NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee Meeting 

July 9, 2020 

Virtual Meeting Originated at NASA’s Mary W. Jackson HQ

Washington, D.C. 

Welcome 

Mr. John Borghese, committee chairman, called the meeting to order and offered some 

words of welcome. Ms. Irma Rodriguez provided the standard advisory committee 

guidance. Then Mr. Robert Pearce, NASA’s associate administrator for aeronautics, 

provided some insight into what’s been happening since the last meeting in March. 

Mr. Pearce provided an update on NASA’s current stance on COVID-19 in terms of 

workforce safety and operations. He also summarized the status of the fiscal year 2021 

budget making its way through Congress, and then offered brief summaries of program 

and project status in areas such as an electric power flight demonstration, the X-59 

Quiet SuperSonic Technology aircraft assembly, and the X-57 Maxwell electrified power 

research airplane. 

Special Topic: COVID-19 Impacts and Industry Response 

Committee members shared the impact of COVID-19 on each of their segments of the 

aviation community, while also acknowledging the condition of the industry was 

constantly changing and these reports amounted to a snapshot of the situation on that 

day. Here are some of the highlights of those reports: 

Compared to last year, flight schedules domestically were down 56 percent, while 

internationally were down 86 percent. In terms of number of passengers flown, 

domestically they were down 71 percent and internationally they were down 93 percent. 

Bookings were down 76 percent and revenue was down 88 percent. 

The airlines were burning through $6 billion a month during the second quarter, and 

through additional efforts to lower expenses reduce the monthly rate to $5 billion in the 

third quarter and $4 billion in the fourth quarter. 

Mr. Andrew Cebula reminded the committee it took the airline industry three years to 

recover following 9/11. He suggested the recovery in this case could take longer, 

especially with international travel. Domestically it may take the return of more routine 

travel for business meetings and conferences. 

Sales and deliveries of General Aviation aircraft has slowed, with $1.4 billion worth of 

aircraft waiting to be delivered internationally. Travel restrictions needed to close sales 

and bring pilots to the U.S. to fly their new aircraft overseas are a major problem. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Peter Bunce said General Aviation probably wasn’t hurting as bad as the airlines in

terms of traffic, which should make recovery a little easier. Private flight training and 

activity at Fixed Base Operators is gradually seeing improvements in numbers. He also 

noted, in response to a question from Mr. Pearce about research investments by 

industry as a result of the effects of COVID-19, there are positive signs industry 

continues to be interested and willing to invest in technologies NASA is closely involved 

with, including areas such as supersonic flight and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM). 

Mr. Eric Fanning noted how fast both the International Civil Aviation Organization and 

the Federal Aviation Administration moved to determine steps that could be taken by 

the manufacturers, the airlines and the airports to put in place processes, protocols and 

equipment to reduce the health risk of flying. 

In terms of vertical flight – helicopters (both civilian and military) and drones of all sizes 

– the COVID-19 impact has been felt but not in the same way or to the same degree as 

the other segments of the aviation community. For example, Mr. Michael Hirschberg 

noted the continued need for essential police and medical services. Also, Ms. Lisa 

Ellman noted the same situation is playing out in terms of drones. Demand for services 

has gone up for some use cases and overall interest in drones and their future 

operations remains robust. 

Discussion 

In elaborating on the immediate needs of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

community when pandemic issues subside, Ms. Ellman talked about the need for more 

help with risk analysis for low altitude flights, especially in denser urban environments 

when radar data may not be available and there is concern about tracking noncooperative air traffic. NASA representatives acknowledged the need and described 

some of the approaches being taken to address that concern. 

Mr. Mike Hirschberg requested more information and discussion about the status and 

availability of NASA facilities that could help support the UAS ecosystem. Mr. Pearce 

suggested that a briefing from NASA’s Mission Support Directorate could help the

committee better understand the agency’s research facilities in terms of their

capabilities and challenges in maintaining. 

Committee members raised awareness about the pandemic’s effect on the current 

aerospace workforce, as well as the future aerospace workforce in the form of today’s 

college students – especially those pursuing engineering disciplines. Mr. Pearce 

acknowledged those concerns and emphasized NASA’s vision for the aviation

community of the future provides inspiration and opportunities for tomorrow’s workforce. 

Discussion that took place regarding passenger safety in the cabin and other concerns 

related to the current pandemic and future health scares is summarized in this overall 

committee finding. 
 

 

 

 

Finding 

The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the aviation community in every measurable 

way. Lack of demand due to concern about virus transmission within an aircraft cabin 

and many other factors, and an erosion in trust due to conflicting sources of information 

all hinder recovery. History shows this will not be the last such health crisis. The 

Committee recognizes NASA’s public stature as a trusted government entity and

suggests the agency consider what types of technology research and development can 

be done to minimize the effects of COVID-19 as well as a future health crises on the 

aviation industry. 

Future Flight Demos 

Dr. Ed Waggoner, Dr. Jimmy Kenyon, and Mr. Lee Noble briefed the committee on 

NASA’s research plans related to technology that might someday be incorporated and 

flown on a full-scale subsonic technology demonstrator aircraft. Dr. Waggoner noted 

that the market data, plans and potential timelines did not reflect any possible effects 

from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Dr. Waggoner presented the case for the need of a new single-aisle subsonic airliner in 

the future, both in terms of maintaining U.S. technological leadership and a healthy 

economy, as well as ensuring the aerospace industry’s positive contribution to the

balance of trade. He noted the importance that the U.S. industry consistently come to 

the market first with the most innovative technologies and efficient production systems. 

Continuing to introduce ever-more-efficient technologies in terms of their physical and 

sociological impact on the environment also is a major driver. 

Dr. Waggoner briefly reviewed previous research that helped set the stage for the 

current efforts in this area. He noted the important contributions of the Environmentally 

Responsible Aviation project, which concluded in 2015 and resulted in eight successful 

integrated technology demonstrations. Another example was the Advanced Composites 

Project, which recently concluded. These “game changers” are the baseline for moving 

forward. 

Dr. Kenyon briefed the committee on plans for the Advanced Air Transport Technology 

project and described four major research initiatives underway that will serve as the 

technical foundation for what might be brought together in the future as a subsonic Xplane. These technologies include electrified aircraft propulsion, small core gas turbine 

engine, transonic truss-braced wing, and high rate composites. (For a general summary 

of these initiatives, go to https://www.nasa.gov/aero/nextgen-aircraft-design-is-key-toaviation-sustainability.) 

Mr. Noble expanded on the idea of electrified aircraft propulsion by describing the 

immediate research steps being taken in the form of the Electrified Powertrain Flight 
 

 

 

 

 

Demonstrator project. The idea here is to transition the theoretical into an actual system 

that is transformational in terms of using electric propulsion on larger aircraft. This 

means demonstrating the safe operation of megawatt-class electric propulsion and the 

full integration of that system within a single-aisle subsonic transport. Depending on the 

size of the aircraft and its power needs, such a system may be fully electric or employ a 

hybrid electric scheme. The ultimate goal of this project is to integrate a system into an 

existing aircraft and demonstrate its capabilities in flight. This would precede its 

integration into a purpose-built X-plane demonstrator. 

Discussion 

Committee members asked the NASA representatives several detailed questions 

regarding each of the four technical areas, and in doing so generated conversation that 

resulted in the following recommendation. 

Recommendation 

The Committee requests that NASA better define and more tightly articulate its research 

goals and key performance indicators with respect to technologies that could be flown 

on a future subsonic single-aisle transport technology demonstrator, or X-plane. These 

technologies include high rate composite manufacturing, small core gas turbine, 

electrified propulsion, and a high-aspect ratio transonic truss-braced wing. Stated goals 

for improved efficiencies in areas such as fuel burn, emissions and noise should use as 

a baseline the Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus A320neo. 

Urban Air Mobility Plans 

Mr. Davis Hackenberg provided the committee with an update on NASA’s research

plans for what is now called Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), noting it has been two years 

since the committee was briefed on the subject. He also reviewed current thinking 

behind the plans for the National Campaign, which previously was known as the Grand 

Challenge. 

An important change since the last briefing was in the adoption of Advanced Air Mobility 

as the overall descriptor of the mission, replacing Urban Air Mobility. This was the result 

of expanded thinking and awareness that drones would be flying in areas urban, rural, 

and in between. 

The high-level goal of AAM is now safe, sustainable, affordable, and accessible aviation 

for transformational local and intraregional missions. In this statement, local missions 

are less than 75 nautical miles and intraregional are no farther than about 300 nautical 

miles. Enabled by electrification and automation, AAM does not include supersonic or 

faster transports, nor existing hub-and-spoke air service with larger transport aircraft. 
 

 

 

 

 

Important components include vehicle development and operations, airspace design 

and operations inspired by results from the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) project, 

and a robust community integration strategy that catalyzes public acceptance and 

adoption of appropriate new local regulations and infrastructure. 

Mr. Hackenberg laid out the definitions of various system maturity levels by which AAM 

employs increasing more complex technology and operations, all of which will factor into 

the execution of a series of industry events NASA will manage called the National 

Campaign. 

The purpose of the National Campaign is to assure AAM safety and accelerate 

scalability through the integrated demonstration of candidate operational concepts and 

scenarios. More specifically, the objectives include accelerate certification and 

approvals; develop flight procedure guidelines; evaluate the communications, 

navigation, and surveillance trade-space; demonstrate an airspace operations 

management architecture; and characterize community concerns. 

Mr. Hackenberg wrapped up his presentation with a description of the industry and 

government partners NASA is working with on AAM, and a survey of existing AAMrelated research facilities and tools available to the agency and industry. 

Discussion 

Mr. Borghese asked if the various UAM Maturity Levels included an air traffic control 

system component. Mr. Hackenberg said there was and explained how as the number 

and complexity of the types of flights described increases, the associated demand on an 

air traffic management technical capability also increases. Lessons learned and 

operational capabilities demonstrated by the UTM project will provide key contributions. 

Mr. Cebula asked if NASA envisioned there being an evolving certification process as 

the maturity levels in research and operations expanded, and Mr. Hackenberg 

responded he expected that would be the case. While certification is a role for the FAA, 

the build up to and execution of the National Campaign by NASA working with industry 

will help provide data, both technical and operational, that can help. 

Mr. Anil Nanduri prompted a short discussion among committee members about the 

feasibility of taking advantage of reduced air traffic as a result of the economic effects of 

COVID-19 to perform or accelerate additional testing at a time when, at least 

statistically, there would be less overall risk to the public in certain scenarios. A 

component of this discussion turned on whether any vehicles were close enough to 

being ready for certification such that this kind of accelerated testing would be helpful. 

The need for additional low altitude safety analysis also was raised. 
 

UAS in the NAS and UTM Projects Close Out 

Mr. Lee Noble and Mr. Akbar Sultan briefed the committee on the UAS in the National 

Airspace System (NAS) and UTM projects, respectively. Both projects are closing out 

this year after a five-year run. 

UAS in the NAS 

Mr. Noble began with the UAS in the NAS summary and describing the overall goal of 

providing research findings to reduce technical barriers associated with integrating UAS 

into the NAS utilizing integrated system level tests in relevant environments. These 

environments include altitudes higher than Class G airspace and involve operational 

considerations related to instrument and visual flight rules (IFR and VFR), as well as 

cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft. 

Developments in two key technical areas provided the foundation for the project’s 

success, which included defining Minimal Operational Performance Standards. These 

technologies were Detect and Avoid, and Command and Control. Demonstrated 

advances in these areas led to defining operational concepts and technologies in 

support of standards related to communication, navigation, and surveillance capabilities 

consistent with IFR flight. 

These technical challenges were and are being demonstrated in two phases, each 

featuring their own capstone events. Phase 1 involved large UAS and resulted in a 

remotely piloted aircraft being allowed to fly within the NAS without an accompanying 

safety chase aircraft, which is normally required. Phase 2 involved mid-size UAS with its 

capstone event being a series of Systems Integration and Operationalization flights 

performed by three industry partners under NASA contracts. (At the time of the meeting 

one of three had been flown, with the remaining scheduled before the end of 2020.) 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management (UTM) 

Mr. Sultan summarized the research and results of the past five years regarding UTM 

by describing its origins, key technical challenges, operational demonstrations, and 

ways in which this work is already informing plans for expanding the concept and 

technology into other areas of air traffic management. 

Mr. Sultan defined UTM as an air traffic management ecosystem for small UAS in lowaltitude airspace, generally thought of as being below 400 feet above ground. The 

intention of the system was to supply services under the FAA’s regulatory authority in

places where those services do not exist. 

Through UTM, NASA and its industry partners worked with the FAA to define roles and 

responsibilities, all technical parameters related to data exchange, and recommended 

performance requirements. These goals ultimately were showcased in a series of 
 

 

 

increasingly more complex demonstrations of technical capabilities that began with a 

few drones flying within line of sight in a rural area, and ended with many drones flying 

beyond line of sight close together over a dense urban area – in this case both Reno, 

Nevada and Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Discussion 

Several committee members asked about the communication links that enable UTM to 

operate in terms of quality of service, security, and the implications of more widespread 

deployment and use of 5G networks as more and more UAS enter the market and UTM 

becomes operational. Mr. Sultan acknowledged all of these areas are important 

considerations as work on UTM and its contributions to other NASA projects is 

expanded. 

Committee members also asked if NASA had the appropriate facilities and modeling 

tools to examine small vertical lift aircraft from a crashworthiness standpoint. The more 

general topic of NASA aeronautics research facilities and tools, and their availability to 

industry, was discussed. NASA representatives responded that an in-depth briefing 

could take place at a future meeting. 

Finding 

The Committee congratulates NASA’s aeronautics innovators associated with the

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management project as it wraps up its impressive 

research, writes its final reports and closes out a pioneering prologue in the history of 

advanced air mobility. The new technology, procedures and industry relationships 

NASA has forged during the project will have a lasting and positive impact on the flying 

public for many years to come. 

Public Comments 

A public comments period was offered as required. No public comments were received. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Webex Attendees 

Committee Members 

Mr. Andrew Cebula 

Mr. Anil Nanduri 

Mr. Darin DiTommaso 

Dr. Eric Allison 

Mr. Eric Fanning 

Mr. John Borghese 

Dr. Karen Thole 

Ms. Lisa Ellman 

Mr. Michael Hirschberg 

Mr. Peter Bunce 

Dr. Tom Shih 

NASA 

Alicia Wesley 

Abigail Casas 

Akbar Sultan 

Andrew Carnell 

Anthony Washburn 

Barbara Esker 

Carl Russell 

Cheryl Quinn 

Daniel Williams 

David Thipphavong 

Davis Hackenberg 

Edgar Waggoner 

Eric Cooper 

Gary Kellogg 

Heather Arneson 

Irma Rodriguez 

Jaewood Jung 

James Kenyon 

Jim Banke 

Jennifer Kibler 

John Cavolowsky 

John Koudelka 

Jon Montgomery 

Joshua Moody 

Ken Goodrich 

Kyle Yunaska 

Lee Noble 

Lexie Brown 

Marc Birckbichler 

Maria Consiglio 

Mary Stringer 

Michael Guminsky 

Michael Rogers 

Naseem Saiyed 

Nateri Madavan 

Parimal Kopardekar 

Patricia D. Rausch 

Paul Krasa 

Paul Nelson 

Richard Wahls 

Robert Pearce 

Ronald Johnson 

S Melissa Rivers 

Shawn Engelland 

Sridhar Reddy 

Starr Ginn 

Steven Clarke 

Steven Velotas 

Susan Gorton 

William Johnson 

External (Affiliation identified if provided) 

Adam Grasch (Aurora Flight Siences) 

Pat Hofacker (Aerospace America) 

Daniel Morgan (Congressional Research Service) 

David Hyde (AIA) 

Ferne Friedman-Berg (FAA)) 

James Lochner (USRA) 

John Tylko (Aurora Flight Sciences) 

Lee Olson (FAA) 

Matthew Parstensen (Aurora Flight Siences) 

Max Fenkell (AIA) 

Oliver Pape (German Aerospace Center) 

Richard Fisher 

Tom Rubino (FAA) 

Steve Moran (Spire Global)