 

research or provide oversight to fill the necessary scientific gaps. It is clear to the SAS that this 

new regulation will require research and data collection and that, to date there has been none 

requested by FAA to support this regulation for FY 10 and beyond. 
 

 

 

 

 

16 

Recommendation: AFS and CAMI meet with AVS as soon as possible to sponsor needed 

research to support the new pilot flight and duty time regulation 

Finding: The Weather Research Program continues to deliver useful products. The 

subcommittee is impressed with the quality and relevance of the work and found the program to 

be tightly integrated with the research efforts of NCAR, NOAA (various laboratories) and 

MIT/LL. The program is also connected to the real world through partnerships with UAL, Delta 

and SWA.The Subcommittee supports the weather research program's focus on improving 

general aviation safety through enhancing forecast accuracy. However, the subcommittee notes 

the importance of balancing enhanced weather forecast information with developing tools and 

resources for improved pilot decision making to address the root-causes of GA weather 

accidents. 

The Subcommittee noted the absence of a volcanic ash research effort. Following the meeting 

the Subcommittee received a copy of the FAA letter responding to a previous Subcommittee 

recommendation on this subject. The letter states in part (“.......With respect to ash plume 

detection and reporting to flight planners and flight crews for hazard avoidance, FAA has 

suspended research into those and other aspects of volcanic ash hazards pending a full review of 

the need for further research.”). 

Recommendation: Due to the significant disruption caused by the recent Icelandic volcanic 

eruption and the resulting activities led by ICAO to establish international guidance for 

operations in the vicinity of volcanic ash, the Subcommittee recommends that FAA identify and 

aggressively pursue any research needed to support these international discussions. This 

research may include the prediction or modeling of the movement and intensity of volcanic ash 

following an eruption, the provision of tactical information to flight planners and crews so they 

can effectively avoid hazardous areas with minimum impact on flight schedules, and 

identification of ash tolerance levels for aircraft, engines, and passengers. 

Finding: The Subcommittee received an excellent briefing on the emerging details of a UAS 

Research Plan intended to support the milestones of the current FAA notional roadmap for UAS 

NAS integration and noted significant progress has been made in defining a clearer path towards 

certification and routine operation of UAS in the NAS. In light of the significant community 

pressure on the FAA to accelerate the safe integration of UAS into the NAS, the SAS questions 

whether the envisioned timeline would be acceptable. The SAS questions whether the resources 

currently devoted to research, engineering, and development is sufficient to address the 

complexity of the operational, technical, and policy challenges associated with the safe 

integration of UAS and whether the timeline could be accelerated if additional resources were 

available. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends the following: 

•	 The FAA should review UAS research requirements and the research plan in an attempt to 

match the integration timeline to the integration needs of the community. 

•	 The FAA should reassess staffing and funding requirements for research, engineering, and 

development 
 

 

 

 

 

 

17 

Background: The Subcommittee noted in March 2009 that Software/Digital/ Systems R&D be 

given additional emphasis, increased staffing and funding. In August 2009 the Subcommittee 

noted the lack of a comprehensive and integrated Software/Digital Systems Project Plan and also 

noted that little progress had been made in acquiring the specialized expertise required to support 

this critical research program. In March 2010 the Subcommittee was pleased to note the 

development of an SDS comprehensive research plan which would provide a solid context 

against which research initiatives could be assessed. 

Finding: Although the Subcommittee was pleased to see that the SDS Research projects were 

organized to address four significant research requirements, time did not allow for a 

comprehensive assessment to be accomplished. The SAS again noted that the level of specialized 

expertise to support this critical program is not yet in place. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee would like to do a “Deep Dive” review of the FAA 

integrated SDS R&D portfolio and recommends that this be accomplished in a one day 

workshop. The Subcommittee recommends that the one day workshop be convened prior to the 

next SAS meeting. 

Finding: The descriptions and discussions under the four areas – Performance Based Navigation 

(PBN), Aircraft Performance in Terminal Area Operations, Simulation Model for Advanced 

Maneuvers, and Laser Safety – were relatively general. The briefing on PBN indicated that a 

primary focus of this research is to understand issues associated with operations in a mixed 

equipage environment. It was unclear exactly what information was needed from this research 

to allow it to move forward with the implementation of PBN in terminal airspace. What may be 

valid and focused needs were difficult to ascertain from the generalized briefings. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee would find it helpful if at the next review, the research 

efforts could be described specifically in a way that reflects actual needs of system implementers 

or regulation developers. 

Finding: A stated objective of the Aircraft Performance in Terminal Area Operations research is 

to determine “what can be done to prevent unsafe landings and runway excursions.” The 

Subcommittee noted that work to date has been focused on analysis of operational landings and 

modeling aircraft performance. The Subcommittee also noted that most of the focus of this 

research dealt with runway excursions due to contaminants (ice, snow, etc). Since many runway 

excursions result from unstable approaches (high, fast, long, etc) on dry as well as contaminated 

surfaces, the Subcommittee believes that the research needs to cover all causes, not just slippery 

runways. While program funding runs out in FY 10, deliverables that would result in solutions 

for reducing runway excursions are not at hand. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends this project be refocused and funded to 

identify solutions to improve the safety of landing operations and reduce runway excursions 

from all causes. 

Observation: The Subcommittee again finds the Fire Research and Safety Program to be 

relevant, well managed and directly responsive to current and emerging aircraft safety 
 

 

 

 

 

 

18 

requirements. It is an example of what FAA can expect from a world class technical staff, 

working in modestly funded world class facilities, producing world class and life saving results. 

This program clearly is a model for other research projects. It is important that this program 

continue to be adequately staffed and funded. 

Observation: The Subcommittee notes that FAA continues to work with the US Army Research 

Laboratories to take full advantage of the Army’s knowledge and HUMS fleet data to support the 

FAA effort of providing better guidance in maintenance credit determinations within the current 

AC. The SAS further notes the progress FAA has made in leading a collaborative effort to 

expand the Army effort to include OEMs, vendors and civil helicopter operators through HAS. 

Observation: The Subcommittee continues to be concerned about the lack of a sufficient 

internal core capability and the lack of “bench strength” to support continued success in this 

safety critical area. The SAS finds the FAA responsive to past recommendations notes the 

continued good work being performed under the Aircraft Icing Program and looks forward to the 

research results being translated into regulatory guidance. 

Observation: The Subcommittee notes the progress that FAA has made in the research program 

designed to ensure the structural integrity and durability in critical rotating engine parts in 

turbine engines throughout their service life and looks forward to the research results being 

translated into Advisory Circulars in 2014. 

Observation: The Subcommittee continues to find that the research conducted by FAA in 

cooperation with industry, under the Transport Structural Integrity Metallic R&D Program, to be 

relevant and a good example of self funding through industry cost sharing and engineering 

support. 

Observation: The Subcommittee noted the relevant and important research being done under 

the Continued Airworthiness Transport Program and further noted the research program as a 

good example of what can be accomplished with limited resources by leveraging the capabilities 

of research partners. 

Observation: The Subcommittee continues to believe that the Small Airplane Directorate has a 

very tough task ahead to insure Continued Operational Safety (COS) for the >150,000 general 

aviation aircraft in the US. It is critical that FAA be able to collect the aging aircraft structural 

cracking data to support an adequate data based, reliable approach to COS for this fleet. The SAS 

looks forward to FAA’s response as to whether these required data are best acquired through 

either a voluntary or mandatory reporting requirement. 

Finding: The Subcommittee again emphasizes the need to support funding for FAA research 

facilities which serve not only FAA but are also resources for the world. It is important to ensure 

adequate funding and support not only for the modernization 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. The subcommittee recognizes the difficulties in 

providing needed significant funding out of a limited Aircraft Safety R&D budget. The massive 

building program that transformed NAFEC into the FAA Technical Center in the mid 1970s is 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19 

an example of what can be accomplished when all elements of the FAA pull together and think 

“out of the box”. The Pavement Test Facility is another example on a lesser scale of what can be 

accomplished with good planning and a commitment. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA undertake a R&D Facilities 

Needs Review to answer the following questions: 

•	 What facilities need to be upgraded? 

•	 What facilities need to be replaced? 

•	 What facilities are no longer required? 

• What capabilities are required to address future requirements and when will they be 

required? 

•	 Where should they be located? 

•	 Costs and schedules 

•	 Capital Investment funding Options 

•	 Operation and maintenance options, private versus public 

Finding: The Subcommittee remains concerned that several research programs lack a sufficient 

level of technical expertise to ensure success. Within the Aircraft Safety Program, the 

Software/Digital Systems Program, the Icing Program and Unmanned Aircraft Systems are 

examples of where there are needs for increased core competency. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that developing an R&D core competency 

and high quality R&D technical workforce continue to be a high FAA priority. 

Observation: The Subcommittee commends the FAA on the development of a Research Project 

Performance Reporting Template designed to track the status of work planned for the coming 

month, problems or issues, plans for the next reporting period and status of planned financial 

obligations. The subcommittee suggests that, following implementation, the frequency of 

reporting be evaluated based on experience. 

Finding: The Subcommittee believes it would be helpful for FAA and the industry to draw a 

clear distinction between two areas of R,E&D activity under its purview. Both are vitally 

important. The first areas are those in which FAA or its partners do the lead work in developing 

new knowledge – such as in icing, fire safety research, wake vortex issues, fatigue 

measurements, - and many others. 

The other areas, equally important, are work efforts in which the basic work may have been 

done, or is being done in industry, but where FAA’s efforts are needed to synthesize research of 

others to inform FAA of needed regulatory and processes, and where, this FAA expertise is 

essential. Some of this work may point to specific needed efforts of research. 

Recommendation: The SAS believes it would be worthwhile for FAA to draw a clear 

distinction between the two areas of work so that both can be better understood and supported by 

the responsible and interested parties.