Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC)
 

Holiday Inn Rosslyn Westpark Hotel
 

1900 North Fort Meyer Drive, Arlington, VA
 

Meeting Minutes
 

April 23-24, 2002
 

On April 23-24, 2002, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Research, Engineering and 

Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) held a meeting at the Holiday Inn Roslyn 

Westpark Hotel, Arlington, Virginia. Attachments 1 and 2 provide the meeting agenda and 

attendance, respectively. 

Welcome and Introductory Remarks 

Mr. Chris Seher, Acting Director, Office of Aviation Research, substituted for Dr. Herm Rediess 

as the Designated Federal Official. Mr. Seher welcomed Committee members, guests and then 

read the public meeting announcement. REDAC Chair, Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis thanked 

retiring member, Mr. Paul Drouilhet, for his outstanding leadership as Chairman of the Air 

Traffic Services Subcommittee and a member of the Full Committee. Mr. Drouilhet will 

continue to serve on the Air Traffic Services Subcommittee. Dr. Boehm-Davis also recognized 

newly appointed REDAC member, Ms. Thella Bowens, Senior Director for Aviation, Port of San 

Diego. 

Meeting Objectives 

In addition to the REDAC Subcommittee presentations and recommendations for the FY 2004 

budget, the Committee: 

• Examined the FAA’s response to their February 4, 2002 letter to the Administrator. 

• Discussed their recommendations to the FY 2004 budget. 

• Examined the new performance-based budget. 

The meeting agenda was altered slightly by Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis to allow for the 

attendance of FAA senior executives. Attendees included, FAA Administrator, Jane Garvey, 

Associate Administrators, Mr. Steve Brown, Mr. Nicholas Sabatini, and Acting Assistant 

Administrator Ms. Louise Maillett. Mr. James Washington, Director, Air Traffic Systems 

Requirement Service and Mr. Pat Schaumbach, Associate Undersecretary of the newly formed 

Transportation Security Agency (TSA) attended. 

Dennis DeGaetano Remarks 

Mr. Dennis DeGaetano, Acting Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, stated 

Mr. Charlie Keegan will become the new Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions 

and the transition will occur within a week. 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. DeGaetano also remarked that the Secretary of Transportation stated with Administrator 

Garvey departing in August, the naming of the Chief Operating Officer (COO) is made more 

politically sensitive. Both positions will likely be filled in tandem. 

In addition, he commented on progress being made in several areas. Specifically, the FAA is: 

•	 Enhancing the Terminal Business Units, under the direction of Mr. Bill Voss. This 

will occur over the next several weeks. 

•	 Focusing energy on metrics to identify targets for program improvements. In the 

upcoming weeks and months, the FAA will publish these metrics. 

•	 Enhancing the way the R&D activity is highlighted in plans for the Air Traffic 

Organization (ATO). 

•	 Sensitive to realities of the FY 2003 budget and the pressures placed upon it by the 

TSA. 

Subcommittee Recommendations 

In February and March 2002, the six standing subcommittees reviewed FAA’s 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 of the 

following subcommittee chairmen presented recommendations to the Committee. Attachment 3 

provides the subcommittees’ reports. 

Subcommittee on Air Traffic Services Mr. John Kern 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety	 Capt. Chester Eckstrand 

(for Dr. Louis Mancini) 

Subcommittee on Airport Technology Mr. Richard Marchi 

Subcommittee on Environment & Energy Mr. James DeLong 

Subcommittee of Human Factors Dr. John Hansman 

Subcommittee on Security	 Mr. John Klinkenberg 

Louise Maillett Remarks 

Ms. Louise Maillett, Acting Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and International 

Aviation thanked the Committee for the invitation and said that these meetings are useful to meet 

people and try to understand the issues beyond the FAA headquarters building. Ms. Maillett 

recognized Environment and Energy Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. James DeLong for his 

leadership talents. Ms. Maillett also stated that the FAA has created an International Business 

Plan for the whole agency that can be examined by interested parties. 

Performance Based Budget for FY 2003 and FY 2004 Proposal 

Mr. Chris Seher briefed the Committee on the Performance Based Budget for FY 2003 and 

FY 2004. Mr. Seher stated that the new budget is no longer in a Chapter format. Instead, the 

budget is now separated by goals of Safety, Security, Efficiency, and Environment. 

2
 
Nicholas Sabatini Remarks 

Mr. Nicholas Sabatini, Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification, commented on 

the vital nature, importance, and contribution of the Committee’s work to the overall FAA safety 

equation. Mr. Sabatini ensured that the FAA would continue to dialogue with the REDAC to 

help an already safe transportation system become even safer. He recognized Aircraft Safety 

Subcommittee Chairman, Dr. Louis Mancini for his outstanding efforts and announced the June 

2002 collaborative FAA/Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona. 

Steve Brown Remarks 

Mr. Steve Brown, Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services, stressed the limited research 

resources of the agency, but noted that another reauthorization was underway. Mr. Brown 

commented that overall, the FAA is under funded for research. However, research pertaining to 

capacity issues has been fruitful. The FAA is trying to align the benefits of research to 

customer’s needs and emphasized the continual need to align NASA and the FAA’s research 

efforts. 

Pat Schaumbach Remarks 

Mr. Pat Schaumbach, Associate Undersecretary of the TSA, responded to the Committee’s 

questions regarding the concept of “trusted travelers,” the 100% screening of bags and 

passengers, the deployment of law enforcement officials at airports, and Transportation Worker 

Identity Cards. 

Jane Garvey Remarks 

FAA Administrator, Jane Garvey offered several opening remarks before fielding questions and 

comments from the Committee. Ms. Garvey spoke about the challenging and extraordinary 

seven months following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. She noted that the FAA 

was in close communication and coordination with the newly formed Transportation Security 

Agency (TSA). She also stated that the relationship between the FAA and the TSA, with regard 

to research and development, required more clarity in the legislation. To that end, the FAA has 

prepared a technical amendment to the bill for Congress to consider. Maintaining a focus on 

safety and capacity issues in aviation will be paramount in the coming years. Ms. Garvey 

mentioned it might be a good idea to have Chris Bertram who is the AA for Financial Services 

give a presentation of the FAA budget. 

On the issue of the end of her five-year term as Administrator (August 4, 2002), Ms. Garvey 

stated that the White House, Congress, and the Department of Transportation were all working to 

name her replacement. Ms. Garvey responded to a variety of questions from the Committee 

concerning the FAA Budget, the Trusted Traveler Concept, the need for a high-level advocate 

within the agency for research, the importance of a long-term research perspective, and the need 

to leverage aviation research with NASA, the DOD, and others. 

3
 
Wednesday April 24 

Opening Discussion 

The Committee discussed the FAA’s research issues, agenda, requirements, strategies, and 

priorities. Several members stated that the REDAC research and reporting processes should be 

re-examined to make it more effective. 

Response to REDAC Recommendations 

Mr. Seher presented the FAA’s informal response to the REDAC’s February 4, 2002 letter to 

Administrator Garvey. 

Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) Terms of Reference 

Mr. Ronald Swanda was unable to attend the meeting, therefore, the Terms of Reference 

Approval was postponed until the September REDAC. However, Mr. Seher commented that ran 

all-day meeting was recently held at the FAA Technical Center with the FAA and the General 

Aviation Manufacturer’s (GAMA). At this meeting NASA and the FAA discussed SATS. 

Mr. Richard Marchi stated that there was a National Academy of Sciences report in draft, 

possibly commissioned by the Transportation Research Board, which is highly critical of SATS. 

Dr. Boehm-Davis noted that there was talk of creating a joint SATS Subcommittee with the FAA 

and NASA, but that there was a problem with regulatory issues.
 

Wake Turbulence Program 

Mr. George Greene, FAA Field Manager at NASA Langley, briefed the Committee on the status 

of the wake vortex research program. Although there was general agreement on the increased 

budget for this program, the Committee did express concern over the increase coming at the 

expense of the weather program. 

Committee Discussion of Recommendations 

Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis suggested that the next letter, be short and include main 

recommendations and an appendix. The following topics were discussed as potential 

recommendations: Attachment 4 reflects the Committee’s final recommendations. 

1.	 The need to support continuing moderate increases in FAA R&D funding. 

2.	 The need to develop an effective mechanism allowing the REDAC to better influence 

high-level goals. 

3.	 The need to find means to more effectively use R&D funding that is now constrained 

by restrictions associated with the F&E Appropriation. 

4.	 The negative impact upon Human Factors research of constraints imposed since 

September 11, 2001. 

4
 
5.	 The possible loss of visibility of R&D activities within the new FAA organization. 

6.	 The need to commend FAA Associates for having attended this meeting and 

encourage continued participation in future meetings. 

7.	 The possibility that the REDAC ATS Subcommittee and the RTCA Free Flight 

Steering Committee might better advance their common interests through better 

cooperation and communication; perhaps the ATS Subcommittee Chair might be 

appointed to membership on the RTCA Committee. 

The members discussed forming a working group to resolve communication disconnects 

between the Safety, ATS, and Human Factors Subcommittees. This group would possibly have 

a formal report-back mechanism, overlapping committee membership, and periodic joint 

meetings. Dr. Boehm-Davis will work with members off-line to establish this working group. 

Air Traffic Services Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. John Kern, working in association with Dr. 

Mark Rodgers and Mr. Ray LaFrey, will present a report to the Committee in September 2002 

outlining research successes and failures in product development and implementation. 

Dr. Rodgers and Mr. LaFrey are scheduled to lead a discussion on the topic at NASA Ames in 

late July 2002. The NASA Ames discussion will focus on lessons learned. 

Announcements: 

•	 On May 5-8, 2002 a tech transfer meeting will be held at the FAA Technical Center 

in Atlantic City. The meeting will include demonstrations and papers. 

•	 All REDAC members are invited to NASA Ames for the ATS Subcommittee meeting 

on July 23-25, 2002. Mr. Dallas Denery of NASA has also invited the RTCA Select 

Committee to this meeting. 

Future Committee Activity 

The next meeting of the REDAC is scheduled for all day September 17 and the morning of 

September 18, 2002 at this same location. The REDAC will then hold a joint meeting with 

NASA’s Aerospace Technology Advisory Committee on the afternoon of September 18. 

Adjourn 

Dr. Boehm-Davis thanked the members for attending the meeting. The meeting was adjourned 

at 1:30 p.m. 

5
 
 

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 23-24, 2002 

AGENDA 

Day 1 – April 23 

9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. Welcome and Introductory Remarks Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis, 

Farewell to Retiring Member – Chair 

Mr. Paul Drouilhet Dr. Herman Rediess, FAA 

9:30 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Remarks Mr. Dennis DeGaetano, FAA 

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

10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Associate Administrators Remarks Mr. Steven Brown, FAA 

Mr. Nicholas Sabatini, FAA 

11:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. BREAK 

Subcommittee Recommendations 

11:15 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. Subcommittee on Air Traffic Services Mr. John Kern 

11:55 a.m. – 12:35 p.m. Subcommittee on Environment and Mr. James DeLong 

Energy 

12:35 p.m. – 1:35 a.m. LUNCH 

1:35 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. Remarks Hon. Jane Garvey, FAA 

2:15 p.m. – 2:55 p.m. Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety Mr. Chet Ekstrand 

2:55 p.m. – 3:35 p.m. Subcommittee on Airports Mr. Richard Marchi 

3:35 p.m. – 3:50 p.m. BREAK 

3:50 p.m. – 4:25 p.m. Subcommittee on Security Mr. John Klinkenberg 

4:25 p.m. – 5:10 p.m. Subcommittee on Human Factors Dr. John Hansman 

5:10 p.m. Adjourn 

6
 
 

Day 2 – April 24 

10:00 a.m. Reconvene Meeting Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis, Chair 

Dr. Herman Rediess, FAA 

10:05 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Performance Based Budget for FY 2003 Dr. Herman Rediess, FAA 

and FY 2004 Proposal 

10:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. FAA Response to Committee Dr. Herman Rediess, FAA 

Recommendations 

11:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. Transportation Security Administration Dr. Herman Rediess, FAA 

(TSA) and the REDAC 

11:15 a.m. – 11:45 a.m. Small Aircraft Transportation System Mr. Ron Swanda 

(Ad hoc Subcommittee) –Terms of 

Reference Approval 

11:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. Wake Turbulence Program Mr. George Greene, FAA/NASA 

Langley 

12:15 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. LUNCH 

1:15 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. Committee Discussion on Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis, Chair 

Recommendations 

2:45 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Review Future Committee Activity Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis, Chair 

3:00 p.m. Adjourn 

7
 
Attachment 2 

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

April 23-24, 2002
 

Attendance
 

Members 

Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis, Chair Dr. David Ashley Dr. Mike Benzakein 

Mr. James DeLong Mr. Paul Drouilhet Capt. Chester Ekstrand 

Dr. John Hansman Mr. John Kern Mr. John Klinkenberg 

Mr. Richard Marchi Dr. John McCarthy Mr. John O’Brien 

Mr. Bob Pearce Dr. Hans Weber Dr. Andres Zellweger 

Audience 

Hon. Jane Garvey, FAA Louise Maillett, FAA Steve Brown, FAA 

Nicholas Sabatini, FAA Pat Schambach, TSA Dennis DeGaetano, FAA 

Jim Washington, FAA Joseph Hetrick, BAE Steve Luckey, ALPA 

Michael Ganley, Airbus Steve Bradford, FAA Doug Farrow, FAA 

Cathy Bigelow, FAA George Greene, FAA Ira Haber, CSSI, Inc. 

Tony Freck, GE Aircraft Engines Paul Dykeman, FAA Mike Gallivan, FAA 

Virgenia Embrey-Brock, FAA Warren Fellner, Titan Rebecca Deloney, FAA 

Barbara AHemus, Kinghorn, Benji Neuman, Jerry Chambers, American 

Hilbert & Associates NASA Airlines 

Amanda VanSicker, Kinghorn, Chuck Johnson, Mike Werbowetzki, 

Hilberg & Associates NASA SEATEK 

Terry Persall, SETA II Dennis Filler, FAA Dallas Denery, NASA 

Matt Hampton, DOT Steve Brown, FAA Bill Edmunds, ALPA 

Lori Lehnerd, NASAO Pat Schambach, TSA Mari Peterson, SRI 

Fidel Cornell, DOT/IG Gloria Kulesa, FAA Paul Polski, TSA 

Marla Samerstein, APA Tammy Jones, FAA Walter Hett, WHA 

Sieg Poritzky, Consultant Quon Kwan, FTA Jim White, FAA 

Randy Stevens, FAA Tom Proeschel, FAA Richard Young, AVMET 

Chuck Ruehle, FAA John Rekstad, FAA Peter Toman, FAA 

Tony Vanchieri, TSA Chris Seher, FAA Mark Rodgers, FAA 

David Slenzak, Kinghorn, Hilberg Jim Washington, Roy Reichenbach, 

& Associates FAA Consultant 

Glenn Roberts, MITRE David Smith, FAA William McGovern, FAA 

Marshall Potter, FAA Steve Pansky, FAA Nick Stoer, Consultant 

Colin Drury, University of Rosanne Marion, Rick Zelenka, Boeing 

Buffalo FAA 

Carl McCullough, FAA Pat Marsha, FAA George Marania, FAA 

Paul Murphy, BAE Ray LaFrey, MIT Patrick Lewis, FAA 

Vic Lebacqz, NASA Jim Jones, FAA John McCarthy, NRL 

Ken Ward, FAA Kevin Petty, AVMET Karen Stewart, FAA 

June Lidder, BAE John Rekstad, FAA Joanne Hopkins, SRI Int’l 

Sharon Moreland, FAA Paul Jones, FAA Andrew Lacher, MITRE 

Gloria Dunderman, CSSI, Inc. Denise Davis, FAA April Gessner, CSSI, Inc. 

8
 
Attachment 3 

Recommendations on FAA’s 2004 R&D Investments 

Report from the Subcommittee On Aircraft Safety
 

Chairman: Mr. Chet Ekstrand
 

SAS Update 

SAS overall pleased with safety research portfolio 

� Building the right Subcommittee membership for oversight of safety research. 

� Continuing visits to develop familiarity with industry and government research 

facilities. 

� Strong interaction with sponsors and researchers to improve program direction and 

content. 

� Strong participation from FAA executives. 

Purpose 

� Present budget forecast 

� Provide SAS program feedback 

• program enhancements 

• above target budget recommendations
 

future direction
 

General Comments 

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

program. 

� Opportunities for matching funding from industry exist and should be pursued. 

� Recommended more active involvement of industry in process of developing 

research requirements. 

� Flight Crew HF research urgently needed but must be integrated with ATC/ATM 

community. 

� User community should be involved in assessment of planned research and need for 

research. 

� FAA should submit issue of “Toxicity Detection and Elimination” to TSA for review 

and, with input of affected industry, develop an action plan. 

� All research should be reviewed periodically for continued relevance and total 

expenditure. 

9
 
Report from the Subcommittee on Human Factors 

Chairman: Dr. John Hansman 

Questions for April Meeting 

• Portfolio content (Planning White Sheets FY04) 

– What is missing 

– What is not needed
 

� Partnerships
 

� Process
 

� Additional guidance and recommendations
 

Committee Activities 

� White sheet review 

� March meeting at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 

– “04” Program 

– “04” Supplemental 

– Focus review on GA and vertical flight 

– Security HF not included in review
 

� E-mail discussion list
 

Portfolio Content 

10
 
� Proposed “04” program elements generally appropriate 

– Consistent with prior years 

� Missing elements
 

–	 Continuing need for investment in longer range issues (i.e., past OEP) 

–	 Phasing of requirements too late to be most effective 

–	 Integration issues and interoperability 

»	 With more coupled systems (i.e., air-ground) human will become the final arbiter of 

inconsistencies. Lack of a comprehensive human-system integration plan. 

–	 Portfolio weak in maintenance HF (change in progress) 

Supplemental “04” Elements 

� “Overguidelines” elements discussed 

–	 Air-Ground Integration 

–	 Terminal Area Safety 

–	 General Aviation 

–	 Chemical - Biological Security 

– Bioaeronautics
 

� All elements had technical merit
 

– No single element dominated
 

� Basis for “overguidelines” initiatives unclear
 

–	 How compelling must the case be? 

–	 Tension with existing program basis 

General Aviation Review 

� Significant improvement in requirements-research connection
 

� Investments paying off:
 

–	 HF expertise at requirement-generation level 

– Project summary-requirement database
 

� Emergent issue: requirements often too late to be most effective. 

–	 Hypothetical example: Research data needed to support display certification 

decisions or actions, 

» Requirement identified after applicant submits
 

» Research data cannot be generated instantly if not available
 

» Basis not available to reject marginal interface
 

» Precedent set for sub-optimal system
 

» Motivates need for anticipatory efforts (proactive role for AVR)
 

Partnerships 

11
 
12 

223 FAA and 79 NASA HF research requirements

� NASA--good relationship in HF 

– Shared requirements - Program Database

– Co-sponsored meetings - Interagency IPT (100+)

– Cross-funded projects & technical collaboration

– FAA HF personnel at NASA (Ames and Langley)

� Industry
 

– Concern that industrial HF capability declining (e.g., Honeywell Research Center

closing) 

- Increased reliance on FAA, NASA and university
 

� International collaboration
 

– ICAO, JAA, Eurocontrol, Transport Canada, Iceland

� TSA (Some connection but needs to evolve with TSA)
 

� Military (Data and specific focus areas such as NVG)
 

Process 

� HF Annual Report an excellent supplement to program “White Sheets” 

– Appropriate level of detail on technical elements, prior work and context

� Program Summary - Requirements database is an excellent management tool 

– HF Team should be commended

– Should be considered for other areas

� Interaction with other subcommittees
 

– HF crosscutting with Safety, ATS, Security

– Member and AAR cross participation (Safety, Security)

» Monitor and report HF issues to maintain comprehensive perspective
 

– Need to interact with security subcommittee

AAR-100 Program Management Database 

• FAA and NASA human factors research requirements were combined into a single database

with 
Additional Guidance, Recommendations and Issues 

� Researcher access to operational environments post 9/11 

– Jumpseats 

– ATC facilities 

– Operating areas 

� Monitoring unintended HF consequences of new security procedures. 

� Shift of R&D areas to F&E has restricted ability to issue grants (security waiver) 

� Need for requirements to anticipate needs and to look foreword. 

� Need for core work and research to develop experimental hypothesis and test plans 

to maximize return on investment in large development and demonstration efforts 

(such as Safe Flight 21 and OEP Simulation Plan) 

� New avionics training and certification requirements 

� Utilize GA as cost-effective HF evaluation domain. Leading indicator for air 

transport. Lower barrier for incorporation. 

� Identify operational responsibility for cross-cutting integration, interoperability and 

risk assessment of interacting systems (e.g. Air-Ground, WAAS,...) 

� Critical mass is being obtained in HF within agency. Needs to be maintained in any 

restructuring and the PBO. 

13
 
Report from the Subcommittee on Airports
 

Chairman: Mr. Richard Marchi
 

•Subcommittee met at Tech Center on 3/13 

•Support $3.28 M increase to $19.550 M 

–$1.880 M for prototype radar-based wildlife hazard alerting system. 

–$650 K for off-peak pavement maintenance research 

–$250 K to investigate corrosion of electrical cables by deicing fluids 

–$500 K to develop standardized GIS for ALP’s 

Report from the Subcommittee on Environment and Energy
 

Chairman: Mr. Jim DeLong
 

•	 Subcommittee supported the basic aviation environmental research program for noise and 

emissions as proposed by the FAA for fiscal year 2004. 

•	 Subcommittee endorses the FAA proposal for an additional $15M above the basic 

research program to both supplement the NASA Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) 

project and to sustain the FAA’s Center of Excellence for Aircraft Noise Mitigation. 

•	 The Subcommittee recommends that the development of the System for assessing 

Aviation’s Global Emissions (SAGE) be expedited without detriment to the other 

emissions related projects. 

•	 The Subcommittee endorses increased funding to ensure that version 2 of the SAGE 

model, including an economics module, is validated and delivered in sufficient time to 

influence decision making associated with the work program for the seventh meeting of 

the ICAO CAEP. 

•	 The Subcommittee recommends that future FAA budget requests encompass funding 

necessary to acquire data to characterize particulate matter emissions from aircraft 

engines, in accordance with procedures agreed by the Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) E31 Committee. 

14
 
1. 

2. 

3. 

Report from the Subcommittee on Air Traffic Services
 

Chairman: Mr. John Kern
 

1.	 The FAA, with assistance from RTCA, will continue to develop the Operational Evolution 

Plan for 2002-2010 time frame. The Subcommittee recommends that FAA identify the key 

R&D issues and key enabling technologies that should be addressed now for the 2010-2020 

time frame. We further recommend that a REDAC working group be formed to develop 

those issues and report their findings by the winter 2003 REDAC meeting. Key issues thus 

far: 

1. Develop Future Operational Concept 

– What will be the air-ground balance of responsibility? 

– What will be the long-term evolution of the4 NAS? 

– R&D Plan, etc. 

2. Most future concepts call for more automated ATS functions 

- Will the human continue to be the safety net? 

- If so, how can future systems be built to enhance the humans ability to take over when 

the automation fails or can’t sole problem. 

2.	 The Subcommittee is concerned about the increased FAA attention to near-term problems. 

With the establishment of the PBO, there is an opportunity to provide new leadership and 

focus for research in the ATM area; this notion and others were included in the February 4, 

2002 REDAC letter of the Administrator Garvey. The Subcommittee reiterates the need for 

the FAA/PBO to include an organization or function that is responsible for planning the 

evolution of the NAS, and recommends that organization also be responsible for managing 

Air Traffic Services related R&D. 

3.	 The Subcommittee is concerned about the significant engineering and human factors 

difficulties encountered during the operational implementation of certain FAA R&D 

products. The Subcommittee recommends a working group be formed to review recent 

programs (including those perceived as unsuccessful and successful), to identify obstacles 

and risks to successful implementation, and to identify methods to avoid such problems in 

the future. It is proposed that this be accomplished by a joint working group comprised of 

member from the REDAC ATS and Human Factors Subcommittees, and other subject matter 

experts, and that they report their findings and recommendations at the Fall 2002 REDAC 

Committee meeting. 

4.	 The aviation weather and wake vortex research activities are both important to civil aviation. 

The Aviation Weather Research program continues to provide major operational benefits; 

and, recent progress in waked vortex research indicates the potential for substantive benefits 

in the near-term. The Subcommittee therefore recommends that the FY 2004 Aviation 

Weather Research program be supported at the requested base level, the Wake Vortex 

Program component be supported at an additional $3M above the $1M in the base (equal to 

the FY02 enacted level), and that the overall requested ATS R&D funding be raised 

accordingly. 

15
 
5.	 The Subcommittee observes that, with few exceptions, separation standards have not 

significantly changed in the last several decades in spite of significant improvements in radar 

surveillance and navigation. The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA examine existing 

separation standards associated with ATC procedures and determine areas where such 

standards can be reduced. It would also be useful to provide the Subcommittee with a white 

paper that summarizes the basis for the current minimum separation standards. 

6. The movement of funds from R&D to F&E has disallowed grants to universities. It is 

recommended that FAA be allowed to use F&E for research grants to universities as well as 

to FAA Center of Excellence. 

16
 
Attachment 4 

Dr. Deborah A. Boehm-Davis 

Chair, Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Professor of Psychology, George Mason University, 

4400 University Drive, ARCH Lab MSN 3F5, Fairfax, Virginia 22030-4444
 

July 11, 2002 

The Honorable Jane F. Garvey 

Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dear Ms. Garvey: 

I am delighted that you were able to join us at our Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

Research, Engineering and Development (REDAC) Advisory Committee meeting this April. 

The Committee members have enjoyed their discussions with you over the years and they will 

miss you as you move on to new adventures. 

On the basis of our meeting, we have developed a number of recommendations that cut across all 

subcommittees. 

•	 We recommend that FAA develop a mechanism for evaluating the extent to which your 

research is directed toward satisfying specific – typically near term - requirements versus 

supporting anticipatory – typically longer term - needs that will allow you to meet the 

goals outlined in your strategic plan. Further, we recommend that FAA be proactive in 

developing a more effective process for integrating individual research projects into an 

overall program that focuses on aviation as an integrated system. 

•	 We recommend that FAA develop mechanisms to foster an increased level of awareness 

and support for research from line management of the operational side in addition to that 

already felt by researchers. 

•	 We would like to encourage serious thought be given to the placement of the chief 

research officer as the FAA goes through their re-organization processes. Research is of 

central importance in achieving the long-term goal of a safer and more effective aviation 

system. The committee recommends that serious thought be given to creating a senior 

executive position with the responsibility and authority to ensure integration and 

coordination of research across the operational elements. 

•	 The movement of money from R&D to F&E creates several impediments to the conduct 

of research. The committee would like the opportunity to work with you to inform 

Congress of the difficulties created by funding R&D out of F&E funds. 

17
 
In addition, individual subcommittees developed recommendations for your office. Those 

recommendations are presented in the attachment. 

The Committee would like to note that the subcommittee on Security has met with senior 

managers from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and that, in accordance with a 

request from both agencies, it will continue to report to both TSA and FAA. Finally, the 

Committee would like to reiterate some comments from our previous meeting. Although the 

Committee recognizes the need to invest more heavily in security research, engineering, and 

development as a result of the events of September 11, it remains concerned that any funding 

directed towards those activities not be diverted away from other areas. 

Finally, the committee valued the participation of several associate administrators in the most 

recent meeting. We look forward to a continued and fruitful dialogue with these members of 

your senior management team in future meetings. 

I am interested in discussing these proposals with you at your earliest convenience. The 

Committee continues to be dedicated to providing you with advice and recommendations on any 

R&D issue that you may need us to review. 

Sincerely, 

Deborah Boehm-Davis, Ph.D. 

Chair 

FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

18
 
Attachment 

Airports Subcommittee 

•	 Supports continued operation of the National Pavement Test Facility 

•	 Supports continuing research to prepare for introduction of new large aircraft 

•	 Supports research in wildlife control and mitigation 

•	 Supports continued research into visual guidance, lighting and marking, and reductions in 

runway incursions 

•	 Supports research into airport planning and design, but believes the research should be 

refocused on terminal security issues resulting from the events of 9/11 

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy 

•	 Subcommittee supported the basic aviation environmental research program for noise and 

emissions as proposed by the FAA for fiscal year 2004. 

•	 Subcommittee endorses the FAA proposal for an additional $15M above the basic 

research program to both supplement the NASA Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) 

project and to sustain the FAA’s Center of Excellence for Aircraft Noise Mitigation. 

•	 The Subcommittee recommends that the development of the System for assessing 

Aviation’s Global Emissions (SAGE) be expedited without detriment to the other 

emissions related projects. 

•	 The Subcommittee endorses increased funding to ensure that version 2 of the SAGE 

model, including an economics module, is validated and delivered in sufficient time to 

influence decision making associated with the work program for the seventh meeting of 

the ICAO CAEP. 

•	 The Subcommittee recommends that future FAA budget requests encompass funding 

necessary to acquire data to characterize particulate matter emissions from aircraft 

engines, in accordance with procedures agreed by the Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) E31 Committee. 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety 

•	 Clarification should be provided by AVR-1 on purpose of FAA-sponsored research. 

•	 A process should be put in place for industry review and comment on TCRG 

recommendations prior to submission to FAA leadership. 

•	 Research related to flight crew needs is indeed urgently needed, but that it must be fully 

integrated with research done by the ATC/ATM community. 

•	 The issue of aircraft related “Toxicity Detection and Elimination” should be submitted to 

TSA for review and, with input of affected industry, developed into an action plan. 

•	 Numerous opportunities for matching funds from industry are available and should be 

pursued. 

Subcommittee on Air Traffic Services 

•	 Supports an examination of existing separation standards associated with ATC 

procedures and determine areas where standards can be reduced 

•	 Supports aviation weather program being funded at base level 

19
 
•	 Recommends that the wake vortex program be supported at an additional $3M above the 

$1M in the base, without drawing from other programs 

Subcommittee on Human Factors 

•	 Pointed to a lack of a comprehensive human-system integration plan 

•	 Pointed to a continuing need for investment in longer-range issues 

•	 Suggested that the requirements database held by AAR-100 is a useful tool that might be 

considered for other areas within the FAA 

•	 However, requirements are often identified too late in the process to be most effective; 

there is a need to anticipate future needs 

•	 Supports research to allow for the development of new avionics training and certification 

requirements 

•	 Needs to be maintained in any restructuring and the PBO 

20