NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 1 of 14

NASA Advisory Council (NAC) 

Aeronautics Committee 

November 12, 2015 

NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 

 

Summary of Meeting Minutes 

Participants: 

First Last Organization Role

Dr. Dava Newman NASA Deputy Administrator

Marion Blakey Rolls Royce North America Chair

John Borghese Rockwell Collins Vice Chair

Dr. Michael Francis United Technologies Center Member

Dr. Missy Cummings Duke University Member

Dr. Lui Sha University of Illinois Member

Dr. John-Paul Clarke Georgia Tech Member

Tom Wood Bell Helicopter Member

Mark Anderson Independent Consultant Member

Stephen Morford Pratt & Whitney Member

Dr. Karen Thole Penn State University Member

Brenda Mulac Aeronautics Committee Exec. Secretary

Jay Dryer ARMD AAV Program Director

Susan Gorton ARMD RVLT Project Manager

Doug Rohn ARMD TAC Program Director

Akbar Sultan ARMD AOS Program Dep. Prog. Director

Richard Barhydt ARMD TAC Program Dep. Prog. Director

Robert Pearce ARMD OAA DAA / Strategy

Dr. John Cavolowsky ARMD AOS Program Director

Irma Rodriguez ARMD Exec. Secretary [To Be]

Jon Montgomery ARMD OAA DAA / Management

Dr. Edgar Waggoner ARMD IAS Program Director

Parimal Kopardekar ARMD SASO Project Manager

Dr. Jessica Nowinski ARMD SMART-NAS Project Research Scientist
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 2 of 14

Thursday, November 12, 2015

The meeting was called to order at 9:31 a.m.

Introductions

Dr. Jaiwon Shin, NASA Associate Administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission 

Directorate (ARMD), welcomed members and announced that because Ms. Brenda 

Mulac has accepted another assignment within NASA, Ms. Irma Rodriguez will be the 

Committee’s new executive secretary. NASA deputy administrator Dr. Dava Newman 

joined the meeting and thanked the Committee for serving. Dr. Newman said she was a 

big fan of Dr. Shin’s strategy, and thinks the upcoming year will be a good one. She 

hoped outstanding budget issues will be resolved. After Committee self-introductions, 

Dr. Newman mentioned NASA’s Mars-related research, and technology innovation 

efforts, and education and outreach. She said she was on board 100% with the 

President’s science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) initiative, especially as it 

relates to young women, and welcomed questions. Dr. Newman said that she knew that 

ARMD had worked hard on hypersonics, an initiative that will continue with the 

involvement of the White House and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA); such investments are critical. And what will be done in terms of the nextgeneration workforce? Such skills are essential, and must be built up in the years to 

come. Dr. Newman is learning much regarding ARMD’s work with unmanned aerial 

systems (UAS) and unmanned aerial systems traffic management (UTM). 

Ms. Blakey said the things Dr. Newman are tracking are highly aligned with the 

Committee’s work, adding that the ARMD strategic plan is excellent. The Committee’s 

work on UTM and small UAS has progressed. But: how to come up with a system that 

truly works? Vertical lift is on the agenda for this meeting.

In response to Dr. Newman’s observations, Mr. Mark Anderson said that he really 

appreciated her comments about supersonics, hypersonics, UTM and green aviation. 

Each of those areas is a great chance for NASA to get out in front of the new 

generations; electric propulsion and biofuels are also important. Dr. Newman mentioned 

the Boeing ecoDemonstrator, a flight-test program to accelerate new technologies that 

could reduce emissions and noise, improve airlines’ gate-to-gate efficiency and help 

meet other environmental goals. Students are interested in tying technology to energy 

and the environment.

Dr. Michael Francis said that the unmentioned elephant that enables UAS is machine

intelligence. It’s not your father’s machine intelligence; rather, it affects everything one 

does, moving across all boundaries: “I make a plea to the higher levels [to consider that].”

A brief discussion ensued about autonomy and autonomous systems. Dr. Newman 

wondered where the gaps are. Dr. Francis said that the machine and intelligence must be 

married. Dr. Newman said that humans are always in the loop. It’s definitely a capability 

that NASA is tracking. Hard decisions will have to be made in terms of funding and where 

the research is done. Capabilities must also be mapped to see where things are going.

Committee Vice Chair Mr. John Borghese said that it was heartening to witness Dr. 

Newman’s mention of collaboration with other government agencies. There is an 

explosion of activity as regards new technologies for near-space missions 20 to 100 

miles up. Dr. Newman said that NASA wants to get international partners to sign on for 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 3 of 14

International Space Station (ISS) commitments through 2024. There should also be new 

partnerships with industry. How will industry lead and transition? 

In terms of center-research realignment, Dr. John-Paul Clarke wondered where the 

researchers will go. Dr. Shin responded by saying that ARMD is not trying to physically 

move people, but coordinate so each center’s capabilities are known. Dr. Newman said 

it would be a more focused approach, involving devoted teams and close coordination 

and coordinated intellectual focus. Dr. Shin added that three to four years ago, ARMD 

leadership teams really stepped up. There is an effort underway to trim down excessive 

capabilities. That will be a big challenge.

Dr. Clarke asked that, as the core competencies are prioritized, if the results will be 

made public. Dr. Newman answered that NASA would need to accomplish that in the 

current [2016] fiscal year, so that everything is firmly in place as a new administration 

comes into office. 

Dr. Karen Thole wondered what Dr. Newman’s thoughts were about technology 

innovation. What are the new ideas? Dr. Newman said that, at government agency 

gatherings, NASA tends to be the star agency. Other agencies want to know about 

NASA best practices. Most are interested in human capital approaches, such as senior 

engineers mentoring junior engineers. NASA is now mapping capabilities in terms of 

innovation, in the process “melting the permafrost” in terms of middle management. 

NASA management sees great things happening at its research centers. What can be

scaled up? There is no charge code for innovation: it must be part of the culture.

Dr. Lui Sha said that innovation and human capital are really important. There’s no 

longer as much excitement among university graduate students. There is a need to 

reach out more. Dr. Newman said she would push back on that a bit. Intern interest 

remains high, as evidenced by attendance at All Hands meetings. But NASA does need 

to involve them in a career track. NASA does need more funding, of course, to send out 

more university grants, especially in aeronautics. Dr. Shin praised Dr. Newman, saying 

that Committee members should know from day one she has been very supportive of 

aeronautics. Dr. Newman said that aeronautics is her love; she is an aerospace 

engineer.

Dr. Shin said that the ARMD reorganization was approved at the end of September.

Vertical Lift Project by Susan Gorton

Dr. Francis wondered why Ms. Gorton’s slides were all oriented toward rotorcraft; no 

turbofan engine was included. Ms. Gorton replied that the project’s partner programs do 

such studies. Mr. Borghese said he knew NASA is not in the business of defining new 

markets, but if vertical lift vehicles could be freed from airports, center city hubs could 

become quite significant players that, in turn, could drive additional NASA innovations. 

Ms. Gorton said that ARMD has looked into that model, but moved away from it 

because it showed reduced passenger availability. The events of 9/11 and associated 

security concerns accelerated that movement. Mr. Wood agreed, saying that, for now,

center-city approaches are not seen as feasible when compared to airports.
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 4 of 14

Dr. Sha made a distinction between vertical lift versus vertical landing. The newest jets 

can do a very short takeoff. Why aren’t such jets being considered in the 2030 

timeframe? Ms. Gorton said that the project’s definition of vertical lift is a vehicle 

capable of sustained hover. And, added Mr. Wood, that definition includes landing on an 

unprepared surface, as well as a strong acoustic signature, which is a challenge in the 

center city.

Dr. Francis asked if Ms. Gorton’s project is looking at other means of lift. Unmanned 

provides new opportunities to reconfigure. Ms. Gorton said two questions must first be 

answered: is it within scope and within budget? Those aren’t necessarily the same 

thing. One needs to make new friends while keeping the old. The project is using its 

investment in the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program to look at new 

ideas and vectoring to be more inclusive.

Mr. Borghese referred to questions of safety, comfort and accessibility detailed on Ms. 

Gorton’s presentation slides. Safety has to be a primary concern especially when 

looking at vertical lift in urban centers. Ms Gorton replied that safety is a barrier item for 

these vehicles: not just the large ones, but the small ones as well, especially if there are

millions airborne. 

Dr. Clarke asked if Ms. Gorton had seen the heavy lift study produced by the U.S. Army. 

Ms. Gorton replied that she had yet to see the final brief, but imagined there would be a 

significant technology cross included.

Mr. Borghese asked about the difference between the project’s tech challenges and its 

research areas? Ms. Gorton said that the technical challenges are where the project 

has the most investment and is short term: three to five years. The research prepares 

the project for possible future tech challenges. Mr. Jay Dryer, director of ARMD’s 

Advanced Air Vehicles Program (AAVP), said the research has to do with seedling 

areas and is more exploratory. Dr. Francis said he saw a lot of overlap with work done 

by the Department of Defense. Ms. Gorton said the project is leveraging under contract

with the Army, with industry contributing 60%. The project is very collaborative with the 

Army; NASA has 50 years’ worth of working together.

Mr. Anderson: “I always appreciate the good work you and your team are doing. You 

and ARMD don’t get the funding you need and deserve. [Although there are] various 

interests of the defense community, the nation needs to fund vertical lift research. We 

need something to change the technology front. Considering Amazon, they will deliver

things to your front porch. I would guess the thing that concerns them is noise; it’s a 

critical-barrier issue. You should work on that today. And there’s point-to-point 

transport.” Ms. Gorton said some of that work is being conducted by the Transformative 

Aeronautics Concepts Program, overseen by its director, Doug Rohn. Mr. Dryer said 

that such efforts allow ARMD to illuminate certain areas and how they should be moved 

forward. ARMD is soliciting feedback from industry about what they need.

In response to a question from Mr. Borghese about rotor modeling versus building a 

model, Mr. Dryer said that simulation – not currently in the AAVP budget – could 

eventually lead to a demonstration. Ms. Gorton said the project will have to have 

contracts and partnerships, especially with people who build rotors. Mr. Dryer, in 

referencing non-tilt rotor research, said that he defines leverage with the Department of 

Defense as learning and doing, but not duplicating.
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 5 of 14

Mr. Borghese said the Committee is now seeing things that make sense: a lot of 

collaboration with DARPA and other agencies. Has something changed to make that 

possible? Dr. Shin said that the Office of Management and Budget has been sending a 

strong message to NASA and across government: If you don’t have a clear mission, you 

won’t be allowed to spend money on a specific area. ARMD can be a supporting player, 

but the Defense Department should work primarily on areas like rotorcraft. Ms. Gorton

has done an outstanding job of balancing what can be done with a little bit of money, 

and playing a critical role. That’s one answer to the question. ARMD has also been 

improving its working relationship with DARPA. Dr. Francis said that, having spent a 

decade at two different times working with DARPA, it tends to be volatile in terms of 

projects. ARMD can add stability and be complementary.

Mr. Anderson said the Committee is well aware of the political pressures on NASA. 

ARMD has handled it phenomenally well. In citing the X-15 program, he said it’s not in 

the nation’s interests to have ARMD disengage in these areas: “To me it’s worrisome. 

It’s probably a miracle you’ve managed to preserve $20 million in this area.” Ms. Gorton 

said that project’s work was made possible because of the advocacy of Dr. Shin.

Convergent Aeronautics Solutions Project Update by Doug Rohn

In response to a question from Mr. Borghese about the difference between an ARMD

project and a program, and their respective definitions, Mr. Rohn said that a program is 

the highest level of organized activity in ARMD. There are four, each with a director. 

There are 13 or 14 projects; within each is a subproject. In terms of what the 

Transformative Aeronautics Concepts Program (TACP) is doing, Mr. Rohn’s definitions 

are less formal and are not stated in terms of technical challenges but activities. The 

time horizons vary; typically the activities are longer-term. 

In response to a question from Dr. Francis about how an activity is defined as feasible, 

Mr. Rohn said that if an activity proves feasible, it may become an entirely new activity. 

Or, if it’s clear what it might take to work, that activity could be turned over to another 

ARMD program. TACP prioritizes weighted assessments for activities. Ideas are 

developed in-house. At NASA’s four aeronautics research centers, with the support of 

the project managers, there is flexibility. Funding can be made available for as little as 

two weeks of an initial experiment. In response to a question from Stephen Morford 

about how the success of a transition is measured, Mr. Rohn said first, answer the 

feasibility question and then, if feasible, where does the activity go? Where does it 

transition? In the end, the path is defined so the handoff happens. Incubation is funded 

through the centers. Mr. Borghese said that approach is very good. Generally the most 

innovative people are the busiest. Mr. Rohn said that if someone is really good, that’s 

their primary job.

A brief discussion about electric propulsion and range ensued. Electric propulsion is a

long ways away at the moment. Five-times efficiency is based on wing design, battery 

and propulsion design. There needs to be more efficient power conversion. The $4.5 

million TACP has committed will be a modest investment. Mr. Rohn replied in the 

affirmative when Mr. Morford asked if the concept can be scaled across multiple 

platforms and sizes.
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 6 of 14

Regarding the Scalable Convergent Electric Propulsion Technology Operations 

Research Project (SCEPTOR), Mr. Anderson asked if Phase 1 was funded. Mr. Rohn 

said yes, that this is a first-generation validation of the high-lift system. Significant 

computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis has been done. Phase 2 is to fabricate the 

wing and ground-test the battery, electric motors and instrumentation. If the effort 

reaches Phase 3, then the research will have achieved its original goal. Mr. Borghese 

said that if a hybrid system was adopted and scaled up, carbon emissions could be 

significantly reduced. In response to a question from Dr. Thole whether off-the-shelf 

equipment could be used, Mr. Rohn said that no, almost everything requires some work. 

A question from Mr. Wood about the potential for folded props and possible drag 

thereupon was answered by Mr. Rohn when he said researchers won’t worry about a 

folding mechanism at the current stage.

A discussion then ensued about the potential five-times efficiency savings. The cost of 

the entire three-phase SCEPTOR project amounts to about $12 million. Dr. Francis 

praised the effort: “You’re doing great things here.” There is significant outside 

involvement in SCEPTOR. Dr. Francis expressed concern that the research doesn’t get 

to the right entrepreneur. Mr. Anderson said that the project would always be at a 

disadvantage when it comes to hardware. Dr. Thole wondered if some components 

could be 3-D printed; Mr. Rohn said yes, that was a possibility.

In response to mention of a future ARMD X-plane effort, Mr. Borghese said that it was a 

great idea. Earlier discussions have concerned a supersonic X-plane, which would be 

very costly. Because NASA has pioneered unmanned vehicles, perhaps an unmanned 

plane should be considered. There is a huge difference in costs, especially as regards 

certification. Dr. Francis said that if risks are taken, “of course it will cost you a ton of 

money.” Mr. Anderson said that if an X-plane effort is undertaken, $100 million is half of 

what the conventional [engineering] houses will estimate, and that the project will take 

four years: “So please ask the guys in the garage. You should involve people who will 

explore both sides of the equation.”

In regards to a previous presentation to the Committee on low-boom research, Dr. Shin 

said that ARMD decided to have a manned supersonic X-plane because it will be flying 

over populated areas. It won’t be flown over a range. Dr. Francis said that there would 

be ways to attack the problem without spending a huge amount of money. Dr. Shin said 

that public response is needed; that is the key element. The risk factor goes way up if 

ARMD makes it unmanned. This is a special case; if only cost is considered, then yes, 

unmanned is the best choice. Ultimately, though, it comes down to people’s perception 

of noise.

A discussion then followed about Mach cutoff and flying over the water to measure a 

sonic boom’s impact. Tests could start with low cost over a test range and build to 

something that captures interest over the longer term. Risks can be taken with 

unmanned vehicles that could never happen with manned, at least initially. Will the 

physics models work? Can the noise annoyance be reduced or eliminated? But the 

objective should be made clear, especially if the X-plane isn’t a low-boom supersonic 

demonstrator.

Dr. Francis cited contingency management. Beyond the initial descriptions, one has to 

delve into the issues themselves, especially before a great deal of money is spent. Mr. 

Borghese agreed that it was a very good point. Before any rule change can be 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 7 of 14

implemented, there has to be a different approach to Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) certification. Dr. Francis said that autonomy versus human control is where the 

rubber meets the road. No one is yet ready to define an autonomy control system. 

Moving past adaptive control, one has to confront certification. Dr. Sha mentioned nextgeneration control systems and cited tests of adaptive control systems. Even though 

such systems haven’t yet crossed the operational threshold, they need to be 

considered. Mr. John Cavolowsky, director of the Airspace Operations and Safety 

Program (AOSP) said that ARMD is considering how best to provide solutions in that 

space. 

A discussion followed about how to certify judgement. The area of autonomy contains 

many questions that need thought and consideration, including how to apply machine 

learning so that it leads to appropriate outcomes. Spending time is a concept feasibility 

study and not engineering feasibility. But time and the right staff are both required. The

operating systems for the unmanned Little Bird light attack/reconnaissance helicopter 

demonstrator that first flew in September 2004 might be a basis for these studies, since 

it’s resistant to hacking. Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are the future. The best thing 

to do is conduct studies and determine what factors are fundamental to UAS success.

Intelligent software will have to have a different set of attributes.

Regarding the concept known as Digital Twin – a computer model that accurately 

simulates and predicts how an aircraft and its individual components are affected by 

aging and ongoing operations – Mr. Anderson asked if the idea was to develop a

computational model that provides more insight. Mr. Rohn replied that the purpose is to 

narrow the probability bands, track aircraft in real time, and be proactive in terms of 

predicting flight performance. 

In terms of high voltage hybrid electric propulsion (HVHEP), Mr. Borghese said that it 

was a really good thing to test. But how will researchers be able to effectively control 

2,000 volts efficiently? Mr. Rohn said he would make a note of that concern and make 

sure it is covered.

In terms of the Learn to Fly initiative, wherein the use of computer tools may safely 

enable new airplane designs to be more rapidly flown by skipping ground-based testing, 

Dr. Clarke wondered if a totally novice approach could be taken. What are the 

calibrating parameters? Mr. Rohn said that it wasn’t a totally novice approach, and that 

some testing was being conducted at the centers. Dr. Sha wondered whether that could 

entail a new fail situation. Mr. Rohn said that wasn’t it, but that the paradigm is changing 

to a new design with adaptive controls and real-time modelling. Dr. Sha: “Can we learn 

to fly aircraft that are fundamentally flawed? If you take away the entire design phase, 

what are we learning?” Mr. Anderson joined the conversation: “Can we fly aircraft with 

no wind tunnel testing? What we need to do is to have a robust design that will be okay

when it flies.” In reply, Mr. Rohn said that it was only for new configurations and new 

aircraft. Dr. Francis cited the example of the Environmental Research Aircraft and 

Sensor Technology (ERAST) project, some of the component technologies never saw 

the inside of a wind tunnel. How far can such an effort go that involves entire aircraft?

Regarding the TACP initiative entitled Mission Adaptive Digital Composite Aerostructure 

Technologies (MADCAT) that involves research into aircraft structures made from 

advanced materials that can adapt to changing flight conditions by changing shapes, 

Mr. Rohn said studies are ongoing. Ms. Blakey praised TACP for originating so many 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 8 of 14

innovative ideas in such a short time, and commended Mr. Rohn for the program’s 

progress to date since the last briefing before the Committee.

Summary of Request for Information (RFI) Response to ARMD’s University-Led 

Strategic Aviation Research by Richard Barhydt

Mr. Borghese commented that some professors had not heard about ARMD’s recent 

request for information. No member of the Committee had received the notice. Ms. 

Blakey asked about the demographics: Are the same universities being targeted? Mr. 

Barhydt replied that not all the information was in, but some universities, including some 

of the traditional partners with which ARMD normally works, were included. He believed 

there was reasonable coverage from the response that they received. There is 

continued ARMD interest in opening future requests to the full range of universities. 

There remains the need to get feedback on how to get the word out. Dr. Thole 

suggested one vehicle could be conferences, during which announcements are made 

and briefings conducted.

Dr. Francis said that as far as the autonomy topic was concerned, not many are doing it. 

There needs to be an effort to reach out to non-traditional partners. NASA can be a 

catalyst to start that conversation. Dr. Sha suggested a multi-conference collaboration 

with communities, after which an assessment can be made during a dedicated cyberphysical conference. NASA-instigated broad agency announcements (BAAs) are 

another possibility. Mr. Barhydt replied that currently such activity goes through the 

NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES), 

but ARMD is looking at a broader dissemination. Time will be needed to help 

universities understand what ARMD is looking for. Dr. Sha said that it would be good if 

such outreach could become routine, perhaps on an annual basis. Mr. Barhydt replied 

that there is yet no specific time-frame identified, but recognized that Dr. Sha had made 

a good suggestion.

Mr. Anderson asked if ARMD thought a meaningful response was received from the 

universities. Mr. Barhydt said ARMD had received good responses but would like to get 

more. Mr. Pearce said that although the request went out quickly, he thought the

response was good. In the past, ARMD had done RFIs, but this is different. The 

responses received were very positive, but not the depth of response that would be 

more beneficial. There is a need to launch a more substantial communication campaign 

so that when the solicitation comes out universities will be prepared to make a 

submission. Dr. Cummings said that although the response was better than expected,

NSPIRES is a terrible system. She suggested using NASA centers to engage the local 

community, with a NASA day held at each center with the universities to establish better 

communication.

In response to a question from Dr. Clarke about the intention of the RFIs, Mr. Barhydt 

said that it was to identify a well-thought out problem that can be explored, with 

identification of specific technical challenges that then can move to a real outcome. Dr. 

Francis said there should be a good contact list created in order to let universities know 

that such requests are upcoming. There should be multiple ways of communicating to 

give advance notice so that the universities are prepared to respond on time. Dr. Thole 

suggested direct contact with the vice presidents of research at each institution so that 

the word gets out.
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 9 of 14

Dr. Clarke asked about ARMD thoughts about the number of proposals. In reply, Mr. 

Barhydt said that universities lay out a specific plan to achieve technical challenges.

Research activities are conducted to get to a real outcome. Dr. Clarke suggested the 

potential establishment of a different kind of center of excellence. Dr. Francis said that 

there is a need to attack different levels of management at universities, emphasizing 

that there need to be multiple ways to communicate. Dr. Thole repeated that the vice 

president for research at universities is the person to contact so as to get the word out. 

Dr. Clarke said that ARMD could be inundated with a lot of proposals if everybody 

comes back with a response. 

Mr. Anderson cited the breadth of recurring research themes, noting the amount of 

variation. Dr. Shin said that ARMD’s motivation was not to augment its technical work: “I 

wanted U.S. universities to take leadership. We don’t have time, folks. Are we really 

harnessing university capabilities and intellectual power?”

A discussion then ensued about researchers and requests for qualification: Come with a 

key question and how to answer that question. Is the question a key question? Will it 

really advance national and NASA priorities? ARMD isn’t sure yet about what responses 

will be received. Although not every proposal will be funded, NASA can be showing the 

way, and can solicit a broad selection of inputs. Reaching out to the broad aeronautics 

community is critical. There is a need to specifically iterate what’s critical. The overall 

budget for this effort is $5 million, with each award size to be determined.

Mr. Borghese cited a previous meeting during which there was a question on giving 

specific proposal direction. Dr. Thole said that question led the Committee to talk about 

the white paper concept and the downselect process. Mr. Barhydt said that ARMD does

cull down from [initial proposals]. Dr. Cummings said that Dr. Thole’s idea of reaching 

out to vice presidents is the best idea.

ARMD Research Data Access Approach by Irma Rodriguez

Mr. Borghese complimented ARMD’s data access approach, saying it was very 

important. But it’s also necessary to have a mechanism to make the data easily 

searchable. [Incoming] Committee Secretary Ms. Irma Rodriguez said that ARMD will 

be working on implementation and exploring different search engines. Dr. Francis 

suggested that technical publisher Wiley might be a resource.

Regarding publication and copyright, Dr. Thole said that material that has already been 

published has likely had the copyright signed over to the publisher. Ms. Rodriquez said 

the date would not be proprietary but public. A discussion then ensued about the kinds 

of data that may eventually be released. Because ARMD is moving away from an ad 

hoc process, there is a need to work through several issues. Mr. Borghese said that a

common system was needed. Mr. Morford said it was really about access to 

information. It’s not important exactly where the information is, only that it can be 

accessed. ARMD Deputy Associate Administrator for Management Jon Montgomery 

said that ARMD doesn’t yet have a full budget to fund a centralized data center. Dr. 

Francis said that ARMD does need a long-term commitment.

Alternative Fuel Research Data Access Pilot Project by Jay Dryer
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 10 of 14

As regards storing data on the cloud, Mr. Borghese asked who has the responsibility for 

making the decision for data dissemination. Mr. Dryer cited leveraging other established 

NASA systems. ARMD is learning about how the information gets there. It’s not ARMD 

doing its own thing; the process is at the very beginning.

A discussion then followed about future funding. It could be cheaper to outsource, and 

that’s being explored. There is not a user-tracking requirement as of yet. Endorsing the 

data that’s being released shouldn’t be an issue because it’s research that’s already 

been conducted. NASA will have a dedicated site that will point to the data repositories 

at each Mission Directorate.

Vision and Strategy for Thrust Real-time System-wide Safety Assurance by Dr. 

Jessica Nowinski

Mr. Borghese asked why requirements would come later. Also, since the effort is longterm, it would be prudent to include what the national airspace system will look like in 

2030 and 2040. Dr. Jessica Nowinski said that requirements are included at the 

beginning. A discussion then followed concerning the role of increasingly more capable 

aircraft working in a more automated system: specifically, the role of automation in the 

Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen. It’s a challenge for migration 

to, and integration of, very advanced aircraft.

As regards to weather issues, Mr. Borghese wondered about the processes taking that

and future states into account. Dr. Nowinski said her project is attempting to understand 

what the safety margins are. What is the safety case, and when should one worry about 

safety standards in dense operations? The more data available, the better the situation 

can be monitored. Studies are also underway to understand how best to push 

automation and humans interacting with same, for pilots as well as controllers. Director 

of ARMD’s Airspace Operations and Safety Program (AOSP) Dr. John Cavolowksy said 

that AOSP is looking at this broadly across the entire system. Research will take a lot of 

work and a lot of thinking: it’s far more than air traffic management and air traffic control. 

It also involves flight decks and flight crews.

Mr. Morford asked how big data will get to safety. Dr. Nowinski said her project has 

work ongoing concerning anomaly detection. Mr. Morford said it was a perfect example.

If the causal relationship isn’t understood, it’s really hard to infer. But: does the modeling 

get to the causal relations? Dr. Nowinski replied that the more data researchers have, 

the closer they can get. It may always be an issue.

Mr. Borghese wondered if the project was looking at monitoring human performance 

directly. Such an effort would convey an immense amount of information. Dr. Nowinski 

said that yes, the project is studying fatigue monitoring, working with two airlines 

allowing human performance to be paired with aircraft performance. Flights with more 

pilot fatigue had more incidents. The project can collect both objective and subjective 

data, and is also work on attentional tunneling.

Citing two crashes and a near miss involving software overdependence, Dr. Sha said 

there’s the possibility of software causing more problems than it solves. Dr. Nowinski 

said that ongoing studies are addressing such issues. Dr. Sha said he knew the project 

can’t do everything. But as more and more responsibility is assigned to software, the 

software grows increasingly complex, and becomes prone to unanticipated and 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 11 of 14

unwanted interactions. Software used to mitigate potential accidents demands a costbenefits analysis. Keep adding things, and one seeming small change could be the 

crucial straw that broke the camel’s back.

Mr. Borghese said this area of research has been incredibly valuable to the general 

public, and is going to be extremely important for the future. It’s very good work. Human 

team/automation work is very important; done wrong it makes the situation less safe.

The wrong type of automation is one that’s distracting but intends to be supportive, like 

constant alarms going off.

Dr. Sha suggested reviewing a National Academy of Sciences study and its constituent 

recommendations. Reduce and controlling complexity is essential; otherwise, it’s a recipe

for disaster. Complexity management is not being discussed at all. Consider the history of 

computing: complexity of automation can backfire. There is sometimes too much of a 

good thing. Dr. Sha wants to hear what can be taken out, not just putting more and more 

things in. Mr. Borghese suggested taking a look at chaotic attractors. Dr. Nowinski 

thanked the Committee for their comments and observations.

UTM Convention Summary of July 28-30, 2015 by John Cavolowsky 

Dr. Cavolowsky reported that five hundred feet and below in altitude was the focus of 

the unmanned aerial systems traffic management (UTM) convention held at NASA 

Ames Research Center in late July. However, the UTM construct can be built so it has 

value for larger airspace management; for the moment, this remains only an area of 

research.

Director of ARMD’s Integrated Aviation Systems Program (IASP) Dr. Edgar Waggoner 

said the program, working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has research 

ongoing to develop minimum Class E and Class A airspace standards. The first six 

years of work will be concluded in 2016. The effort is being annually funded at $30 

million; ARMD will be advocating for more such research. Dr. Cavolowsky said that 

work was occurring across a broader range. The highest market value is in this lower 

airspace of 500 feet and below.

In response to a question from Dr. Francis about the focus being either operatorintensive or automated, Dr. Cavolowsky said the assumption is that there is an operator 

when the missions are being flown. Dr. Thole wondered about the timescale in terms of 

submitting a flight plan and whether an app might be available. Dr. Cavolowsky said a 

proposed app would be very narrowly designed, within visual sight. UTM can’t bring 

them down, but can say “You are out of range.” This doesn’t help with rogue operators, 

but the FAA doesn’t have that capability either. 

Ms. Blakey wondered about vehicle system failure. Dr. Cavolowsky said that there are a 

variety of ways these systems can be tracked. But there also has to be communication 

with the operator. Dr. Francis noted that such unmanned aircraft are the smallest 

machines going into a nasty [congested airspace] environment.

There were 1,190 registered attendees at the UTM convention. A brief discussion 

ensued about Google’s involvement in UAS and UTM, and Google’s Project Wing. 

There are a number of individuals concerned about policy, and noise continues to be a 

primary issue. Both lawyers and underwriters were in attendance. Mr. Anderson said 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 12 of 14

that the conference underscored that a traditional airspace with a sedentary pace is 

clashing with Silicon Valley culture that waits for nobody. What’s going to happen? Dr. 

Cavolowsky replied that the Googles and the Amazons appreciate that this is the 

market they need. They won’t do anything to keep them out of the market as bad actors. 

So now they’re going overseas [where regulations aren’t as stringent as in the United 

States]: they have other options and they can go to other places. He added that ARMD 

is “trying to keep the gasoline away from the bonfire. We’re trying to inform people that 

this is not as easy as you think it is. We’re trying to work with a single government voice 

with the FAA.”

Dr. Shin said that, a year ago, his concern was to bring the community together, build 

excitement and educate. He thinks ARMD has wildly surpassed building the excitement 

part, but didn’t do as good a job educating. He wants to show a united front with the 

FAA. It wasn’t as strong a connection as it could have been. There has been a bit of a 

backlash from industry in that they see NASA as the good cop and the FAA as the bad 

cop. ARMD is not going there, for industry to put a wedge between NASA and the FAA.

Industry thinks NASA is going to build a system in a year or two, whereas NASA has 

never said that and is not going to. A second concern is that ARMD doesn’t want to 

develop a system for Amazon and Google only, but wants to develop a system for 

everybody. That’s getting more and more difficult. A primary concern is that companies 

are going out of the country. UTM won’t be done in two years. A big part is education.

Dr. Francis said that the education part is a work in progress. Dr. Shin said ARMD may

not have all the answers, but does need to say the government is united. All kinds of 

things are happening. Anything the committee members can do would be appreciated. 

Dr. Sha said he shared Dr. Shin’s concerns: “If I were a company, I would go to a lightly 

regulated country. If you don’t cooperate with the companies, they will go away. If you 

do, you get the other problems.”

A discussion followed about collaboration and ways to avoid conflicts. For future 

meetings, there needs to be more clarity on global environment for UTM. Parimal 

Kopardekar, manager of ARMD’s Safe Autonomous Systems Operations (SASO) 

Project, said other countries think that what NASA has proposed is definitely worth 

considering. In other countries, their specific models aren’t scalable. People are 

realizing that unless one undertakes a systematic approach, the technologies will not 

scale. The boundary between commercial vehicles and UAS is getting smaller by the 

day. Dr. Francis cited the commercial potential that interests other countries. There is 

the potential to establish international partnerships, thereby creating and sharing more

knowledge. Dr. Cavolowsky said that ARMD is beginning to engage more broadly.

Dr. Thole asked if ARMD is going to continue the UTM convention every year. She 

thought the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) would love to take over 

something like this: “When you hook exhibits to it, it’s a real moneymaker.” It’s would 

also be possible to seek the sponsorship of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics (AIAA) and the Institute of Electrical Electronics Engineers (IEEE). A brief

discussion about trade shows ensued. A professional organization that’s independent

would be a good idea. Dr. Cavolowsky said that ARMD hadn’t yet made a decision 

about 2016.

Mr. Borghese complimented ARMD on the convention: “This is really great what has 

happened. It’s good that there’s a lot of focus, but this is one area of many in which 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 13 of 14

NASA is active.” Dr. Francis mentioned six UAS test sites put in play by the FAA. 

There’s an infrastructure in play ARMD could leverage. Dr. Cavolowsky agreed, saying 

that ARMD has already reached out.

Committee Discussion

Dr. Shin said he really appreciated members’ very lively discussion. A lot of topics were 

on the agenda. The conversation and feedback were really excellent. Ms. Blakey asked

that any thoughts expressed to the full NASA Advisory Council (NAC) be conveyed as 

recommendations. Dr. Sha said that safety is a very important issue, and cited the 

National Academy statement on simplicity [in computer system design]. Dr. Sha would 

like to see a complexity-reduction recommendation made and the Academy statement 

considered. It’s a safety and software concern that should be taken seriously.

In response to a question posed by Ms. Blakey about the complexity-reduction 

recommendation, Dr. Nowinski said that her project’s human automation team is taking 

a look at it. Ms. Blakey added that the Committee has wrestled with issues related to 

verification and validation. A discussion continued regarding complexity. Being aware of 

negative interactions is extremely important. Systems must be testable and verifiable. 

However, the higher-level brief presented to the Committee doesn’t drill down into the 

details of what the project and subprojects are doing.

Mr. Anderson said he would like to offer commendations: “I saw three things today that I 

thought were spectacular: the activities being done by ARMD’s (Convergent 

Aeronautics Solutions) CAS Project, the university-led strategic initiative, and UTM; it 

was the single best briefing we’ve ever had. All three are outstanding, given the limited 

resources. It makes me feel very good to be associated with NASA.” Mr. Borghese said 

he agreed, and wanted to add one more: vertical lift. That project is taking a limited 

budget and doing exactly what needs to be done. Mr. Wood concurred, saying the 

project could boast of a really balanced portfolio, between the old relationships and the 

new.

Dr. Francis said that there are interesting things that can be done with these smaller 

[UAS] platforms. Dr. Sha said he was really impressed with the CAS presentation. He

very much agrees with the approach. Ms. Blakey said she was very much affirming of 

what Mr. Anderson said. Affirming what ARMD is doing is certainly not a 

recommendation, but it certainly could be a finding; formalizing that is doable.

Mr. Borghese said that it’s very hard to get this kind of visibility for NASA [re UTM]:

“NASA is leading the world now. It’s tremendous.” ARMD’s UTM research may raise to 

the level of a finding. Dr. Thole said the Committee could use the word innovation. Dr. 

Francis said it was more than that: it’s invention.

Dr. Thole said that communicating with universities should also be mentioned as a 

recommendation. These briefings were the best things she’s seen since she’s been on 

the Committee. A brief discussion followed about the hows of engagement with the 

university community.

Mr. Morford said that CAS has wildly exceeded his expectations: “I didn’t expect to see 

such innovation that could lead to a quick demonstration. That is really critical for 

innovation. I’d like to commend ARMD on that; it’s excellent. And it ties into affordability, 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 12, 2015 Page 14 of 14

especially as budgets are tight. Great job.” Dr. Shin said ARMD leadership was elated 

that its internal workforce responded with so many good [CAS-related] proposals. 

ARMD would like to bring that same excitement externally. 

Ms. Blakey expressed the desire for one recommendation that would reach out to the 

universities, not just communicating but expressing expectations. As the meeting 

concluded, she asked that a future brief concerning software complexity be delivered. 

Public Comments:

None. 

MEETING ADJOURNED at 5:24 p.m.