NASA Advisory Council (NAC) 

Aeronautics Committee 

December 4, 2014 

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. 

Summary of Meeting Minutes 

Participants: 

First Last Organization Role 

Marion Blakey AIA Chair 

John Borghese Rockwell Collins Vice Chair 

Mike Francis United Technologies RCenter Member 

Tommie Wood Bell Helicopter Member 

Mark Anderson Boeing [RETIRED] Member 

John-Paul Clarke Georgia Tech Member 

Karen Thole Penn State Member 

Stephen Morfold Pratt & Whitney Member 

Jaiwon Shin ARMD NASA AA 

Susan Minor ARMD Exec. Secretary 

Robert Pearce ARMD SAA Director 

William Warmbrodt NASA Ames Aeromechanics Head 

Tom Edwards NASA Ames Aeronautics Director 

Parimal Kopardekar NASA Ames PM NextGen CTD 

Joseph Rios NASA Ames NASA Engineer 

Richard Barhydt ARMD AvSP Deputy Director 

Sabrina Saunders-Hodge FAA Manager, New Entrants 

Guillaume Brat NASA Ames SSAT Project Scientist 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 4, 2014 Page 1 of 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday, December 4, 2014 

The meeting was called to order at 9:12 a.m. 

Introductions 

Ms. Marion Blakey opened the meeting and welcomed members and participants. She 

said she was very excited to be at NASA Ames Research Center, and thanked all 

NASA staff who made the meeting possible. Introductions were made. 

Dr. Jaiwon Shin welcomed all the Aeronautics Committee members to NASA Ames 

Research Center, and expressed his gratitude to the Committee for its support and 

sharing of its collective wisdom with NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

(ARMD). Continuity helps in this dynamic environment. Dr. Shin also said he was 

grateful to have been able to serve more years in his position than his predecessors. He 

thanked Aeronautics Committee Executive Secretary Ms. Susan Minor, and noted that 

Mr. Tom Edwards would be representing NASA Ames management during the meeting. 

NASA Ames Overview by Dr. William Warmbrodt 

Dr. Warmbrodt discussed NASA Ames history, noting the center’s 75th anniversary in 

2014. Ames was established thanks in part to the efforts of famed aviator Charles 

Lindberg. Dirigibles were once hangared at Ames. Cheap power was available for wind 

tunnels, there was an abundance of good flying weather for research aircraft, and a 

number of first-class academic institutions were nearby. 

Today, NASA Ames occupies 200 acres of the original 2,000 that comprised Moffett 

Field. Ames remains small, eclectic and broad-based, with 2,480 staff: half civil 

servants, half contractors. The center’s longstanding practice of collaboration and 

partnering continues to this day. 

Ames Aeronautics Directorate Overview by Tom Edwards 

In describing the Ames Aeronautics Directorate, Mr. Edwards noted that it is staffed by 

some 180 civil servants plus an equal number of contractors. About half of the 

Directorate’s research is geared toward the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen), with focus on unmanned aerial system (UAS) operations. Work also 

continues on exploration of automation in flight. 

Partnerships with other entities bring capabilities to NASA Ames that it wouldn’t 

otherwise possess. In addition, Ames hosted 800 interns this past summer. 

Mr. John Borghese asked if the Exploration Technology Directorate was separate from 

the aeronautics organization. Mr. Edwards said that the Aeronautics Directorate 

matrixed researchers into various programs. Mr. Borghese then wondered how the 

Exploration Directorate determined what work would be done. Dr. Shin responded that 

ARMD has formulated six primary areas of research; any additional funding from ARMD 

must be focused on those research thrusts. NASA centers thus need to plan for the 

necessary expertise and skills sets they need to conduct the research. 

Dr. Mike Francis said that, while he understood the matrix concept, would there be any 

value in reorganizing to take advantage of those research thrusts? Mr. Edwards replied 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 4, 2014 Page 2 of 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that such a step would occur when a stress point is reached, when decisionmakers 

determine that the status quo is worse than the alternative. Organization boundaries 

blur because talent and expertise is accessed wherever it lives. NASA Ames teams 

don’t worry about the boundaries. Mr. Edwards doesn’t believe that his organization is 

at a point yet where they need to reorganize. 

In response to a question from Mr. Mark Anderson about two NASA Ames wind tunnels, 

Mr. Edwards said that the center’s 11-Foot Transonic Unitary Plan Facility is a very busy 

tunnel, although there’s a large swing about who is the primary customer. The 11-Foot 

diversifies the Ames customer base: “We have a large tunnel that can test subsonic at a 

large scale. That being said, we could be one year away from a bad situation. It’s 

tenuous.” In contrast, the 9-by 7-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel is ending a heyday of 

supersonics research. As long as there’s business in the 11-Foot, Ames would be in 

good shape. 

Mr. Anderson asked if the Aeronautics Directorate had ever examined the overall 

operational context in order to improve the efficiency of air traffic control. Mr. Edwards 

said that getting to the next paradigm would be very difficult given that the system has 

to operate continuously. Mr. Robert Pearce noted that it’s how you get to where you 

want to be to get to an optimal situation. The tools ARMD is building, once integrated, 

would serve that. Mr. Edwards said that the research is taking a very hard look at 

autonomy. Mr. Anderson replied that it was all good work, but he had trouble integrating 

it mentally. In response, Mr. Edwards said that the Air Traffic Management (ATM) 

Technology Demonstration-1 effort – ATD-1 – is one domain that ARMD is addressing. 

There are other technical areas in the pipeline to address other issues. 

Mr. Borghese said that doing research and transitioning it to usefulness is the hard part. 

When does ARMD determine when something is going to transition? What is the 

mechanism? And is there a point when the program is cut off? Mr. Edwards replied that 

once an initiative begins, a research transition team is established and then starts to 

dialog. It can be a difficult process, given that specific research is dependent on 

procurements, among other considerations. Work must also fit into a deployment 

schedule. When the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) makes the decision to invest 

is when the handoff occurs. But if a specific research effort is not worth pursuing, it is 

concluded. 

Dr. John Paul Clarke said that part of the issue is knowing how to recognize when 

nothing more can be done. Handoff ceremonies are good, because NASA then knows 

where the work will end up. But, going forward, is there a formal process in the ARMD 

organization for deciding when to end non-productive research? Mr. Edwards said that, 

yes, there is a process for knowing if the technologies are getting us to where we need 

to go. Mr. Pearce added that the whole research transition team process is a major 

change; ARMD is no longer doing an ad-hoc, one-off thing. Just having these teams is a 

major step forward. There’s a steering committee that decides what teams to put in 

place. ARMD doesn’t want to conduct research for 20 years with no payoff. 

A discussion then ensued about timing and investments into research that will be 

adopted and deployed. Technology readiness levels (TRLs) and partnerships were 

discussed. Teams evolve over time. NASA ARMD forms a team at TRL 3 or 4. Optional 

“hooks” may be included in team formulation. Because the FAA is focused on NextGen, 

it’s more on NASA to think about versatility and the future research timeline. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 4, 2014 Page 3 of 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Shin observed that if ARMD doesn’t do anything, the NASA workforce will be 

working on technologies that are primarily implemented in the far term. What ARMD has 

been trying to do in the last five years is focus on relevancy and near term progress for 

those ideas that will meet customer needs. Although ARMD is collectively making good 

progress on relevant research, individual efforts need to tie together. 

Mr. Borghese said that because the projects are not additive, it’s hard to come up with 

one number. It’s a lot of moving parts; the difficulty is coming up with specific 

percentages. Dr. Francis said he agreed that some sort of tracking metrics would be 

useful. Mr. Anderson said that if this is the way the system works today, he wanted to 

see what’s improving in each of the research activities. Ms. Blakey noted that, in her 

role at the FAA, and as the customer for a few years, there has developed a difference 

between night and day about how NASA has fit its work into the real world. It’s a sea 

change and quite welcome. 

Enabling Civilian Low-Altitude Airspace and Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) 

Operations by Unmanned Aerial Systems Traffic Management (UTM) by Dr. 

Parimal Kopardekar 

In response to a query from Dr. Frances concerning airspace sharing, and existing 

infrastructure at low altitudes, Dr. Kopardekar said that unmanned aerial systems traffic 

management (UTM) must integrate with the bigger picture and be interoperable. 

A discussion then ensued about the general public, its role as a stakeholder, and the 

difficulty of finding a representative general public. People whose homes are being 

surveilled comprise the affected public. Congress actually represents the general public 

and should be included in such a definition. Congress has expressed concerns 

specifically about privacy, which remains a very local, very personal issue. Local 

officials need to be part of the solution; it’s not just on the federal level. But airspace is a 

national and local resource. Significant questions remain about enabling all players, 

public and private, to connect into a cloud-based national system that is as open and 

accessible as possible. What is a complementary system that NASA should be working 

to guarantee that geofencing – the use of the global positioning system (GPS) or radio 

frequency identification (RFID) to define geographical boundaries – will work when 

everybody will ignore it? 

Mr. Borghese asked if discussions with the FAA have occurred about unmanned aerial 

vehicle test sites. Dr. Kopardekar said that he has talked with the agency; FAA 

personnel are interested in seeing how UTM can help them manage their missions. 

Each requirement – defined on a per-build basis – has a timeline. Dr. Francis asked if 

there was any requirement for security. Dr. Joseph Rios replied that, although NASA is 

building a prototype, no rules have yet been formalized. Dr. Francis observed that 

here’s a great opportunity for disruption. In reply, Dr. Rios said there were mitigation 

strategies already under development. ARMD is partnering with Amazon and Google 

and will learn a lot from them in terms of information technology. 

In terms of bird migration and its UAS effects, Dr. Rios said that no database had yet 

been compiled. ARMD could address it if there’s a datasource and an eventual pressing 

need. Mr. Borghese said that what NASA efforts are leading to is essentially invention of 

a new airspace. It could become the de facto system if people use it. Are researchers 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 4, 2014 Page 4 of 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

looking at a system resistant to cyber threats? Dr. Rios said that the UTM staff are 

trying to learn as much as possible about network attacks. Dr. Francis praised those 

efforts, but noted that it will be a very publicly accessible thing. Having to deal with 

issues along the way would be advisable. Dr. Kopardekar said that he agreed, and that 

it was something that needed to be addressed. 

Dr. Clarke asked about the human supervisory issue. At the moment, Dr. Clarke said, 

it’s “let things work, and if something goes bad, let the humans take over.” Where is that 

in the builds? Dr. Rios then cited the future possibility of no human at the vehicle 

controls, but ground-based remote control and monitoring. 

A discussion then ensued regarding safe modes, loss links, and minimal disruptions to 

the overall system because of incidents. Concerns over the NASA governance model 

were expressed. The issue of providers of airspace vs. business delivery systems and 

how it all is managed was also broached. Will the FAA be on the path to accept this 

approach? There is a growing awareness in the FAA that new perspectives are 

required. The idea of shared risk is dependent on the development of robust 

technology. Financial models also need to take assured safety into account. 

Dr. Clarke wondered about those operating in a hybrid mode. Would governors be put 

on peak performers? Dr. Rios said in such a cases, one would be allowed to submit a 

trajectory, or a plan to loiter for 40 minutes. Such operational matters are the focus of 

the concept of operations – the CONOPS – still under development. 

Discussion then occurred regarding development of a UAS Standardized Testing and 

Recording, or USTAR, system. What’s the minimal set of ICDs (interface control 

documents) that have to be put in place? That’s a challenge. Because every home may 

eventually have a drone, it’s even more important to have evaluation standards. 

Questions remain about how to integrate operator experience, or lack thereof, into the 

overall evaluation. Test sites could be used to gather initial data. Performance data will 

be used to supplement drone choice. Airworthiness requirements should also come into 

play, especially as UAS vehicles age, in addition to mileage counts. As systems evolve 

and exhibit more automation, operator expertise may become less of a factor. The 

process must be responsive over time: self-improving and self-correcting. 

Establishment of the FAA’s UAS Center of Excellence by Sabrina SaundersHodge 

Dr. Francis noted that there’s a huge focus right now on small UAS. Transportation is 

not a priority for such vehicles. Ms. Saunders-Hodge said that was overarching in the 

legislation [establishing the UAS Center of Excellence (COE)]. Dr. Francis than asked if 

member universities would operate independently or collaborate. Ms. Saunders-Hodge 

said that such universities would collaborate on some initiatives. If there’s a university 

that has a specific competence, the FAA would want to go directly to that university. 

Mr. Borghese said that, given that the Department of Defense (DoD) gives 16% of their 

research budget to universities, FAA funding seems to be one, maybe two orders of 

magnitude too low. Can anything be accomplished research-wise with such a little bit of 

money? Ms. Saunders-Hodge said that she expected partners will use the Center and 

other research that is well-suited for academia. The trends show that once COEs get 

going, other funding streams start coming in. This COE is aligned with aviation safety 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 4, 2014 Page 5 of 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

research in the FAA and is the prime sponsor. The Center has planned out to fiscal year 

2017, although the budget will never be as large as the DoD’s, or even NASA’s. 

A discussion then ensued regarding the relationship between the COE and the FAA’s 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Research on human-in-the-loop simulations and 

black body modeling is ongoing; it’s one way to reach out to a large academic pool of 

talent and expertise. 

Verification and Validation (V&V) Research Update by Richard Barhydt 

Noting Mr. Richard Barhydt’s citation of the costs associated with the overall software 

development process, Mr. Borghese said the numbers appear to be very, very low, an 

order of magnitude below where they should be. Mr. Barhydt replied that several of the 

figures were dated, originating with a study done a few years ago. In reference to a 

query from Dr. Francis regarding authority and autonomy, Mr. Barhydt said that ARMD’s 

verification and validation (V&V) research has been primarily focused on establishing 

unambiguous roles between each. Going forward, the focus will increase on autonomy. 

Dr. Clarke asked about what aviation safety research will continue once ARMD’s 

Aviation Safety Program is repurposed. Mr. Barhydt said that, overall, safety will remain 

a strong focus in the new strategic thrusts. ARMD’s new Airspace Operations and 

Safety Program will be an evolution from the work ongoing in aviation safety, building on 

capabilities already under development. 

In response to a question from Mr. Borghese about ARMD identifying the need for V&V 

research to maintain or increase safety while reducing cost, Mr. Barhydt said that as 

larger and more complex systems are deployed, it will become more difficult in terms of 

safety. NASA’s V&V work is intended to reduce the time of development and associated 

costs. The V&V research will be focused earlier in the design process, to avoid issues 

going forward. 

Dr Francis: “What is an example of a formal method you are using?” Mr. Barhydt: “One 

example would be in static analysis as an emerging technology, part of a formalmethods paradigm. It allows you to take logic and look for areas in the software code. It 

would be part of a software application. And looking how it could be applied in a 

certification context.” Dr. Francis then said he didn’t hear the words “mathematical 

guarantees” that can be trusted in the results. The work should be oriented such that 

there can be demonstration that the methods can be applied. 

Dr. Guillaume Brat noted that, for certain classes of errors, it is possible to obtain a 

guarantee. Static analysis won’t solve every problem. What’s needed is a combination 

of techniques at different stages, and they’ll give you different things. Mr. Borghese said 

that software does what its creators ask it to do. But the FAA isn’t allowing any 

reduction in testing. Will formal analysis allow for a reduction in testing? Mr. Barhydt 

said that a future state may rely more on these methods. This is just one part in a far 

bigger system. By working together on this and exploring new capabilities, a point may 

be reached that could eventually reduce certification costs. It’s a process. Dr. Brat 

observed that many errors can be traced back in the requirements and design process. 

Those errors can’t be caught. Most of the cost is locating the error and then fixing it, 

albeit very late in the development process. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 4, 2014 Page 6 of 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Borghese asked what would be the recommendations regarding the certification of 

hardware and software. Mr. Barhydt said that the first one will be focused on the 

software. Eventually, as the FAA has indicated, they want to cover the waterfront. Dr. 

Francis: “Intelligence comes in multiple flavors: machine and human. Have you 

contemplated adding in the human piece?” Mr. Barhydt: “This work has been geared 

toward software, but it is extendable to humans as well. They may have broader 

capability.” 

A discussion then followed of human-machine interface, and issues of safety. 

Autonomous systems still have a human on the other end. ARMD will be concentrating 

on autonomy going forward. In terms of software development, the V&V tools NASA is 

working on may complete an entire-application scan in minutes, versus three weeks 

currently needed. Dr. Brat noted that’s a lot of the work that has to be done: “We are 

going to bring together a lot of different tools. There’s still a huge amount of work that 

needs to be done. This is going to be a huge emphasis.” 

Dr. Clarke noted that when a procedure is designed, it gets approved for packing into a 

database and eventually gets loaded onto a compact disc for a test on an airplane – and 

then the airplane goes somewhere where it’s not supposed to go: “You need to verify that 

what you get is what you actually intended. We don’t have a high-level language that we 

trust enough.” 

A discussion then followed about software being examined in the same way that human 

pilots are certified. Dr. Brat said it wasn’t a research issue, but has to be driven by 

industry. There is no standard agreed upon by industry, which is why the tools aren’t 

available. ARMD will start looking at cybersecurity, and also issues when humans have 

to take over for the autonomy. Dr. Francis said that it’s human-machine intelligence 

integration that’s the issue. It’s something that isn’t yet done very well. Formal analysis 

should be done on larger systems, as well as flight control systems for a transport 

aircraft. 

Mr. Borghese said that V&V is a huge problem for industry, which is becoming nonviable because of certification costs. Even more important than cost is cyberresistance. 

There’s a need to reduce unplanned cost. There’s also a lack of understanding about 

what formal analysis is. The upfront systems architecture work determines a large part 

of the V&V. The countries in this world that will prosper are the ones that will be able to 

deal with complex systems. Dr. Brat invited Committee members to visit in person 

individually and share with ARMD what the real problems are. 

Aviation’s Big Questions by Robert Pearce 

Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Pearce if looking at research questions was imposed or a 

choice. Mr. Pearce said that it was something ARMD wants to do in order to not be 

overly fixated: “It gives people an opportunity to say ‘We have a different idea.’” Mr. 

Borghese said that the idea of encouraging people to think differently is very important: 

“You’re not going to stop the seedling process are you?” Mr. Pearce replied that ARMD 

wants more interdisciplinary interaction. It will be multi-center. Mr. Anderson mentioned 

workshops and the turbulent mixing of ideas. Will ARMD use that to populate the 

Transformative Aeronautics Program? Mr. Pearce said yes. Mr. Douglas Rohn said that 

it would be a merger of teams who come up with ideas, but driven by the questions 

being asked. Questions will first be bubbled up. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 4, 2014 Page 7 of 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A discussion followed concerning large multi-disciplinary problems and how teams will 

address those. Seedling money will be provided to NASA centers so the process will be 

jump-started. Individuals can propose ideas. Small airspace designs, for example, could 

be one innovative approach. Crowdsourcing a DARPA-like Grand Challenge could be 

another approach. It could generate a lot of excitement. ARMD is doing this because of 

lessons learned. Small seedling investments – like $200,000 – lead to solutions to 

narrow problems. Larger investments of $600,000 are ongoing. It’s been a constant 

process of learning from experience. 

Dr. Shin expressed concern that NASA Aeronautics has become bureaucratic. He felt 

that ARMD should create opportunities and engagement for the younger workforce. In 

particular, he wants ARMD to think of new ways to work and innovations that are 

needed by the industry. As an example, Dr. Shin cited his conversation at a small 

regional conference in Seattle with a chief strategist who said that baggage remains a 

problem for the airline industry in terms of the overhead bins and carryon luggage. 

Ms. Blakey said that the goal is to identify true brilliance. Dr. Clarke rhetorically 

wondered about area rule creator Richard Whitcomb: “Could he have survived today? 

He was not the kind of guy who would work on one program. I’m not sure we have a 

structure now that can enable that sort of thing.” Dr. Shin said that ARMD hopes to 

provide an environment like that, but that questions remain. How does one manage 

workers? How can ARMD account for work giving researchers money and saying, ‘Just 

go ahead and work on something?’ We’re wrestling with red tape all around us.” 

Discussion then ensued about handpicking people on a team to select the right projects: 

the innovator’s dilemma. Political and social constraints will always operate. The 

average citizen remains bedeviled by a congested system. Mr. Anderson cited quickturnaround design work on the B-52 bomber and how short deadlines focus creativity. 

Viscous forces are very strong. The Shark Tank approach may also prove valuable. Dr. 

Shin said that ARMD depends on the seedling investment approach. Mr. Borghese said 

that UTM could change airspace. Could that have happened using only the seedling 

approach? Dr. Shin said that no, not in this case. Mr. Borghese said that giving people a 

big problem to solve might be the better way to go. But the seedling approach is a good 

test. 

Dr. Francis cited the DARPA approach: having the flexibility to capitalize on ideas as 

they occur. Dr. Clarke mentioned using undergraduates. But they don’t know 

everything. Term projects might be a good alternative, as would be partnering with a 

company. Dr. Thole said that students are incredibly creative, even if they don’t have all 

the skills. Mr. Borghese said engineers in companies are also creative. Giving 

proscribed objectives is one approach, but not the only approach. Mr. Pearce said the 

intent is “to get folks to think big.” 

Public Comments: 

None. 

Committee Deliberations 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 4, 2014 Page 8 of 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Blakey asked if there were any recommendations or initiatives and findings for the 

Committee to put forward. The value of this Committee is the interaction with staff. Dr. 

Clarke said that tracking the end of the Aviation Safety Program, and which activities 

are continuing and which are not, is something the Committee needs to do. Dr. Shin 

replied that ARMD does have all the materials in place. It’s a matter of finding a time 

and place to present them. 

Mr. Borghese said that UTM could be as big as ARPANET. These milestones are very 

important to continue. Dr. Shin said that some very different aviation could be emerging: 

“If we use these technologies right, it could open up some whole new areas.” Dr. Thole 

said she would suggest a large conference whose focus would be UTM. ARMD may 

want to partner with companies to help set it up. Dr. Shin said UTM could be the 

combination of many things that have been very successful. Dr. Clarke said that the 

TED approach (based on the Technology, Education, Design talks) could work too, 

where you have two people. Dr. Thole said that she agreed. 

Mr. Borghese said that he was one of the few non-aero people in the room. Certification 

is the largest expense for many of the companies represented in this room. It also is 

driving graduates from the industry, because certification is the most grueling kind of 

work one can do. 

Dr. Warmbrodt said that he could see where UTM can take ARMD, and he cited tie-ins 

with both airborne and terrestrial intelligent sensors. 

MEETING ADJOURNED at 3:38 p.m. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 4, 2014 Page 9 of 9