October 2, 2013

The Honorable Michael P. Huerta

Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Dear Administrator Huerta:

Thank you for again taking the time to meet with the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory 

Committee (REDAC) at our recent meeting. These discussions help us understand your perspective on the 

issues, objectives and challenges for the agency’s future.

I am enclosing the summary detail findings and recommendations from the Fall 2013 meetings of the standing 

REDAC Subcommittees (Aircraft Safety, NAS Operations, Environment and Energy, Airports, and Human 

Factors). 

The committee would also like to share a few general thoughts for your consideration.

Enabling the Potential of “Big Data” in the FAA - The growth of operational data and advances in data analysis 

open up exciting new approaches to better understand and improve the safety and efficiency of the NAS.

The FAA has taken initial steps in this direction with data driven programs such as ASIAS and ASDI but there is 

significantly more potential. Realizing the full potential of “Big Data“ will require development of data access 

policies allowing the most open possible access to researchers and other users while providing appropriate data 

protections. The REDAC recommends that the FAA consider creative approaches to access policies such as 

multiple access levels to partitioned data structures. The most open level of data could be fully open to the public 

enabling crowdsourcing and open competitions for researchers/students to creatively analyze and visualize the 

data, enabling a level of effort in this data analysis greater than can be conducted in-house by the FAA alone.

Emerging Human-Automation Issues - The increasing reliance on automation in aircraft and ATC systems have 

created emerging vulnerabilities in the aviation system highlighted by recent events. This was an important area 

of research during the initial introduction of highly automated aircraft such as the A-320 and B-767/757 in the 

1980s but the character of emerging issues is changing as both the complexity of the automation increases and 

the new generation of pilots has different backgrounds. The REDAC recommends increased priority for humanautomation interaction research and that the FAA work with related activities at NASA and the DOD.

Validating NEXTGEN Con-Ops - The key to successful delivery of NEXTGEN benefits will be to validate the ConOps currently under Concept Maturity and Systems Development at a sufficiently detailed level that operational 

feasibility can be assured and risks can be identified and managed. This includes definition of candidate 

operational procedures, addressing human factors issues (often in Human in the Loop Simulations) and 

considering operational issues such as mixed equipage and off-nominal conditions.

Unmanned Air Systems Research – The REDAC is pleased that the FAA is making progress on UAS integration 

in the NAS with the reported completion of the UAS Roadmap and UAS Con-Ops. At this point the REDAC has 

not been able to view these documents so it is difficult for the committee to give specific and effective advice in 

this important area. The REDAC looks forward to the opportunity to review and respond to the UAS Roadmap.
Thank you for the opportunity to engage and contribute to the safety, efficiency and sustainability of aviation in the 

United States. 

Sincerely,

R. John Hansman

Chair, FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Enclosure
Federal Aviation Administration

Research Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC)

Guidance on the FY 2016 Research and Development Portfolio

Subcommittee on Aircraft Safety

Finding: NextGen – General Aviation (GA) Weather Technology in the Cockpit. The Subcommittee 

finds the continued research in this area focused, adequately resourced, and well-defined. Although the 

near term and strategic plans are thoughtfully created and appropriate, the expected safety benefits are 

less clear. The emphasis on price point of equipment and usability of information is realistic and will 

help the development of effective tools and information. The Subcommittee received briefings from 

other agency groups that described a significant amount of research in other areas involving 

Commercial-Off-The Shelf (COTS) products and software. There is a good possibility that some of the 

research done in other areas can be of benefit to this area also. Additionally, there is a continuing need 

to coordinate throughout the agency to make sure products and information reach the industry in a 

timely manner with minimum resistance from other agency stakeholders.

Following a post meeting discussion, the Subcommittee notes that the FAA had previously agreed to 

provide a better understanding of GA safety benefits in 2014.

Action: The Subcommittee requests a briefing on the status of the analysis of GA safety benefits 

expected from this research activity.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the sponsors of this research interface with 

other Research, Engineering, and Development (R,E&D) areas to explore COTS possibilities and with 

the appropriate areas in FAA to facilitate dissemination of tools and information to industry.

Finding: Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors. The Subcommittee is pleased to 

see the progress made in the presentation and relevance of human factors research requirements and the 

involvement of human factors professionals in many different research efforts throughout the agency. 

The link between human factors research, the outcome of the research and the various projects that 

benefit from the research are becoming much more evident. The Subcommittee applauds this progress 

and hopes to see it continue. One concern the Subcommittee has is the apparent difficulty involved in 

responding to human factors situations that arise in the near term. With the rapid pace of technology 

changes and their use in aviation, there needs to be a capability for human factors researchers to respond 

in real time. The Subcommittee understands that there is an existing process in place to facilitate this 

capability but the use of this process seems to be infrequent, especially in the area of human factors 

research. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that FAA review the process for reallocation of 

funding for current year or following year pop-up requirements to assure this process is user-friendly 

and encourage its use when research needs arise from rapidly changing situations.

Finding: The Subcommittee also remains concerned that the funding for human factors research seems 

to receive a lower priority than might be warranted due to a misunderstanding of how this research 

supports the broader R, E and D effort it’s connected to. The Subcommittee understands the concern 

from human factors research managers that the proper researchers be assigned to relevant projects and 

the need for human factors experts to be designing and conducting the research. As the aviation industry 

moves more toward data driven, evidence based risk management, the contribution that human factors 

research makes to an R, E, and D effort and its importance might be better recognized if human factors 

research is embedded in the larger R, E, and D effort rather than conducted independently.
Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that, for funding and functional purposes, FAA 

explore the possibility of closely aligning human factors research requirements with the other research 

areas they support, even though those issues might fall outside of the traditional human factors portfolio.

Finding: Unmanned Aircraft Systems. The Subcommittee is pleased with the progress made in the area 

of coordinating and aligning research efforts associated with the routine integration of unmanned aircraft 

systems. While disappointed that the “integration roadmap” is not yet releasable for the Subcommittee 

to review, we are pleased to hear of the interagency coordination and the realism associated with the 

FAA’s planning efforts. Based upon comments from the FAA, it appears that the Agency is fully 

leveraging investments by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the 

Department of Defense (DoD) in related research efforts especially in the area of sense and avoid. The 

subcommittee sees that many open research questions remain and that the Agency has many research 

challenges ahead as they pursue integration efforts.

Action: The Subcommittee requests a briefing on FAA efforts to document research linkages with 

NASA, DoD, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as efforts to identify potential 

research gaps.

Finding: Budget Review. The federal budget environment continues to be in a state of uncertainty that 

is beyond the control of the FAA. The Subcommittee finds that the research planning process has 

incorporated sufficient flexibility to adjust to this uncertain budget environment. The Subcommittee 

also notes that the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) continues to be targeted by Congress 

as an activity that can be eliminated or cut back. The Subcommittee encourages the FAA to explore 

options to either clarify the role of the JPDO or decide if the JPDO responsibilities should be 

transitioned to other organizations as appropriate.

Finding: Strategic Plan. The Subcommittee was encouraged by the approach taken to document 

current research opportunities in the draft Strategic Plan. The Subcommittee strongly supports the 

development and use of a stable methodology by which research opportunities are developed and 

routinely assessed against measurable outcomes. Alignment of research initiatives with broader AVS 

safety goals is critical to ensure research efforts materially and measurably contribute to safety in the 

years to come.

The current draft strategic plan, as outlined for the Subcommittee, largely captures todays existing 

opportunities and research already underway or identified. The Subcommittee members look forward to 

providing feedback and sees opportunities to mature a research priority identification process which 

includes ‘top down’ direction and full review among other FAA lines of business and key industry 

bodies. 

Finding: Continued Airworthiness Maintenance and Inspection. The Subcommittee finds this work to 

be relevant and well defined. The work covers a broad range of activities to include composites and 

electronic devices. The Subcommittee also commends the FAA for using the flexibility of the pop-up 

process to deal with Corrosion Prevention and Control concerns and for gathering information to address 

other upcoming maintenance issues. The Subcommittee encourages the FAA to continue to support this 

area as planned.

Finding: Continued Airworthiness: Structural Integrity Metallic. The Subcommittee finds this work to 

be relevant and well defined. It was noted that the future Active Flutter Suppression research could be 

reduced if the expected funding allocation from Congress is not increased. The Subcommittee finds this 

particular activity to be aligned with technology trends in future aircraft structural designs and 

encourages the FAA to support this area as planned.

Finding: Continued Airworthiness: Electrical Systems. The Subcommittee finds that the Electrical 

Systems research activity is a highly leveraged program taking advantage of industry (Boeing, 
Honeywell), University (UDRI), Inter-Agency (DOD, NASA) and industry (SAE, S&T) capabilities to 

produce results responsive to sponsor requirements.

The Subcommittee encourages the FAA to explore funding alternatives which would support research 

on non-flammable electrolyte lithium batteries for aerospace applications (currently planned for FY 

2016 funding) starting in FY 2014.

Finding: Fire Research and Safety. The Subcommittee finds that the Fire Research and Safety program 

continues to be responsive to clearly stated and anticipated requirements. Stable funding allows the 

program to produce timely results with flexibility to respond proactively to both current and emerging 

needs. The Subcommittee encourages FAA not to overlook research opportunities focused on ignition 

prevention and sharing of key materials flammability research findings with the small/general aviation 

aircraft industry to promote adoption of known safe materials.

Readers of this report are encouraged to read the article written by Dr. Ann Harlan, former Director of 

the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center. It is an excellent example of the high quality research 

and analysis being performed in the FAA Fire Research and Safety Program.

Finding: Continued Airworthiness: Flight Control Mechanical Systems. The Subcommittee is pleased 

to hear FAA research activity in the areas of stall recognition and recovery and low speed 

awareness/alerting is being coordinated with the numerous other FAA and non-FAA sanctioned bodies 

of research looking into these areas. Also encouraging is the balance of focus between Part 23 and Part 

25 airplane safety opportunities. It is, however, challenging for Subcommittee members to fully grasp 

the total amount of research underway in the area of ‘loss of control’. The interrelation between airplane 

requirements (envelope protection, alerting/warning methods, etc.), pilot training and human factors 

aspects must be regularly reviewed to minimize the chance of conflicting risk mitigation strategies.

Finding: Continued Airworthiness (Propulsion Systems): Engine NDE. The research being conducted 

in this area was found to be relevant and progressing at a pace thought to be reasonable in light of 

budgetary challenges. The Subcommittee encourages FAA to closely review planned volcanic ash 

related research for future relevance, given the tremendous amount of work already accomplished 

through ICAO to maintain safe, efficient operations in times of volcanic eruption.

Finding: Safety Management Systems. The Subcommittee finds this work to be relevant and well 

defined. The work covers a broad range of data analysis activities. The Subcommittee was curious as to 

why the FAA feels that all research would be complete by FY 2016.

The Subcommittee notes the absence of FY 2016/2017 funding.

Finding: Software Digital Systems. The Subcommittee finds this work to be relevant and extremely 

important. The Subcommittee was especially pleased with the newly established collaboration between 

NASA and the FAA to create joint research teams, conduct technical exchanges, and establish joint 

research roadmaps. The Subcommittee observed there are similar research efforts at the DoD which 

may also be synergistic.

Finding: Aeromedical Research. The Subcommittee finds that the ongoing requirements for 

Aeromedical Research are connected to the outputs and outcomes of the research, and results are being 

produced as planned. The Subcommittee appreciated the explanation of how requirements are defined 

and prioritized through the TCRG and AVS processes and coupling to the research is maintained. The 

Subcommittee further observes that maintaining capabilities in this area can be expensive, and 

encourages CAMI to continue use of all available funding processes, such as was used to upgrade key 

facilities.
Finding: Advanced Materials and Structures. The application of a safety management approach to 

define future research and desired outcomes is strongly supported by the Subcommittee. Further, it is 

encouraging to see research efforts to improve certification efficiency to help introduce products and 

technology that increase safety but are currently faced with significant certification costs. The 

Subcommittee encourages FAA to continue the good coordination and involvement with industry 

stakeholders.

Finding: Propulsion & Fuel Systems. The Subcommittee finds this work to be relevant and well 

defined. The development and refinement of DARWIN is planned to be completed in FY 2015. This 

activity has provided industry with a critical tool for improving and certifying the damage tolerance of 

engine rotor components. Although follow on work has not yet been identified beyond FY 2015, the 

Subcommittee anticipates legitimate requirements will emerge. 

Finding: Aircraft Icing. The Subcommittee finds this work to be relevant and well defined. The new 

SLD rule, anticipated in 2014, still lacks readily available and proven means of compliance to capture 

the anticipated safety benefits. The Subcommittee encourages FAA to maintain focus in this area. As 

new aircraft designs are introduced and operational capabilities expand, the need for research in aircraft 

icing will continue to be critical into the foreseeable future. The experience, skills, and capabilities 

needed to support icing research are unique and must be intentionally nurtured and groomed. Although 

the FAA currently has world class icing expertise, the Subcommittee continues to be concerned that 

without a concerted focus the FAA will have difficulty replacing and maintaining this unique and 

necessary capability overtime. 

The Subcommittee encourages the FAA to plan for and implement a process to ensure that the skills and 

technical capabilities to support future icing research and certification requirements are developed and 

maintained.

Finding: Weather Program. The Subcommittee recognizes the important of the weather research 

program in improving safety and efficiency in the national airspace system. The program is large and 

diverse, thus creates challenges in ensuring the activities are appropriately coordinated. While the 

research is well articulated and appears appropriate, the operational outcomes in terms of impacts on 

safety and efficiency are sometimes obscure. This program could benefit from the FAA’s movement to 

articulate operational outcomes associated with its research especially in efforts to prioritize research 

efforts.

Finding: Terminal Area Safety. The subcommittee supports the research being performed in the area 

of Terminal Area Safety and finds it is well structured and relevant. The stall recovery training research 

is progressing well with clear recognition of the degree of difficulty in accurately simulating this 

condition. The close coordination between this research and related research in other areas is 

commendable and needs to continue. The runway friction research aimed at reducing runway 

excursions is progressing well. As this research continues, additional focus will need to be placed on

transport category aircraft. The effort on quick turning information from incidents and issues to 

simulator training is especially noteworthy. The subcommittee supports and encourages high quality, 

positive, effective training but also hopes that it will not take an inordinate amount of time for the lossof-control training to reach the industry.

Finding: NextGen - Alternative Fuels for GA. The Subcommittee received a presentation on the status 

of the two-phase program to implement the recommendations of the Unleaded Aviation Gasoline 

Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee to support availability of a replacement fuel for leaded 

aviation gasoline. The Subcommittee noted that although not performing every option that the ARC 

recommended, the FAA program of research is in line with the recommendations. It was further noted 

that a steering group has been formed, and industry's direct involvement is expected to be heavily 

leveraged in order to deliver the outputs.
Finding: Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research. The Subcommittee found the briefing on 

the Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Program thorough and reflected positive activity in an area 

considered to be of high value. The Subcommittee was encouraged to see an upcoming transition of 

focus from metals to composite material in the coming years. The Subcommittee noted the continued 

refinement of analytical tools created by this activity is considered to be of high importance.

NAS Operations Subcommittee

Findings: NextGen Wake Turbulence and Re-Categorization. The Subcommittee found that NextGen 

Wake Turbulence and Re-Categorization programs have made excellent progress in delivering 

quantitative operational benefits to the user community. It was gratifying to the Subcommittee to see 

these operational benefits realized after the considerable investment by both FAA and NASA in the 

understanding of the impact of wake turbulence on NAS operations.

In its discussions with the FAA, the Subcommittee found that there may be a gap in the ability for 

aircraft designers and manufacturers to accurately predict, at design, the operational impact of an 

aircraft’s wake. The specific example cited was the experience with the A380 where the flight tests 

revealed that substantial additional wake turbulence separation was required over that initially 

anticipated.

Recommendation: The FAA should ask the participants in its user group (Wake Net USA) if they are 

confident in their ability to predict, at design, the operational impact of an aircraft’s wake. If the current 

set of analytical and numerical modeling tools are not sufficient for a high-confidence prediction, then 

the FAA should consult with the manufacturers and NASA on the need for more advanced research in 

this area.

Background: Research Requirements for Aviation Weather Research Program (AWRP) and Weather 

Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC) The NAS Operations Subcommittee has previously recommended 

that the FAA present a clear justification for both the AWRP and WTIC programs. Specifically, the 

Subcommittee recommended that the FAA provide quantitative estimates for the NextGen safety and 

operational benefits achievable with the research results when applied to operations. The Subcommittee 

further recommended that if those requirements have not been defined and quantified, the FAA should 

orient this research portfolio to define the requirements. The FAA responded that its Weather Division 

has contracted with MITRE to develop the Operational Weather Requirements Analysis Methodology 

(OWRAM) to establish a repeatable process for deriving operational weather requirements as they relate 

to the NextGen Segment Implementation Plan (NSIP). The FAA further responded that both the AWRP 

and WTIC programs would undertake a more rigorous analysis of General Aviation (GA) weatherrelated accidents to define the weather research requirements related to quantitative safety improvements 

and agreed to present these requirements in 2014. During its summer 2013 meeting, the Subcommittee 

received a briefing from MITRE on OWRAM and a briefing from FAA on WTIC.

Findings: The Subcommittee is pleased that the FAA is committed to developing weather research 

requirements that are firmly based in quantitative operational improvements. The Subcommittee found

that the MITRE OWRAM approach presented was reasonable and will be useful in assessing whether or 

not there are research elements missing in the AWRP. This work also has the potential to do trade 

studies to look at the cost and potential operational impact of different elements of the AWRP portfolio. 

The work is still in its early stages and is projected to produce an initial set of weather research 

requirements in the early spring of 2014.

The Subcommittee found that the FAA has made no significant progress in its justification of the WTIC 

program, based on GA safety benefits or Part 121 operational benefits, despite repeated requests by the 

Subcommittee. The WTIC program has defined a relatively modest effort to define GA safety benefits 

that would yield a research product in 2017. The Subcommittee found this inconsistent with the FAA 
commitment to provide an analysis in 2014. The WTIC program referred to pilot simulation studies that 

they have previously conducted that show that pilot decision making is different with different weather 

presentations, but there was no demonstration of a safety impact of this difference. The Subcommittee 

noted that only a fraction of the WTIC program resources are now focused on GA and most of the 

program is focused on Part 121 operations. However, the Subcommittee found that there was no 

communication or coordination between the WTIC program and the MITRE OWRAM work. In its 

deliberations, the Subcommittee discussed the potential that some WTIC applications could provide near 

term benefit (e.g., uplink of cloud top information in oceanic airspace and the uplink of accurate wind 

information for use in descent spacing), but found that the FAA cannot prioritize this work with other 

AWRP programs unless there is effective coordination of the benefits assessment.

Recommendations:

The FAA should expedite its work with MITRE to develop its initial set of weather research 

requirements early in CY2014. The Subcommittee looks forward to reviewing them during their March 

2014 meeting. The OWRAM presentation should include an assessment of the level of effort required 

to use this methodology for cost/benefit trades for the entire AWRP. The Subcommittee also 

recommends that the OWRAM effort also assess any potential utility of WTIC research products for use 

in the NextGen NSIP Alpha and Bravo.

The FAA should immediately take steps to justify its continued investment in the WTIC program. The 

Subcommittee cannot recommend continuation of this program as it is now constituted. As a near-term 

action, the FAA should rapidly identify those portions of the WTIC program that can provide 

quantitative NextGen benefits and focus its efforts exclusively on those. If the FAA believes that WTIC 

can provide a significant, quantitative safety benefit to GA, then it should present this case to the 

Subcommittee at its March 2014 meeting. If not, then it should discontinue this portion of the WTIC 

program.

Background: Trade Space Analysis of Mixed Equipage and Benefit Scenarios. Many of the benefits of 

NextGen depend on a “critical mass” of equipage by flight operators before a procedure is operationally 

feasible. When distinct benefits are not immediately available for flight operators who equip, a situation 

can occur where flight operators are perversely incentivized to be the last to equip to improve their 

individual business case. In August 2012, the REDAC recommended to FAA that research activities for 

concepts that leverage new aircraft equipage include trade space analyses to address mixed equipage 

environments. That research should include work to understand questions such as critical mass 

thresholds, automation mitigations for mixed equipage, performance tradeoffs, etc. An update from the 

FAA on this recommendation was shared with the NAS Operations Subcommittee in August 2013.

Finding: The Subcommittee is encouraged with the FAA’s response, indicating the intent to establish a 

research plan that addresses these needs. The FAA’s plans for operations concept validation (F&E 

1A08H) as presented, however, did not list any activities related to mitigation of mixed equipage 

challenges to achieving NextGen benefits.

Recommendation: FAA should ensure that mixed equipage challenges and trade space analyses are 

explicitly addressed in research plans associated with NextGen concepts. Because this work may be 

funded outside of the RE&D funding category, the FAA should identify, within the research plan, other 

work that may be addressing mixed equipage performance and business case questions for specific 

concepts, such as trajectory-based operations, and other NextGen concepts that require aircraft equipage 

to achieve operational benefits.

Finding: JPDO. There is a productive tension between the technology readiness and implementation 

readiness for NextGen. NASA has the charter for the farther term R&D defining the art of the possible 

(and advancing the farther-term technology readiness), the FAA for nearer-term R&D leading to 
NextGen implementation. These distinct charters create a useful tension between the farther- and 

nearer-terms, the higher- and lower-risks, and the shorter- and longer-timelines. However, for the nation 

to benefit we need proactive management of this creative tension. The JPDO is the logical organization, 

with the Congressional charter, to perform this vital role. The JPDO budget requests for 2014 and 

beyond appear minimally adequate to fulfill their role.

Recommendation: Given current budget limitations, the FAA should strengthen its bilateral 

agreements across participating agencies to supplement the NextGen coordination performed by JPDO

Finding: NextGen Implications for Commercial Space Transportation. Little focused investment exists 

in either the FAA or NASA in this arena. The FAA’s presentation to the Subcommittee on its New Air 

Traffic Management Requirements and Operational Concept Validation included a Space Vehicle 

Operations Concept Development task deliverable in October 2014. While the Commercial Space 

Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) is currently advising the Administrator on matters 

related to commercial space flight, the REDAC NAS Operations Subcommittee has no insight as to 

whether NextGen topics such as TBO, DataComm, SWIM, and others are being addressed by the 

COMSTAC.

Recommendation: The FAA should ensure that NextGen capabilities are specifically addressed in its 

development of the Space Vehicle Operations Concept Development. The FAA should ensure that both 

COMSTAC and REDAC are made aware of any NextGen implications for commercial space flight 

operations in the NAS.

Background: Prioritization of Research across FAA portfolios and lines of business. The NAS 

Operations Subcommittee has previously recommended that the FAA undertake a broader management 

framework for its research and development in order to enable the FAA to manage its research portfolio 

across funding lines to focus on achieving specific operational benefits to the National Airspace System 

(NAS). The full REDAC made a similar recommendation in its May 14, 2013 letter to the FAA 

Administrator. The FAA responded that Mr. Dennis Filler, the new Director of the William J. Hughes 

Technical Center, who is also head of the of FAA R&D will work to develop a more strategic, forward 

looking process to achieve an integrated agency-wide view of R&D. During its summer 2013 meeting, 

the Subcommittee received a briefing on this topic from Mr. Filler as well as a briefing on the 2013 

National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) from Dr. Cathy Bigelow, the Manager of the FAA’s Research 

and Development Management Division.

Findings: The Subcommittee is pleased that the FAA is committed to developing a more holistic view 

of its research program. It was clear from the briefing by Mr. Filler that he is committed to this goal, but 

the Subcommittee finds that the work is still in its conceptual stages.

The Subcommittee is pleased with the FAA’s commitment to strengthen the high level goals of the 

NARP to align more closely with the National Aeronautics Research Plan and NextGen. The 

Subcommittee finds the three R&D principles (Improve Aviation Safety, Improve Efficiency, and 

Reduce Environmental Impacts) to be reasonable. However, the Subcommittee noted that the resulting 

R&D goals covered a very broad area of research topics and that the FAA has simply mapped all the 

existing RE&D Budget Line Items (BLI) onto the new goals without any indication of prioritization or 

changes to the research portfolio. Furthermore, there was almost no quantitative aspect to the research 

goals – many of them contained phrases such as “improved understanding”, and “improved knowledge”, 

which provide no reasonable means to track progress toward the goals.

Recommendations:
The FAA should vigorously pursue its stated commitment: “to develop a more strategic, forward 

looking process, so that there will be an integrated agency-wide view of R&D”. The FAA should 

present its progress toward its stated goal at the next Subcommittee meeting in the spring of 2014.

As the FAA formulates its research goals, they should contain quantitative goals and metrics by which 

the progress of its R&D can be measured. If quantitative research goals have not been established, then 

the FAA should reorient its research program to establish these goals.

Subcommittee on Airports

Finding: Progress Made on Heated Pavement and Aircraft Braking Friction Studies. The 

Subcommittee is pleased that FAA has addressed most of the recommendations from the 

Subcommittee’s spring meeting. In particular, we note that substantial progress has been made on both 

RPD 155 (Heated Pavements) and RPD 147 (Aircraft Braking Friction). The FAA has met project 

milestones proposed at the Spring Meeting and seems on track to meet milestones proposed for next 

spring. With respect to RPD 147, initial data from dry and wet pavement testing appears promising, 

providing some degree of confidence that it will be possible to collect pavement/tire interaction data for 

snow-contaminated pavements this winter season.

Finding: Research on Trapezoidal Grooves Ready to be Translated into Practice. The Subcommittee 

notes that FAA Office of Airports has not yet taken action on the Subcommittee’s recommendation that 

FAA Office of Airports make necessary modifications to its advisory guidance—particularly Advisory 

Circular 150/5320-12C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport 

Pavement Surfaces—so that airport operators can utilize trapezoidal grooves to improve runway 

drainage and friction under wet conditions should they desire.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee reiterates its recommendation that FAA Office of Airports make 

necessary modifications to its advisory guidance—particularly Advisory Circular 150/5320-12C, 

Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces—so that 

airport operators can utilize trapezoidal grooves to improve runway drainage and friction under wet 

conditions should they desire.

Finding: High Strength Concrete Research Should Incorporate Material Properties Considerations. 

Regarding RPD138, the Subcommittee appreciates the progress the FAA continues to make regarding 

how use of high strength concrete may affect pavement fatigue life. However, the team also notes that 

constructability, quality, and practicability considerations can be significant when high strength concrete 

is used.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the RPD138 project team include 

consideration of constructability, quality, and practicability considerations in its evaluation of high 

strength concrete pavements, especially when it comes to the development of new or revised design 

standards for these pavements.

Finding: Greater Situational Awareness Needed Among Research Programs when it comes to Safety 

Database Development and Management. The Airport Technology Program is currently engaged in the 

development of an airport safety database as part of RPD141. This database fuses information from the 

FAA’s wildlife strike database as well as accident and incident reports from FAA and NASA databases. 

Subcommittee members would like to ensure that this database is being developed in coordination with 

other FAA lines of business, particularly when it comes to the use of these databases to drive new 

standards and advisory guidance.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the development of databases—especially 

safety databases—be readily available to other research programs, particularly those underway within 
the Aviation Safety and NAS Operations portfolios to ensure that other lines of business and research 

teams are aware of them. We also suggest that there be some means of coordination among the various 

FAA research programs when it comes to the development and use of these databases.

Finding: Better Definition is Needed Regarding “Safety Mitigation Plans” to be Developed as Part of 

the Airport Safety Database Project and These Plans Should Be Coordinated with Stakeholders Outside 

of FAA. As part of their briefings on RPD141, the FAA noted that an upcoming task will be 

development of “safety mitigation plans”. However, it was unclear what the content of these plans 

would be. Subcommittee members expressed concern that if such plans include airport-specific 

recommendations—rather than systemic recommendations—they must be coordinated with affected 

airport operators and other stakeholders.

Recommendation: We recommend that the FAA establish an informal “safety working group” similar 

to the already established “40-year design life working group”, which can be used as a sounding board 

by the FAA regarding the feasibility, effectiveness, and priorities of identified mitigation strategies. We 

also recommend that the FAA more clearly define the intent and scope behind the terminology “safety 

mitigation plans”.

Finding: The Subcommittee Should Be More Involved in the Development and Prioritization of New 

Research Tasks. In recent years, the Subcommittee has not taken a very active role in developing and 

reviewing new or revised research tasks that are undertaken by the Airport Technologies Research 

Program.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA seek input and advice from the 

Subcommittee when new research requirements are developed. We believe that Subcommittee member 

expertise can help to strengthen and/or focus these research requirements and will provide the 

Subcommittee with improved situational awareness regarding new research the FAA is undertaking.

Finding: FAA Research into Extended Airfield Pavement Life-Cycles Needs to Include Consideration 

of Paving and Subbase Material Characteristics. Regional paving material and subbase characteristics 

can have a significant impact on pavement life and should be considered in the FAA’s “40-year airfield 

pavement project” (RPD146).

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that regional paving material and subbase 

characteristics and their impacts on pavement design life be explicitly addressed in RPD146.

Subcommittee on Environment and Energy

Finding: The Noise Research Roadmap presented to the subcommittee at the August meeting 

represents an impressive first step in expanding the Agency’s knowledge of the current state of aviation 

noise impacts on the general public. The Subcommittee commends the FAA for this initiative and 

appreciates the opportunity for input.

Recommendation: The maturation of the Noise Research Roadmap should continue as expeditiously as 

possible and sufficient funding should be made available to ensure that this program is not unreasonably 

delayed. Results of the findings made in the course of this research should be used to update and 

implement Agency policy in the noise area.

Finding: Section 912 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 required an independent 

assessment of the work of the Office of Environment and Energy. This Report was sent to Congress in 

July and was supportive of the work that is being done. The only area of minor concern involves the 

transition of research to implementable policies and products. The independent panel found that “. . 
.some additional attention could be paid to the specifics of research transitions and some ideas can be 

borrowed from best practices at other agencies.” The subcommittee agrees with this finding.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the Agency review the research transition 

programs of other agencies to determine whether there are ways to further expedite the transition from 

research to implementation. A good starting point would be a study of the existing NASA-FAA 

Research Transition Team concept.

Finding: An area of AEE activity that demands continued prioritization is the ongoing 

CLEEN/Alternative Fuels program. These activities have shown great promise in accelerating the 

transition of research into products that can be incorporated into aircraft and engine design and in 

developing fuels that can be used as a substitute for traditional petroleum-based jet fuels. Congress has 

recognized the importance of these projects by continually providing funds in excess of those requested 

in the President’s Budget.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee strongly recommends that funding necessary to support the 

CLEEN/Alternative Fuels programs continue. Indeed, the subcommittee continues to endorse the AEE 

above-target funding request for the continuation of these programs at the highest possible level.

Finding: United States leadership in the ICAO CAEP process continues to be an important priority. 

Recommendation: Sufficient funding should be available to AEE to permit continued U.S. leadership 

in the ICAO arena. For example, the current ICAO initiative to develop a worldwide CO2 standard is 

moving forward, with specific deadlines that must be met. It is important that the United States remain 

engaged in a leadership position to focus the CAEP work on the most important efforts and to ensure 

that resources are not strained by less productive projects. In addition, it is important that other CAEP 

members provide resources for the various projects so that the United States does not carry the entire 

burden.

Finding: The cooperation between the FAA and other domestic agencies in the area of environmental 

research has been effective and has permitted the leveraging of continually diminishing resources. The 

Subcommittee was extremely impressed by the presentations of the Departments of Energy and 

Agriculture in the area of alternative fuels research. These presentations clearly demonstrated that 

interagency communication and cooperation can go a long way in overcoming resource shortages.

Recommendation: In order to ensure the most efficient use of resources in all areas of environment and 

energy research, the Subcommittee recommends that existing partnerships between AEE and other 

agencies in the United States continue. In addition to ongoing work with a variety of agencies in the 

alternative fuels area, and with NASA on a variety of issues, the Subcommittee recommends that 

partners be identified to continue research efforts with respect to particulate matter measurements and 

modeling non-CO2 atmospheric pollution.

Finding: The briefing given on AEE Goals and Targets revealed that some existing targets, and the 

metrics used to measure success in reaching these goals, may be unrealistic and should be revisited. 

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the Agency undertake a comprehensive review 

of its environmental goals, targets and metrics to determine whether existing goals and measurements 

are realistic or need to be revised. One specific target and metric that the Subcommittee feels needs 

revision is the fuel efficiency goal and metric.

Subcommittee on Human Factors
Finding: ATC/Tech Ops Core. It appears that funding for ATC / TechOps Human Factors will not 

adequately support critical research beyond 2015. Further, it appears that the interim 2014-2015 

activities do not have sufficient funding to effectively provide their intended contributions. This builds 

on a finding from the Spring 2013 Subcommittee meeting (Finding 4 – no agency response at the time of 

the subcommittee Fall meeting) noting that plans for the ATC/Tech Ops core research program are 

important, but that anticipated funding levels would be insufficient to execute the plan. Further, the 

value represented by the crosscutting nature of the work in this area is difficult to achieve in other

research programs or in specific development programs.

At this meeting, the funding levels were confirmed as being roughly halved. This resulted in limiting 

research primarily to in-house researchers, making impossible the proper execution of most elements of 

the plan at the depth and rigor required. Research areas depending on procurement funds or outside 

contractors are particularly hard hit, without apparent consideration of the technical impact. For 

example, significant risk areas resulting from these funding cuts include:

1. Research for controller fatigue is being eliminated, even as the ATO is trying to startup a Fatigue 

Risk Management System (FRMS) that should be monitored and updated to reflect how it impacts 

actual controller fatigue.

2. Research addressing Human Factors in Safety and Operations appear to end in FY2014. This will 

effectively terminate recent advances in engaging human factors in ATO’s annual tackling of their 

top 5 hazard mitigations, and methods for ATO operational facilities used in the analysis of ATSAP.

3. A previous finding (Spring 2013) noted a need for better integration of Human Factors within the 

Acquisition Management System (AMS), so as to provide the agency with a capability to 

incorporate human factors early in the acquisition process and then monitor for potential problems 

throughout acquisition. It appears that this research area is at risk of termination for lack of funds.

4. Affecting all aspects of ATO/Tech Ops human factors research, the funding reduction will not allow 

human-in-the-loop testing, which is a necessary component of definitive human factor evaluations.

5. The committee believes there is a need for maintenance, analysis, and future updates to HF research 

for personnel selection, both in terms of ensuring validity of current selection practices, and for 

updating personnel selection in response to new developments. This research has been terminated 

within the research program, without being transitioned to other offices within the agency.

6. Cornerstone success criteria for ATC are reduced Loss of Separation events and Runway Incursion 

events. The core program includes training R&D to improve controllers’ ability to recover from 

Loss of Separation events, but it is shown only for FY2014; this appears to be insufficient to make 

substantial improvements in mitigating the effects of, and recovering from, such events through 

improved controller training.

Recommendation: The funding reduction in this area in 2014 and beyond is insufficient for critical 

research areas and will have significant impacts on safety and ATO operations. We recommend that the 

agency restore sufficient funding to address the risk areas identified in the findings; if not, the agency 

should describe how they will address these risks and their safety and operational implications.

Finding: NextGen ATC/Tech Ops. The Subcommittee was very pleased with the presentation of the 

NextGen Air traffic Control/TechOps Human Factors Research plan. The set of research activities and 

outputs represented an important set of cross-cutting HF research needs in support of NextGen. 

However, it was not clear what relative priority the FAA places on these activities, and thus whether 

sufficient funding is planned to meet the research objectives.

Recommendation: Continue to pursue the NextGen ATC/Tech Ops research plan as presented. Where 

funding needs to be prioritized for research in this area relative to other NextGen research areas, and 

within the plan, describe the prioritization, its impact on the ability to conduct these research activities, 

and the further impact that any cuts to these cross-cutting research activities may have on NextGen 

developments.
Action: Further elaborate on details of the individual research activities, and clarify the prioritization of 

their execution as the plan matures and as the plan is resourced. Present this material at a future 

meeting.

Finding: Proper Human Factors Input into ConOps. The Subcommittee heard briefings on the expected 

flightdeck and ATC NextGen research plan. While the proposed work is excellent, these briefings led 

the Subcommittee to raise the following question:

How can the FAA ensure sufficient human factors input during the development and validation of 

NextGen CONOPS, including specific coordination to ensure that the findings from recently completed 

and future human factors research will help both to inform definition and validation of a CONOPS over 

its lifecycle, and to ensure that the correct human factors research is being done to enable 

implementation of a CONOPS?

Such human factors input needs to be integrated early in the process of defining and refining a CONOPS 

in order to ensure that it is viable from a human performance perspective, and to provide guidance in 

designing the necessary technological enablers for the CONOPS. In addition, as the implementation of 

the CONOPS proceeds, human factors research needs must be identified proactively in order to ensure 

that the necessary detailed human factors research has been completed in time to influence design and 

acquisition decisions. Rather than taking a reactive approach to human factors, such early incorporation 

of human factors input will help to ensure that the CONOPS and its implementation will be effective 

once fielded. 

Recommendation: Better integrate the development and implementation of NextGen CONOPS with 

human factors research findings and expertise. This includes not only using human factors expertise to 

better inform the CONOPS, but also ensuring that the human factors implications of the CONOPS 

development are linked back out to relevant research and development. Specifically, ensure that the 

Human Factors Research team is involved in the initial generation of Next Gen CONOPS so that 

downstream changes and mitigations are minimized.

Finding: Broader set of HF issues around roles, responsibilities. Determining information requirements 

and their human factors implications is an important focus of planned research for each of the flightdeck 

and ATC. However, given the significant enhancements expected under NextGen, a broader set human 

factors issues needs to be addressed, including research dealing with the implications of new roles and 

responsibilities, as well as the introduction of new procedures and enabling automation, communication 

and decision support technologies.

A good example of this is the proposed research concerned with the common functions and shared 

information requirements for ARTCC and TRACON operations that is expected to provide input to 

support the potential merging of ARTCC and TRACON facilities and functions. While this research is 

necessary, the full benefits of such a merger look beyond information requirements to also account for 

the human factors implications of new roles and responsibilities, and corresponding new procedures and 

supporting technologies. Not only is this broader scope important to provide guidance in the integration 

and design of decision support technologies, it is of critical importance in guiding the development and 

validation of the relevant CONOPS.

Recommendation: Map out the broader range of human factors issues that need to be addressed, 

including not only a focus on information requirements but also the human factors implications of new 

roles and responsibilities, and their distribution within and between air and ground systems, as well as 

the introduction of new procedures and enabling automation, communication and decision support 

technologies.

Action: Ensure an integrated approach to human factors research coordinating efforts examining the 

flightdeck, ATC and TechOps. This requires careful definition of the research requirements for work 
funded as flightdeck research, ATC research or TechOps research. Equally important, it requires careful 

attention to the definition and execution of the specific research tasks and associated deliverables to 

ensure that such an integrated perspective isn’t lost as the research transitions to implementation. 

Finally, it requires deliberate coordination across the programs responsible for these three focus areas. 

Specifically, the subcommittee would like a briefing on this. We believe that developing this briefing 

will also be useful for presentation by the FAA in other contexts than just our little subcommittee world.

Finding: Requirements Generation and Prioritization within AVS. The Subcommittee very much 

appreciates that a thorough and structured requirements generation and prioritization process has been 

put in place by AVS. However, as with any new process there needs to be on-going examination and 

refinement. Several findings emerged during the discussion of how requirements are generated and 

evaluated.

• The process can be onerous to requirement writers in a time and resource constrained 

environment; in some cases, anecdotal evidence suggested that some significant requirements 

may be lost because the process is perceived as too onerous.

• Part of the perceived difficulty may stem from the fact that, while requirement writers may 

understand the needs for research and the desired outcomes and deliverables, they may not 

understand how to actually craft a research plan as called for in the template. The process was 

not always clear that milestones and project phases should describe the research objectives and 

requirements, rather than requiring a detailed research plan.

• It also appears that the process may inadequately weight and hence inappropriately prioritize the 

cross-cutting nature of some projects. There doesn’t appear to be a place in the requirementsgeneration template to give appropriate weight to those requirements that cut across domains and 

other requirement areas. In addition, the process also does not seem to give much emphasis on 

multi-year activities. 

• While a phased approach to research deliverables, milestones and exit criteria is encouraged in 

the process, there is no place to adequately identify previous work and accomplishments that the 

current requirement builds upon. This is particularly important when evaluating multi-year 

research plans that are intended to build upon each other.

For these reasons, it appears that the requirement process can be further refined to allow for greater 

efficiencies and enhanced validity of prioritizations.

Recommendation: AVS should undertake a process improvement activity to refine the requirements 

generation process to address the issues defined above. Specifically: 1) clarify the inputs needed for the 

milestones and project phase template items, 2) include in the template a means to appropriately weight 

cross-cutting requirements and ways in which the current requirement builds upon previous work, and 3) 

consider surveying those who have written requirements concerning their experience of the process and 

areas where further guidance would be helpful.

Finding: AVS Core. Examining the ranks assigned by AVS to the Human Factors research 

requirements, we find that there appears to be significant variation year to year: for example, proposed 

applications of human factors developments to address Jet Upset, notably including training, are ranked 

the highest of the requirements proposed by the Human Factors TCRG in one year, and then secondlowest in the next. Further, we note that these rankings are made three years out based on the best 

estimates available at that time. While these rankings three years in advance serve a valuable planning 

function, new knowledge and considerations may arise after the rankings are originally are made. We 

understand that AVS also considers ‘pop-up’ research needs on a shorter time-cycle, but note these popup research needs appear to be handled with a distinctly different process rather than explicitly 

integrated into the formal planning process that has been established; further, this process appears, from 

the written description of the 2013 Aviation Safety R & D Prioritization Process, to be limited to year of 

execution.
Recommendation: Rather than viewing the rankings as fixed three years in advance, and then waiting 

until the year of execution for further evaluation, we recommend that the rankings be revisited in 

advance of the year of execution to take into account:

1. New knowledge about the problem and potential solutions that may increase or decrease the 

importance and likely impact of the research requirement.

2. New considerations in the broader aviation community may make specific research requirements 

more-or-less pressing.

3. Emerging problems and potential solutions.

Finding: UAS. The Subcommittee was not briefing on the AVS research requirement for UAS Human 

Factors due to concerns about release of contracting-sensitive information, particularly where committee 

members may have inherent conflicts of interest. However, this research area is vital to achieve the 

mandated ability to include civilian, commercial applications of UAS within the NAS, and it merits a

review even if the review process must be modified to account for conflict of interest concerns.

Recommendation: Continue with the planning and implementation of the research requirement and 

specification, recognizing the pressing need of this problem, and opening up these research plans for 

proper review as soon as possible. This should involve experts without conflict of interest now, rather 

than waiting until the research plans are finalized beyond the ability of a review to provide constructive 

comments and feedback.

Action: Distribute to the committee the research requirement immediately upon its public availability 

and/or address concerns with conflict of interest so as to enable a review of the proposed requirement.

Action: ATC/Tech Ops Core - UAS Ground Movement, Contingency Ops, and Incident Reporting. 

The Subcommittee found three areas of the program description that were confusing or needed more 

explanation. It is unclear whether these reflect potential areas for project improvement or simply are 

areas that need to be presented more clearly.

First, the described research requirements of “ensure Next Gen systems support UAS integration” and 

“Generate HF Operational and Functional requirements for NextGen systems to support imminent UAS 

NAS integration” make it sound as though the focus of the effort is to support modification of the NAS 

and NextGen to accommodate UAS’s; the Subcommittee believes the requirements should include, and 

perhaps focus on, the opposite, that is, UAS requirements for operating in the NAS rather than NAS 

requirements for accommodating UAS’s.

Second, the outcome titled “provide HF for ground control systems” is too broad and sounds very 

similar to an objective of the Flight Deck HF program on UAS’s. The Subcommittee believes this 

objective should focus on identification and mitigation of HF issues related to communication between 

the UAS ground control station and air traffic control. This would make it clear why the outcome is part 

of the ATC HF project and not the Flight Deck project, and it would explicitly show how the two 

programs are coordinated.

Finally, the outputs or deliverables of this project, namely reports, are viewed as inadequate in terms of 

identification of how they will be used by stakeholders. The Subcommittee believes that the outputs 

should be in a form that makes clear how they will be used. For example, will the deliverables provide 

guidance to FAA certification and operational approval personnel, are they meant to help develop 

standards and design guidelines, or are they intended for some other purpose? Simply producing reports 

without identifying their intended impact and user may result in the objectives and requirements of the 

project not being achieved.

Action: Loss of Control (LOC)– Inflight Research Program. The Subcommittee suggests that the 

learning objectives and training techniques for LOC training be more explicitly defined and delineated. 
For example, LOC awareness/avoidance and detection/recognition may primarily require additional

knowledge and knowledge refresh, while recovery likely requires both knowledge and manual 

skill/practice. Knowledge components could be taught in the classroom and with existing simulator 

capabilities while skill development and practice of skills may require new simulator capabilities. It is 

suggested that training guidance and recommendations be separated into different categories that might 

be implemented in these different ways. For example, the training protocol for LOC avoidance 

knowledge elements that can be taught in the classroom can be defined separately from the training 

protocol for recovery skills that must be practiced under realistic operational simulation conditions. 

Further, some elements of LOC training might be incorporated into CRM or other specialized training 

modules – for example, startle, surprise and distraction aspects of LOC might best be covered in CRM 

in conjunction with aircraft state awareness, automation awareness, proper monitoring practices, and so 

on. Similarly, CRM skills should be integrated into both academic and skill development for LOC 

training. While the learning objectives should be defined and addressed separately, the research should 

also identify how the LOC and CRM training components should be integrated for maximum benefit.