Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee (REDAC)

Federal Aviation Administration

September 21, 2011

Meeting Minutes

On Wednesday, September 21, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Research, 

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

Room, at FAA National Headquarters in the Orville Wright Building 10A at 800 Independence 

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

attendance, respectively.

Welcome and Introductory Remarks

Mr. Paul Fontaine, REDAC Executive Director, read the public meeting announcement and 

thanked everyone for attending.

Dr. John Hansman, REDAC Chair, welcomed everyone and commented that FAA Administrator 

Randy Babbitt and his senior leadership team had another meeting scheduled at this time and 

therefore would be unable to attend. He noted that the agenda for today’s meeting had been 

altered slightly from the version previously sent out to the group.

Mr. Fontaine then opened up the conversation with the group and noted the common concern

over funding throughout the various subcommittees’ findings and recommendations (F&Rs). 

His key message to the subcommittees was that focusing on not getting enough money was 

counterproductive. Mr. Fontaine explained that the FAA would rather have the subcommittees 

focus on advising the agency on doing the best with the available funding.

Dr. Hansman then discussed his thoughts on the overall F&Rs generated from the various 

subcommittee meetings. He agreed with Mr. Fontaine that it was not productive to focus on the 

lack or lessening of funding. He also cautioned the subcommittees not to fall into the trap of 

asking for more funding solely in their area. The goal was not to get entrenched in silos but 

rather to identify priorities within the overall FAA portfolio. He went on to advise that the 

REDAC should not look only at the portfolio as presented, but that the group should also take a 

strategic view of needs that aren’t being addressed.

Budget Status Update

Mr. Mike Gallivan briefed the budget status to the REDAC. He explained that Congress is 

currently considering an omnibus bill

Mr. Gallivan explained that last year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) passback 

was later than the usual late November-early December time because of various complications. 

He explained that timelines for this year were still fluid.
2

Mr. Gallivan went on to say that in the big picture, the FAA represents only a very small piece of 

the budget discussions; therefore, there hopefully wouldn’t be too many changes/cuts to the 

budget as requested. He also mentioned that in a current version of the reauthorization, the 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) R&D was being put into the R,E&D budget. FAA’s would 

prefer to keep AIP R&D in the AIP budget.

Overall, Mr. Gallivan impressed upon the REDAC that the future budget is unclear. For FY 

2012, the House committee approved a $185 million R,E&D budget and Mr. Gallivan expressed 

his hope that the Senate would approve this level of funding.

Dr. Hansman wished to hear more about the AIP funding issue. Mr. Gallivan said that if AIP 

R&D was moved into the R,E&D budget, this would mean that all the AIP R&D would have to 

be funded within the current level of RE&D funding. No funding was being moved with the AIP 

R&D. This would mean a lot of additional R&D being done from the same budget, thus 

significant cuts to the existing RE&D and AIP research programs. For example, funding for the 

Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) would be zeroed out and funding for the Airport 

Technology Research Program (ATRP) would be reduced. Mr. Jim White said that this change 

would have a significant impact on the whole AIP R&D program. He mentioned that new 

language in the reauthorization bill prohibits the spending of money on ACRP & ATRP from the 

AIP budget; therefore, the Airport program would have to fund their much-needed research 

under the already-stretched R,E&D budget. Mr. Fontaine said that this was one of the drills that 

the FAA would have to run to see what would be the ultimate effect on AIP.

Aircraft Safety REDAC Subcommittee Report

Mr. Joe Del Balzo summarized of the Aircraft Safety Subcommittee (SAS) findings. He stated, 

that based on the subcommittee’s review, the FAA’s aircraft safety research portfolio was sound

and based on solid requirements and priorities. He felt strongly, however, that some programs 

remained underfunded and understaffed. He went on to say that his subcommittee felt the 

AVS/Sponsor/Performer process was very solid but that it would be even stronger if 

performance coming out of process could be measured. The subcommittee was briefed on a 

performance tracking system for the research programs. Mr. Del Balzo explained that the 

subcommittee had commented via their F&Rs on how to make the system better but that overall, 

they felt this system was a major breakthrough and was very well done.

Mr. Del Balzo relayed that the most critical program his subcommittee reviewed was the digital 

software systems. He reiterated the SAS’s longstanding warning that this area required

substantially greater in-house core capability than available within the FAA at present. He went 

on to praise the research group for all that they have done to make up for the in-house FAA 

shortfall but warned that this wasn’t an effective long-term solution. He reinforced that this was 

a highly critical situation that was important enough to warrant being addressed with the 

Administrator.

Mr. Del Balzo commented on the subcommittee’s thoughts on various areas:

1) Icing Program – still doing great work; could also use additional in-house capability.
3

2) Human Factors (HF) – noted the steady funding decline; recommended that the FAA 

review all HF research requirements to make sure funding cuts wouldn’t lead to 

unintended consequences.

3) Safety Management Safety (SMS)– encouraged the FAA to make sure that results from

the Aviation Safety Information and Analysis Sharing (ASIAS) system be made available 

to the extent possible for public consumption (or at least across the FAA organization).

4) Advanced Materials – felt this program is a positive example of how to do things 

correctly with minimal funding and staff.

5) Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) – second-to-none research group whose 

outputs support a broad spectrum of national events. This lab should be considered a 

national resource and as such, its funding should not be subject to annual fluctuations or 

uncertainty. Mr. Del Balzo urged the FAA to do everything possible to preserve and 

protect this capability in order to continue performing excellent work in the future.

6) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) – tremendous improvement; well-coordinated

program.

7) Weather Technology-in-the-Cockpit (WTIC) – valuable research for a reasonable 

investment; a good, well–managed program.

8) Continued Airworthiness – good work being performed in this area.

All in all, the SAS felt the aircraft safety portfolio was right on target.

Dr. Hansman made a comment to Mr. John Hickey: the tracking system tracks schedule but 

should consider other factors, such as quality of the research. In Terminal Area Safety R&D, 

Dr. Hansman commented that onboard data collection was good and that he had gone to an 

airport briefing with some similar research. He wanted to know if there was any overlap and if 

the efforts were being coordinated. Mr. White said that they would make sure the groups were 

talking to each other.

Mr. Hickey responded to Mr. Del Balzo’s comments and said he was pleased with the SAS’s 

findings and support. He added that he was glad the SAS understood the prioritization process 

and agreed that the process was very effective. He then made some comments in response to the 

SAS’s findings:

1) Digital Systems Safety – agreed that lack of in-house expertise was a serious issue but 

explained that challenges to rectify this existed. For example, the FAA went many years 

without a Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor (CSTA) for Software (although they 

now had one). It has been a challenge getting software experts into the organization due 

to great competition in that arena. In the past, they have worked with others like Volpe to 

leverage their skills and expertise. Mr. Hickey acknowledged that his organization’s 

current in-house capability is challenged in terms of network security and welcomed any 

specific suggestions the SAS had to rectify this issue. He added that while the

responsibility truly lies with the manufacturer to have this expertise, it was still best to 

have the high-level knowledge within the agency as well to assure that things were 

compliant; yet he was at a loss with how to improve upon the situation. Mr. Del Balzo 

said he should start by gaining an understanding of the long-term needs in digital 

systems. If the FAA could gather better data on future needs, then the SAS could help 
4

from there. Dr. Hansman agreed and said that AVS was well aware of this need. He 

suggested that the FAA could attempt to grow the capability internally by creating a 

training program and making an investment in current staff. Mr. Hickey said that he took 

these points very seriously and appreciated the feedback; however, he noted that software

and digital systems were very fluid and difficult to predict. He certainly couldn’t predict 

how many people would be needed in outyears. Dr. Hansman agreed that while it may 

not be possible to plan for a precise number of people needed in the future, it was 

necessary to predict the overall need for expertise in software and digital systems.

2) Icing – Mr. Hickey did not agree that in-house expertise was lacking in this program; in 

fact, he was very impressed with the current expertise in this area. He reminded the 

group that the last icing accident on a commercial aircraft occurred in 1997. 

Mr. Del Balzo commented that two experts at the Tech Center were close to retirement 

and that there were no back-ups ready so this was a problem.

3) HF – This was one of the most challenging areas. It was widely known in the safety 

community that HF issues contribute to two-thirds of all accidents. However, the FAA 

HF community is struggling to identify what R&D is needed in the near-term to generate 

a tangible product to be implemented in the future that will prevent or mitigate these 

accidents. He felt that the FAA HF sponsors were not writing good requirements and 

that, therefore, they were not making it through the review process. He explained that 

while he had been trying to work with the AVS HF community, he would welcome help 

from the HF subcommittee to point to tangible things to do.

4) SMS – very proud of the ASIAS system. Historically, the FAA had performed forensic 

analysis of crashes. Now, they were using ASIAS to look at pre-cursors to accidents to 

help predict and prevent accidents. ASIAS is complicated: it brings together many 

streams of available information, synthesizes the data, and produces graphs. The caveat 

is that the FAA needs to be very careful to ensure anonymity so that the airlines continue 

to provide data to the system without any fear of retribution or reprisal. Dr. Hansman 

asked that the group make sure that the findings were made public (not necessarily the 

raw data); that there should be a loosening of the protection around the results of the 

ASIAS analysis. Mr. Hickey explained that findings were hard to define and that certain 

reports would never be releasable

Mr. Hickey made the final point that output from ASIAS had already led to successful

interventions. He acknowledged that while many in the industry wanted better access to 

ASIAS and its results, his organization was reticent to let it out due to the very strict 

governance model already in place. More time was needed to mature the process for 

commercial aviation before bringing in other groups (such as general aviation). Mr. 

Hickey agreed to have someone who could better answer their questions on the ASIAS 

program provide a briefing to the John Hansman.

ACTION ITEM: Mr. Jay Pardee (from the Aviation Safety - Aircraft Certification 

Service, Aircraft Engineering Division) and/or Mr. Tony Fazio (Director, Accident 

Investigation and Prevention) will provide a briefing to John Hansman on the ASIAS 

program.
5

5) Advanced Materials – much broader AVS-wide training was being developed for 

composites and damage detection; would soon start hiring “STSs”, or junior CSTAs, to 

serve as a resource on composites for the whole service.

6) UAS – serious talk of restructuring the UAS office and combining the two current UAS 

offices (one in AVS and one in ATO) into a single office to possibly be led by a senior 

executive.

Mr. Hickey concluded by seeking advice from the REDAC on one last challenge. He suggested 

that maybe the Fire Research and Safety Team led by Gus Sarkos could be funded through the 

Ops budget for some of the more routine work they do for AVS sponsors, work that is usually a 

pop-up requirement and falls under the heading of continued operational safety. Dr. Hansman 

said that was not truly unique, as other areas had pop-ups as well. He suggested that all places 

considered to be national resources be identified as such to maintain and continually protect 

them. In other words, the agency needed to establish what core competencies it had to have to be 

ready to respond to various needs and pop-ups.

Human Factors REDAC Subcommittee Report

Colonel Jack Blackhurst summarized the HF subcommittee’s findings by saying that they had a 

hard time connecting the dots between the 2/3 of accidents statistic, the HF research 

requirements, and the HF research projects and programs that should be addressing the 

requirements. His subcommittee wondered whether the right research was really being 

performed and felt no issues could be resolved without answering this. Therefore, the HF 

subcommittee suggested a separate meeting be held to help connect the dots. Dr. Hansman 

asked whether Col. Blackhurst wanted the whole REDAC to participate and Col. Blackhurst said 

yes.

Col. Blackhurst then addressed the issue of connectivity between FY 12, 13, 14 HF research 

programs and what would happen in the outyears if programs were cut early on due to changes in 

funding. He concluded by noting that the subcommittee was pleased with the addition of the 

Human Factors Integration Lead position.

The REDAC then took a break from 11:10 PM to 11:30 PM.

NAS Operations REDAC Subcommittee Update

Dr. Steve Bussolari explained that the NAS Ops subcommittee meeting had been cancelled due 

to the hurricane but he and Vic Lebacqz (NAS Ops Chair) had met via conference call instead to 

discuss various issues. One issue discussed was the group’s concern about budget uncertainty 

(i.e. did the FAA have the proper mechanisms in place to let contracts go to performers as 

priorities change). After discussion, all felt confident that the mechanisms were indeed in place. 

Finally, since the group had not had the opportunity to have a full meeting, they agreed they 

wanted to hear more about the JPDO and the role of NAS Ops in NextGen.

ACTION ITEM: Dr. Hansman asked Dr. Bussolari if the subcommittee could better formulate 

their findings into the proper format for inclusion in the letter to the Administrator.
6

Dr. Hansman explained that he was looking for specific issues of concern to flag and put in the

letter. He asked Dr. Bussolari to confirm that there was nothing in particular that the NAS Ops 

subcommittee wished to have included in the letter; Dr. Bussolari confirmed.

Dr. Agam Sinha stated that it came across in the subcommittee briefings that everything was 

important; for future meetings, could things be prioritized for discussion by the full committee? 

Could the subcommittee chairs be tasked with this? Dr. Hansman said that they would discuss

this as a group, but that it was hard to do in such limited time.

Dr. Bussolari stated that from the perspective of the NAS Ops committee, they understood that 

the FAA had a prioritization process and that it was working; however, they wished to see what 

are the high priority items at future meetings and what was below the funding line. Mr. Rob 

Pappas said that care had to be taken in going forward with this approach; it would be difficult to 

look at everything below the line given the amount of time and the number of requirements. It 

would be easier to look at the methods and process. Dr. Hansman said that the REDAC was not 

looking to do just a process review. Rather, the idea behind the REDAC was to cull expertise 

from industry (in the form of REDAC members) and let them give advice and guidance by 

seeing actual activities and those which had fallen below the line in the prioritization process. 

Mr. Steve Alterman added that the Environment and Energy group discussed in detail the things 

above and below the line.

Mr. Irvine said capabilities in Validation and Verification (V&V) were a big concern amongst all

the Federal agencies that have interest in making NextGen a reality. He added that this was a 

case where REDAC should be aware of how little effort the Federal government is putting into it 

and perhaps could provide their expertise to make some recommendations. Mr. Bussolari stated 

that the FAA had been relying on NASA to do fundamental V&V research but that now there 

was a threat to NASA’s ability to fund and perform this research (which introduced a risk to the 

FAA).

Airports REDAC Subcommittee Report

Mr. Ed Gervais summarized the Airports subcommittee’s findings. He explained that industry 

had a lot of confidence in 20-year concrete life but not as much for 40-year life concrete. 

Funding cuts could delay needed research in this area. He went on to say that in the early days 

of REDAC, Airports had competed for money within the R,E&D appropriation and had only 

gotten ~$ 2-3 million. It wasn’t until Airports R&D was funded with AIP money that the current 

breakthroughs in research were achieved. It was their wish to continue that going forward. He 

went on to say that the ACRP was very successful and continued to help airports deal with the

day-to-day issues they face.

Dr. Hansman stated that he was disappointed by the Airports’ report and wanted to see more 

recommendations and guidance. Mr. Jim White explained that the subcommittee was very 

pleased with the ongoing activities and didn’t have any suggestions for change. Dr. Hansman 

said that the subcommittee’s recommendations needed to be more specific; e.g. will it be a crisis 

to delay certain projects? Mr. White asked to be given the chance to look at the report with Mr. 
7

Gervais and work on it. He reiterated that the group’s biggest concern was the potential AIP 

move to the RE&D budget. Dr. Hansman suggested that a better approach might be to highlight

the important benefits coming out of the ACRP and to show exactly what would be at risk if 

funding were cut or changed.

The REDAC then took a break for lunch from 12:10 PM to 1:00 PM.

Dynamics of Change WG Report

After lunch, Dr. Hansman explained that Ms. Vicki Cox sent her apologies for not being present 

for the briefing from the Change Working Group. He explained that she had been briefed on the 

results from the Change WG.

Dr. Andres Zellweger summarized the results from the Change WG. He explained that based on 

their findings, the FAA needed to create a common vision to successfully implement NextGen. 

Training and coaching were also important. Leaders need to make sure that changes are so 

instilled in the organization that things carry on even as leadership changes. Dr. Zellweger 

impressed upon the group the importance of having discussions with user groups; that success 

should not depend upon the FAA being in charge.

Mr. Fontaine asked if, out of interviews conducted by the WG, it seemed as though participants 

did have a shared vision of NextGen and did they know what NextGen actually was? Dr. 

Zellweger said, no, they did not know. Discussion ensued surrounding the importance of 

properly aligning user groups and working together to successfully design things, implement 

changes, etc.

Dr. Hansman explained that the results of the WG were useful to understand why NextGen was 

struggling and what to do to help it forward. Dr. Zellweger suggested that they could start with 

the mid-term NextGen goals since these were still in their infancy. Dr. Hansman added that a 

shared vision existed on pieces of NextGen and that the goal was to apply that to all parts of 

NextGen. Maybe now was a good point in the course of NextGen to reset and analyze how it 

was going, create a vision, etc. Mr. Irvine asked if it ever came up in discussion that NextGen is 

or is becoming a grand societal program and not just a project. Dr. Hansman asked if Mr. Irvine 

was implying that NextGen should not be a grand societal change and Mr. Irvine said he himself 

was wondering if it was. He added that they would never get there if NextGen were posed as a 

massive, trans-generational change.

Mr. Fontaine summarized the results presented by saying that NextGen progress would come 

through cutting across the agency and banishing silos. He explained that management was 

currently talking about these things within the organization; in fact, Vicki Cox had formed a 

Change Leadership Team with members from across the new NextGen organization to push 

change down through the ranks. Mr. Fontaine further stated that Dr. Zellweger’s WG report had 

come at a timely juncture and its results were in keeping with what the management team had 

already been thinking and doing. Mr. Alterman asked how the results of this WG could be 

shared with external groups. Dr. Hansman suggested that if the FAA approached outside groups 

with the results in mind that would work to get people together and to create a shared vision. 
8

Dr. Hansman stated that he would make sure to include this suggestion in his final letter to the 

Administrator. Mr. Fontaine felt this was a great point (i.e. how to go about implementing the 

recommendations of the WG) since the FAA had been struggling with the broadness of 

NextGen.

A member of the public mentioned that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA)/National Weather Service (NWS) had similarly reached out to stakeholders via a twoday offsite meeting to foster and generate open dialogue, buy-in, and ideas from various 

stakeholder groups. He suggested that someone on the REDAC might want to speak with 

Mr. Jack Hayes and the people at NOAA/NWS to learn from their experiences. Dr. Hansman 

felt that it might not be as easy to do this on the FAA side due to the sheer amount and undefined 

nature of NextGen stakeholders; however, he planned to take the letter written by the WG and 

forward that up to the Administrator. Mr. Del Balzo said he felt the WG had provided a good 

report but wondered what the Administrator should do next with it. Dr. Hansman conjectured 

that Mr. Babbitt might pass the report back to Ms. Cox and have her implement the findings and 

suggestions wherever relevant. Mr. Fontaine agreed and said that Ms. Cox intended to share the 

findings with her organization. Mrs. Gloria Dunderman added that Ms. Cox had requested a 

condensed version of the WG’s report to do so.

Finally, Dr. Hansman felt that the REDAC and the FAA could benefit from keeping the WG oncall for the future and Dr. Zellweger felt that would be reasonable. Dr. Hansman asked the group 

to present a motion to approve the continuation of the WG and, after being seconded, the motion 

was approved.

Environment & Energy REDAC Subcommittee Update

Mr. Steve Alterman then summarized the Environment and Energy (E&E) subcommittee’s 

findings by saying that nothing had changed since the group’s last meeting in terms of their 

recommendations and prioritization of efforts. He cautioned that while the subcommittee had

identified priorities as less important than others, those research efforts were still important. 

Overall, they felt that E&E continued to do a wonderful job, both in terms of supporting the FAA 

and with NextGen overlays. He relayed that the subcommittee was pleased that several research 

programs were approaching implementation and encouraged the E&E group to keep up that 

momentum. He once again urged the FAA to continue the expansion of cooperation across 

agencies (e.g. EPA and NASA) and to be mindful of identifying and eliminating any duplication 

of efforts in order to better use scarce funding. Mr. Alterman used the CLEEN program as an 

example and said that as it developed, the FAA should put a priority on working hand-in-hand 

with NASA to integrate the next and newest technologies into the program.

Mr. Alterman went on to advise that, to the extent possible and to get early input and mitigate 

problems, the FAA should involve certification people earlier in the process as research products 

approached implementation. Dr. Hansman stated that this issue was broader than just E&E and 

suggested the subcommittee amend the finding to not specify E&E. Mr. Alterman felt the so that

the research plan included an implementation plan. Mr. Carl Burleson warned against being too 

specific in the recommendation, since building in an implementation plan would vary by area

and said that he was supportive of the recommendations made by the E&E subcommittee.
9

ACTION ITEM: Mr. Alterman will redraft the recommendation on operational 

use/implementation and will then give it to Dr. Hansman to distribute to the group.

Mr. Irvine then wanted to follow up on the recommendation regarding alternative fuels, since he 

was concerned that the Administrator might mistakenly conclude that the Commercial Aviation 

Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI) group was not reaching out rather aggressively. Mr. 

Alterman explained that the purpose of the recommendation was to praise the effort and that it 

shouldn’t be interpreted otherwise.

Group Discussion

Dr. Hansman summarized his take-away from the meeting, which he would summarize in his 

letter to the Administrator:

1) Importance of in-house capability in digital systems research

2) Making sure the appropriate information from ASIAS is disseminated to as wide an 

audience as possible.

Dr. Hansman wanted to highlight the concern that much has been invested in ASIAS 

and that, as such, it was important that the FAA encourage the sharing of the results. 

He reminded everyone that Mr. Hickey had offered to provide a briefing on ASIAS and 

its governance model.

3) Positive note on UAS

4) Setting up an HF workshop or summit to look at and discuss what is driving the need 

for HF research.

Mr. Fontaine proposed that this discussion be combined with the ASIAS meeting. Dr. 

Paul Krois suggested that Dr. Kathy Abbott’s report from the Performance-based 

Operations Advisory Rulemaking Committee (PARC) group may help, although the 

report was not yet available. Mr. Fontaine said that before launching any meeting, the 

group should strategize about what exact aspects of HF needed to be looked at, 

discussed, etc. Dr. Hansman said maybe the overall recommendation to the agency 

should be to inventory all HF activity within the agency (showing the drivers, 

requirements, and research plans). Dr. Krois said there were HF requirements 

generated from the HF TCRG that could be shown to the group. Mr. Del Balzo said 

that they had already gotten a briefing from Dr. Abbott (which was very data driven), 

but the difficulty they faced was in making the connection from the requirements to the 

actual research programs.

ACTION ITEM: Mr. Fontaine will provide a plan to Dr. Hansman to address the HF 

R&D issues raised within two weeks.

5) V&V of NextGen software

6) Operational use/implementation recommendation that Mr. Alterman is charged with 

drafting.

The last issue Dr. Hansman wanted to discuss was whether or not the REDAC process needed to 

be modified. Mr. Fontaine stated that what he saw in terms of the various subcommittees’ 
10

recommendations was multiple, separate laundry lists, not a prioritized list. Dr. Bussolari stated 

that the NAS Ops subcommittee wished to be able to identify gaps in the research portfolio and 

comment on the quality of research. Dr. Hansman asked if there was a way to tweak the 

guidance given to subcommittees so they would provide more useful recommendations (e.g. 

provide strict guidance not to ask for more money, since this was not useful or helpful). He 

added that he liked the E&E subcommittee’s approach of outlining four specific research areas 

that they felt were of the highest priority. Mr. Fontaine stated that the FAA was looking for 

confirmation and wanted the REDAC overview of the importance of various R&D activities 

across subcommittee boundaries to help inform how the FAA would strategically make funding 

cuts (if and when cuts were necessary).

Mr. Burleson mentioned that the FAA had a new strategic plan (Destination 2025) and said it 

would be helpful if the subcommittees would take this plan into account when looking into the 

activities going on at the FAA. Dr. Hansman said he could provide guidance to the

subcommittees to evaluate the research portfolios within the context of the new strategic plan. 

He added that it would help if the FAA directly related their research plans to Destination 2025

in the presentation made at the subcommittee meetings. Mr. White cautioned that the high 

priority items are generally always funded and that the real problem needing to be addressed was 

how to balance the ‘below the line’ items from all of the different lines of business (e.g., AVS 

and AIP). What would be an equitable way of comparing these across vastly different groups?

Dr. Hansman said his goal was to find a way to recommend something that will be acceptable to 

and used by the FAA. He explained that he was happy to adjust the tasking to the 

subcommittees to make the results of the REDAC process more tailored to what Mr. Fontaine 

and the FAA needed. Mr. Fontaine agreed that all involved needed to do a better job of framing 

the thought process for REDAC to maximize the quality and effectiveness of its outputs.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:51 PM.
11

Attachment 1

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC - 10th Floor Round Room 

September 21, 2011

Agenda 

9:30 am Welcome Paul Fontaine

John Hansman

9:45 am Update – Organization, etc. Paul Fontaine

10:00 am Update – Budget Mike Gallivan

10:15 am Subcommittee Report – Aircraft Safety Joe Del Balzo

10:45 am Subcommittee Report – Human Factors Jack Blackhurst

11:15 am Break

11:30 am Subcommittee Report – NAS Operations Steve Bussolari

12:00 noon Lunch

1:00 pm Out brief of Change Working Group Dres Zellweger

2:00 pm Subcommittee Report - Environment and Energy Steve Alterman

2:30 pm Subcommittee Report – Airports Ed Gervais

3:00 pm Committee Discussion

- Recommendations

- Future Committee Activity 

John Hansman

Paul Fontaine

3:30 pm Adjourn
12

Attachment 2

Members:

Dr. John Hansman – REDAC CHAIR (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Mr. Paul Fontaine – REDAC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FAA)

Dr. Steven Bussolari (MIT Lincoln laboratory)

Mr. Edward Gervais (Boeing Commercial Airplane Company)

Dr. Agam Sinha (MITRE/CAASD)

Mr. Joseph Del Balzo (JDA Aviation Technology Solutions)

Mr. Jack Blackhurst (USAF – Air Force Research Laboratory)

Mr. Steve Alterman (Cargo Airlines Association)

Other Attendees:

John Somensky (TASC) Siddharth Gijji (FAA) Micheal Dudley (JPDO)

Cathy Bigelow (FAA) Ken Knopp (FAA) Steve Vail (SEWE)

Jim White (FAA) Andrew Lacher (MITRE) Robert Pappas (FAA)

Matt Crouch (FAA) Dale Hawkins (FAA) Paul Krois (FAA)

Lee Olson (FAA) Nick Stoer (Stoer & Assoc.) Dres Zellweger (Self)

Steve Zaidman (Noblis) Julie Thompson (Evans) Marcy Babizz

Xiaogong Lee (FAA) Mike Gallivan (FAA) Jim Knight (FAA)

Gloria Dunderman (FAA) Aisha Staples (ATG) Alexandra Papantoniou (ATG)

Denise Davis (FAA)