1 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NASA 

Advisory 

Council 

Aeronautics 

Committee 

Report 

Ms. Marion Blakey, Chair 

August 1. 2013 
Committee Information 

• Members: 

― Ms. Marion Blakey, Chair (Aerospace Industries Association) 

― Mr. John Borghese (Rockwell Collins) 

― Dr. Ilan Kroo (Stanford University) 

― Dr. David Vos (for Dr. John Langford) 

― Mr. Mark Anderson (Boeing) 

― Dr. John-Paul Clarke (Georgia Institute of Technology)* 

― Dr. Mike Francis (UTRC) 

― Dr. Mike Bragg (University of Illinois) 

― Mr. Tommie Wood (Bell Helicopter) 

• Plans for next meeting: Face-to-face Committee Meeting at Langley 

Research Center, December, 2013. 

*Attended remotely 
 

Areas of Interest Explored at Current Meeting 

3 

Topics covered at the Aeronautics Committee meeting held on July 30, 2013 at NASA 

Headquarters:

ARMD FY 2014 President’s Budget* 

ARMD Flight Research Planning 

Advanced Composites Project Planning 

UAS Subcommittee Outbrief* 

NRC Autonomy Study Discussion* 

* These topics have related findings provided by the Aeronautics Committee 
Aeronautics FY 2014 Budget 

Actual

($ Millions) FY 2012 FY 2013 1/ FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2017

Aeronautics Total $569.4 $572.9 $565.7 $565.7 $565.7 $565.7 $565.7

Aviation Safety 80.1 80.0 80.3 81.5 82.4 82.5

Airspace Systems 92.7 91.5 91.5 91.9 92.4 92.4

Fundamental Aeronautics 186.3 168.0 166.9 163.4 160.1 159.7

Aeronautics Test 79.4 77.0 77.5 78.6 79.6 79.8

Integrated Systems Research 104.2 126.5 126.8 127.4 128.2 128.4

Aeronautics Strategy and 

Management

26.7 22.7 22.7 22.8 22.9 22.9

1/ The FY 2013 amount reflects the annualized level provided by the Continuing Resolution plus the 0.612 percent across

 the board increase (pursuant to Section 101(a) and (c) of P.L. 112-175.)

Outyears are Notional
FY 2014 Budget Highlights 

– NASA’s Aeronautics research is focused in these areas: 

• Safe, efficient growth in global aircraft operations 

• Innovative composites research 

• Integration of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles into the 

National Airspace system 

• Ultra-efficient commercial transports 

• Transition to low-carbon propulsion 

• Real-time system-wide safety assurance 

 This research will lead to increases in economic growth and high quality jobs, 

and advances in mobility and long-term sustainability within the aviation 

industry. 

 This budget provides funding for new research into reducing the timeline for 

development and certification of innovative composite materials and structures. 

 Explores options for the future of rotary wing research. 
Changes to Aeronautics Budget 

• Integrated Systems Research program adds funding for the Advanced 

Composites Project. This project will focus on reducing the timeline for 

development and certification of innovative composite materials and 

structures. 

• Aeronautics Strategy and Management funding reduced to reflect a part 

of the Administration’s STEM consolidation initiative to centralize all 

STEM education activities across the Federal government. 

• Fundamental Aeronautics will explore options for the future of its rotary 

wing research, continuing critical research areas while completing and 

phasing out lower priority areas in coordination with its partners 

industry and the interagency. 
 

 

Committee Finding 

Other countries, notably the European nations, Russia, China, and Korea are funding 

advanced rotorcraft research. Europe in particular has made a strong effort to dominate 

this market, and they have succeeded with European companies ranking #1 and #2 in 

the civil rotorcraft market, while the top US Company is #3 in the civil market. 

Specifically, Europe is leading with the development of the first civil tilt-rotor vehicle, and 

more generally, they have made a strong push to improve helicopter performance (e.g. 

speed, range and payload) and environmental performance (noise in particular). As other 

countries continue to invest strongly in rotary-wing research, it is anticipated that US 

market share will continue to decline in both the civil and military markets. 

The Committee fully supports ARMDs continued investment in Rotary Wing research and 

efforts to align their research with those technologies deemed crucial to regaining U.S. 

leadership in this area of aeronautics. 
Committee Finding 

The Committee fully supports ARMD’s continued investment in Hypersonics research and 

efforts to align their research with those technologies deemed crucial to sustaining U.S. 

leadership in this area of aeronautics. NASA’s investment in hypersonics should be 

strategically coordinated/aligned with the DoD’s given the potentially expensive nature of 

the research and the limited resource environment for the foreseeable future 

 

 
New Composites Project 

What: The Advanced Composites Project to accelerate development, verification, and regulatory acceptance 

of new composite materials and design methods. 

How: Through the development and use of higher fidelity and rigorous computational methods, new test 

protocols, and new inspection techniques. 

Why: Reducing the certification timeline from the current standard of 20 years to approximately 5 years 

and providing capabilities to speed the development of new materials/structures and increase the 

efficiency of production processes will enhance U.S. competitiveness. 

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 

Composites Initiative $25M $25M $25M $25M $25M

This will be a new project in the Integrated Systems Research Program. 
Composites Research Problem Statement 

Timeline for development and certification of advanced composite materials and 

structures for aerospace approaches 20 years 

Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved. 

Material Development and Certification Cycle 

Challenge for Composites Development 

Material Properties ~4 yrs 

Material Development & Producibility ~9 yrs 

~ 18 Years 

Material 

Performance 

Frozen 

Product Design Cycle Begins Approximately 5-9 Years 

Trial & Error 

Disconnected from 

Requirements 

Design Value Devel ~3 yrs 

Analysis Validation ~4 yrs 

It can take longer to develop a structural material than it takes to develop a 

new airplane Therefore designers rely on previous-generation materials 

WHY SLOW • Complexity: parameters in construction; failure modes; variability 

• Strength and life can not be predicted reliably 

• Empirical and iterative ‘trial and error’ methods; lots of testing 

Inhibits vehicle innovation; Impacts national competitiveness 
Challenges for Accelerating Composites 

Development/Certification 

11

Development 

Taxonomy 

Materials 

Design Development 

Design Certification 

Manufacturing 

time 

• Overlap in time, and coupled: 

– Composite material isn’t made until finished product is made

• Each area: largely empirical (extensive testing), or iterative ‘trial and error’

– Design / Certification: Unable to predict failure  Heavy testing 

– Manufacturing: 

• Variability in quality, Iterative development 

• Low throughput: Tooling; QA Inspection 

• Large unitized or bonded structures 

Reducing Development and Certification time requires paradigm shift 

• More simulation with less testing, yet greater knowledge 

• Greater concurrence : design, manufacturing, validation 
Why Hasn’t Industry Addressed These Challenges 

Already? 

• Certification agencies: 

– Limited incentive: Change from SOA practices is inherently risky 

• Individual corporations:

– Limited profit motive: If impacts safety, must be open, benefits competitors 

– Needed expertise may not reside in single company 

• Lack of confidence in validation / safety of new technologies 

– Requires independent objective assessment, physics-based rational 

• To affect “social” and regulatory processes is time and resource intensive 

– Difficult for individual; requires broad cross-section experience 

– No prior leadership to organize ‘community’ advancement 

NASA is an essential mechanism to enable community success 

• Credible technical expertise to provide vision AND participate 

• Trusted entity able to provide community leadership
Advanced Composites Project (ACP) Scope 

Will Focus On ...

• Address solutions to five specific technical challenges, 

which will significantly reduce the time to develop and 

certify composite structures and materials 

– Sufficient for regulatory acceptance 

– Qualified or industry standard materials 

– ‘Typical’ composites for broad application: PMC 

rather than specialty (CMC, MMC,..) 

– Applications to consider: Airframe, Propulsion, 

Rotors, and onboard systems crashworthiness 

(seats, bins, landing gear, floors) 

• The timeframe for impact will be 2018-2023

• Support the DoD/FAA in national roadmap/plan 

for Certification of Composite Structures 

• Industry, FAA, and DoD will participate in technical 

teams to transfer technologies 

Will NOT Focus On ...

• Regulations: Will not modify 

regulations (FARs), rather 

support alternative means 

of compliance 

• Invention / development of 

new materials or structures 

• Fundamental Research 

 >10 years to practice 
Three Flavors of Flight Research 

A modified aircraft carries 

the flight experiment 

The aircraft configuration 

IS the flight experiment – 

integrated systems research 

Existing aircraft are used to execute 

flight experiments – evaluation of 

new ATM procedures 
Current Approach 

• Insert flight tests throughout the lifecycle of research 

• Continue to conduct flight tests within the budget appropriated 

through: 

– Multipurpose flying testbeds to assess multiple state-of-the-art technologies 

– Public-private partnerships 

– International partnerships where feasible 

• Reinvigorate X-plane approach 

– Imagine a set of X-planes and a testbed fleet for government and private use 

– Subsonic: for new configuration (e.g., BWB X-plane); for transport/GA 

technologies (e.g., NASA GIII); for N+3 technologies (e.g., Subscale testbed) 

– Supersonic: for low-boom demonstration (e.g., dedicated low-boom X-plane) 

– UAS: for autonomous technologies (e.g., NASA Ikhana, Global Hawks, other 

subscale UAS) 
ACCESS Flight Experiment 

Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions (ACCESS) Flight Tests began on March 1, 2013 at 

Dryden. Emissions from the Dryden DC-8 flying with JP-8, and a 50:50 JP-8/HEFA blend are being measured by 

the Falcon HU25 from Langley. The Falcon was modified for use in atmospheric sampling and as a remote-sensor 

test-bed. Measurements made at varying distances from the DC-8. Testing completion delayed by A/C safety 

stand-down at DFRC; all flight test objectives accomplished. Complements and augments data previously 

acquired during the Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment (AAFEX) ground testing.

Dryden DC-8 exhaust emissions 

measured in flight by 

instrumented Falcon aircraft from 

Langley 
UAS Subcommittee 

• Subcommittee established in 2011 to review and assess NASA’s approach 

and process on a wide range of UAS issues.

• Subcommittee to specifically review and assess NASA’s approach, 

progress, and plans for developing strategies and capabilities that reduce 

technical barriers related to safety and operational challenges related to 

enabling routine Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) access to the National 

Airspace System (NAS).

• Specific Objectives: 

– Provide advice and recommendations on overall objects, approach, content, 

and structure of UAS in the NAS project to ensure addressing relevant and 

compelling research needs 

– Review and evaluated the effectiveness of implementation for all critical, 

technical challenges in project plan and provide advice and recommendations 

for improvement 

– Provide assessments on types of and procedures for information and data 

transfer to and on strategic cooperation with stakeholders performing UASrelated development work in government and industry. 
Areas explored by Subcommittee 

• May 21, 2013: 

– Presentations: 

• UAS in the NAS Project: Status of Phase 2 Activity Definition 

– 6 Subcommittee Members and 41 from Public in attendance 

• July 18-19, 2013: 

– Presentations: 

• UAS in the NAS Project: Phase 2 Activity Selection 

• Future NASA Research Efforts on Autonomy in Aviation 

– 8 Subcommittee Members and 52 from Public in attendance 

Note that the Subcommittee’s term of service has been completed. The Committee appreciates the service 

of the Subcommittee members and their valuable insights and advice to NASA and the Committee. 
UAS in the NAS Project 

Phase 1/Phase 2 Transition 

Phase 2 (P2) 

Prior 

Technical input from Project technical elements, NRAs, Industry, Academia, Other Government Agencies 

Early investment 

Activities 

External 

Input 

Sys Analysis: 

ConOps, Community Progress, etc.

Prior Activities Formulation 

Initial Modeling, 

Simulation, & Flight 

Testing 

Phase 1 (P1) 

Flight Validated 

Body of Evidence 

P2 Portfolio 

Developed 

Integrated Modeling, Simulation, & Flight 

Testing 

Technology Development to address Technical Challenges 

FY11/12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 

KDP 
Project Technical Focus Areas 

Sense and 

Avoid 

Performance 

Standards 

Air Traffic 

Systems 

Integration 

Certification & 

Safety 

Command 

and Control 

Performance 

Standards 

Human 

Systems 

Integration 

Integrated 

Test & 

Evaluation 
Committee Finding 

The Committee strongly supports the UAS in the NAS project and proceeding with the 

next phase of the project. We believe that the project has evolved to consider key 

stakeholder concerns, including those put forward by the NAC UAS Subcommittee. The 

Committee endorses the work of the Subcommitee in prioritizing the project Technical 

Work Packages that are key to success, and which might be slightly deemphasized as 

program planning evolves. 

 

 Top TWPs to Support 

TWP Name 

1 Restricted Category Type Certification

34 Sense and Avoid (SAA) Performance and MOPS 

development

13 Spectrum

22 SAA Interoperability (Well Clear and SAA Conops)

33 Levels of Automation/Autonomy Roadmap

35 Airspace Integration and SAA Interoperability

25 NextGen Technologies and UAS

Top TWPs to De-Emphasize (but not 

necessarily eliminate) 

TWP Name 

3 Prototype GCS

7 HSI Guidelines

10 Datalink 

11 SatCom

20 ACAS-Xu Support (SAA Performance) 

23 Pilot & Controller Roles & Responsibilities

Subcommittee Consensus 
 

 

Committee Finding 

The Committee believes it is important that future ARMD efforts in unmanned systems 

include technologies and operational performance standards that have the broadest 

applicability to all classes of UAS. The Committee feels that the current UAS in the NAS 

project largely excludes certain classes such as “Small UAS” (typically defined as less 

than 55 pounds), a segment that may have the largest near-term economic impact. 

Examples of technology specifically applicable to Small UAS include those that will 

enable Beyond-Line-Of-Sight and other non-Visual Flight Rules (VFR) operations. 
Integrated Strategy for Autonomy Research 

• Goal: By FY16, have an integrated NASA strategy and 

investment portfolio for autonomy research 

• Approach: 

– Sponsoring an NRC Study to Develop a National Research 

Agenda for Autonomy in Civil Aviation 

– Assemble a NASA Inter-Center Autonomy Study Team to 

develop a top-level framework for ARMD Autonomy 

Research 

– Build upon on-going related research and planning by the 

Programs / Projects 
Inter-Center Autonomy Study Team 

• Integrate NASA’s experience and relevant research results to 

develop a broad, integrated perspective of Autonomy 

Research needs 

– Vision and Goals 

– High Benefit Applications 

– Critical Technical Challenges & Research Questions 

– NASA Unique Contributions, Approaches, Testing Needs and 

Opportunities 

• Provide a framework for more detailed investment, technical 

and project planning activities 

• Recommendations to inform FY16 and out year investment 
Scope of NRC Study 

• Develop a National Research Agenda for Autonomy in Civil Aviation 

– Prioritized set of integrated and comprehensive technical goals and objectives 

– ... of importance to the civil aeronautics community and the nation

• Consider

– current state of the art in autonomy research and applications, including non-aviation sources 

– current national guidance on research goals and objectives 

• Describe

– forms and applications of autonomy reviewed 

– potential contributions of autonomy to civil aviation ... evolved and ‘game-changers’ ... with a 10-20 year 

focus 

– technical and policy barriers to operational systems and implementation 

– key challenges and gaps to be addressed by a national research agenda for autonomy in civil aviation 

• Outline 

– a prioritized set of research projects that 

• enable development of CONOPS 

• lead to development, integration, testing and demonstration 

• predict system-level effects to the NAS 

• define approaches to verification & validation ... and certification

– The outline should be developed with due consideration of required resources and organizational 

partnerships, and it should describe potential contributions and roles of U.S. research organizations 
Study Committee Members 

• Dr. John-Paul B. Clarke, Co-Chair, Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of 

Technology 

• Dr. John Lauber, Co-Chair, Private Consultant, (former NTSB) 

• Mr. Alan Angleman, NRC, Study Director

• Dr. Brent Appleby, Deputy to the Vice President Engineering for S&T, C.S. Draper Laboratory 

• Dr. Ella Atkins, Associate Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Michigan

• Mr. Anthony Broderick, Consultant (former FAA) 

• CAPT Noah Flood, Delta Airlines 

• Dr. Michael S. Francis, Chief, Advanced Programs and Senior Fellow, United Technologies Research Center 

• Dr. Eric Frew, Associate Professor & Director, Research & Engineering Center for Unmanned Vehicles, 

University of Colorado

• Dr. Andrew Lacher, Senior Principal, UAS Integration Research Leadership, The MITRE Corporation 

• Dr. John Lee, Emerson Electric Professor, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of 

Wisconsin 

• Dr. Kenneth M. Rosen, President, General Aero-Science Consultants, LLC 

• Dr. Lael Rudd, Autonomy Development Lead, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems 

• Dr. Trish Ververs, Engineer Fellow, Honeywell Aerospace

• Mr. Larrell Walters, Head of the Sensor Systems Division, University of Dayton Research Institute

• Dr. David Woods, Professor, Institute for Ergonomics, The Ohio State University 

• Dr. Edward L. Wright, David Saxon Presidential Chair, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of 

California, Los Angeles 
1

ST MEETING OVERVIEW 

• Keck Center, Washington, DC ... July 10-12, 2013 

• Introductory Comments (Chairs, NRC) ... Participant Introductions

• Open sessions (Presentations) 

– NASA ARMD Perspective ... Shin, Irvine, Pearce, Cavalowsky, Rohn, Waggoner 

– NASA Programs 

• Autonomy-related research ... C Moore, NASA HQ, Advanced Space Exploration

• Autonomy-related research ... Dr. M Scwabacher, NASA STMD Autonomous Systems 

– Roadmap for US Robotics ... H Christensen, Georgia Tech

– FAA Perspectives on Autonomy ... K Abbott, FAA Flight Deck Human Factors & B 

 Kiliardos, Next Gen Human Factors Integration 

– DSB Task Force – “Role of Autonomy in DOD Systems” ... B Appleby, Draper Labs

– Perspectives on Autonomy Research ... D Mindell, MIT 

– Perspectives on Autonomy Research...K Arthur, Aviation Dev’t Directorate, Ft Eustis 

– Drones – A Tipping Point in Technology ... M Cummings, MIT/Duke

– Closed Loop Autonomous Control – Outer/Inner Space, K Rajan, Monterey Bay Aquarium 

Research Institute 

– Perspectives on Autonomy Research, AF Research Lab ... J Overholt, K Kearns, Human 

Effectiveness Directorate 
The Committee strongly encourages that ARMD continue and expand its broad 

involvement in UAS technologies and programs, toward the goal of ARMD, NASA and 

the U.S. being the world leader in this field. The Committee further supports ARMD 

planned initiatives in the broader areas of automation and autonomy. These underlie 

the future evolution of all aspects of aviation, and the adaptations of these 

technologies that increase aviation safety and enable new aeronautical capabilities 

 

 

Committee Finding