NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Summary of Minutes/November 2017 1

NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee

Summary of Meeting Minutes

AERO Institute, Lancaster, California

November 15 – 16, 2017

1. Low Boom Flight Demonstrator

Dr. Ed Waggoner, Director of the Integrated Aviation Systems Program, provided an 

overview of the Low Boom Flight Demonstrator (LBFD) to the Committee. The LBFD 

represents NASA’s return to flying large, piloted X-planes. The LBFD will be flown to 

generate data the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) can use to establish noise-based rules for enabling 

commercial supersonic flight over land. This will be done by flying the LBFD over U.S. 

communities of various sizes and different geographic locations to survey the general 

public as to the “annoyance level” of the quieter sonic boom.

A Preliminary Design Review was completed this year on a Lockheed Martin-designed 

vehicle known as QueSST, short for Quiet Supersonic Technology. Request for 

Proposals were put out and due in October in a full and open competition for designing, 

building and flying the LBFD. A Source Evaluation Board is now meeting to make a 

contractor selection. 

The committee within ICAO that is focused on noise, the Committee for Aircraft 

Environmental Protection (CAEP), meets every three years. Their next meeting is in 

2019. A work plan is laid out that identifies what needs to be completed at that meeting

(and the one in 2022 and 2025) at which time it is hoped the CAEP will be able to 

formally accept the data generated by the LBFD.

Ultimately the LBFD work can be boiled down to three major requirements. First is the 

need to build and design a demonstrator capable of producing a representative low 

sonic boom that a commercial supersonic aircraft would generate. Second is the need 

for a test methodology to accurately survey community response to supersonic overland 

flight. Third is to make sure the data is representative of a demographically and 

geographically diverse, non-biased population.

Management of this program will be accomplished through the use of a Virtual Project 

Office, which enables more efficient communications among team members across the 

aeronautics field centers and helps establish a clear chain of command that streamlines 

the decision-making process. The LBFD program will include an independent review 

board.

Mr. John Borghese asked who was responsible for the community response effort. Mr. 

Jay Dryer answered that it fell within his AAVP program and that his team is working 

closely with the FAA, the CAEP and other international organizations.
NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Summary of Minutes/November 2017 2

The importance of public engagement in terms of community relations and education 

about the supersonic testing and the benefits of commercial supersonic travel was 

stressed by several members of the committee. Segments of the public will be skittish of 

any sudden noises from an unknown origin or concerned about sonic booms that could 

damage their hearing or fragile household items. Demonstrating to the general public 

there is a viable market for commercial supersonic travel also is a consideration.

Dr. Karen Thole had specific suggestions about engaging younger students, for 

example, by creating LBFD-specific science experiments teachers could do in the 

classroom. She suggested adding a teacher to the communications team and was 

informed about the Einstein Fellow that works with ARMD each year.

Defining exactly what “annoyance” means to the general public – not to the most 

annoyed or easily annoyed person – was discussed by among several committee 

members who shared observations and personal anecdotes on the subject.

Mr. Borghese asked about the configuration of the LBFD in terms of trade-offs between 

using parts of other aircraft and the need for designing/building new components unique 

to the aircraft. A complete answer will not be available until the final design of the LBFD 

is determined.

The committee asked about surprises seen with Schlieren imagery that computational 

fluid dynamics (CFD) runs did not predict in regard to flying low boom profiles with the 

F-15. The response was that some of that was unique to the F-15, but also noted the 

learning never stops and that detailed CFD and wind tunnel runs provide data that can 

later be validated using other techniques.

Mr. Borghese expressed concern about the use of a virtual program office, noting 

problems in the model as demonstrated by failures in a number of U.S. Army programs 

during the past decade. Dr. Ed Waggoner responded to his concerns by providing more 

details about how the new virtual office would work.

Dr. Thole stressed the need to really think through having a comprehensive educational 

program related to the low boom activity and especially target young people.

Dr. Thole expressed her concern that NASA not forget the lesson learned with the 

Schlieren imagery which indicated surprises are still possible despite detailed CFD runs, 

perhaps providing an opportunity to further build up CFD capabilities for use on the 

design and testing of the LBFD.

Dr. Eric Ducharme applauded NASA’s work to date on identifying success criteria for 

LBFD, but suggested even more could be done given NASA has not fielded a manned 

X-plane for some time. A review of recent flight test incidents would be valuable for 

identifying lessons learned.
NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Summary of Minutes/November 2017 3

Dr. Ducharme commented that in standing up the Virtual Project Office, getting the best 

available talent and establishing the right kind of operating rhythm and connectedness 

with the team will be very important.

Dr. John-Paul Clarke raised the thought – in terms of global thinking and considering all 

the data that will be generated and is already available from other sources, such as 

Gulfstream – of how NASA will structure that information to build a body of literature that 

will help make the case for changing the rules about supersonic flight over land.

RECOMMENDATIONS/FINDINGS

The Committee expressed excitement and applauds the progress of the Low Boom 

Flight Demonstration (LBFD) project and is looking forward to staying abreast on the 

future steps. 

The Committee emphasized the importance of community outreach and provided 

examples on how to involve students to learn about NASA efforts. 

The Committee also applauds the single chain of command employed on LBFD as 

being important to the success of such a large program as well as using the best talents 

across ARMD locations but cautioned NASA to take careful consideration as to how the 

virtual office is set up so that there is a clear understanding of the line of authority. 

The Committee also applauded outreach from other parts of NASA as well as the risk 

reduction underway and suggested that risk reduction projects be funded to the extent 

necessary since NASA hasn’t developed a manned X-plane recently.

2. System-Wide Safety Assurance Project Objectives and Content

Dr. Jessica Nowinski, Technical Advisor for Safety in the Airspace Operations and

Safety Program (AOSP) briefed the Committee on the developments in the SystemWide Safety (SWS) project. In developing a SWS project, there were two objectives: 

better understand what the emerging, near-term safety issues are and what the future 

safety issues will be. Current commercial aviation is extremely safe now, with no 

obvious major concerns. But that could change with the rapid introduction of new 

technologies, more complex and autonomous systems, and new concepts of operations 

with new vehicles. 

So, a major objective of the project is to proactively develop tools and techniques to 

address the safety threats in those areas and address them before there are 

unfortunate accidents and incidents. To address these concerns, five different technical 

challenges were developed, with the first two starting in FY2018. 
NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Summary of Minutes/November 2017 4

There was a question about NASA working with the Air Force in this area. Dr. Nowinski 

explained that there are formal agreements in place with the Air Force Research 

Laboratory, but not yet with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Dr. Clarke asked about high fidelity flight simulators and if this project was working in 

this area in terms of better training to avoid safety issues in the future. Dr. Nowinski 

replied that the project was not working in this area, but could in the future if directed to.

Dr. Clarke asked about envelope protection and the ability to fuse different data streams 

to recognize when an aircraft is flying beyond its certified envelope of operation. As it 

relates to state awareness, for example, how can an aircraft know when it is 

experiencing icing and that the pitot tube measurements are wrong. Mr. Bob Pearce

replied that issues related to the risk chain and how to recognize and mitigate them will 

be addressed as part of the technical challenges established for this project.

Dr. Clarke cautioned that in data science, particularly machine learning, every 

correlation appears to be a causality. NASA should be sure to dedicate enough 

resources to address false positives of spurious correlations.

Dr. Thole suggested that as the system wide safety effort evolves to the point where 

less data is available, this could be an opportunity to partner with and engage 

universities to fill in the gap by generating data in a more controlled environment. This 

would have the additional benefit of exciting students about engineering.

Dr. Ducharme offered that in addition to the recent history of events identified during the 

briefing, the team also study the A330 incident from Brazil and the 777 incident at San 

Francisco. 

Dr. Ducharme agreed the focus on safety in the emerging areas of autonomous 

systems is really important and reminded everyone “of the obvious” fact that this area is 

going to move fast, so it’s critical that NASA has established appropriate connections 

with the FAA and others. He said he did not have a good sense of how NASA is 

currently integrating with the FAA in this area.

Dr. Ducharme applauded NASA’s engagement with industry in the area of software 

verification and validation, as that, too, is becoming more complex at an ever-faster

pace.

FINDINGS

The Committee finds that the System Wide Safety (SWS) project has progressed well 

and provides an opportunity to get students excited about engineering. Specifically, the 

Committee encourages NASA to partner with universities in generating data – data is 

hard to get and it could be a space that universities can help fill. 

The Committee cautions NASA to engage with the machine learning community with 

particular focus on false alarms in the system. The Committee agrees with NASA’s 
NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Summary of Minutes/November 2017 5

focus on Terminal Area Operations within traditional aviation and UTM (UAS Traffic 

Management) for near term needs to support unmanned and autonomous systems. 

The Committee recognizes that SWS is a big challenge and agrees with the approach 

to start with a few tasks first to gain an understanding of the effectiveness of the 

technology. The SWS team should also keep abreast of new algorithms and 

approaches in this rapidly moving technology area.

3. Hypersonic Project

Mr. Jay Dryer, Director, Advanced Air Vehicles Program (AAVP) presented to the 

Committee the Hypersonic Project. AAVP has just completed one year of execution of 

the new Hypersonic Technology project. The work focuses on air breathing hypersonics 

missions, including support for military missions and pioneering civil missions. Although 

space access is one of the ultimate applications of hypersonics, NASA Aeronautics is 

not working on a specific vehicle design or mission concept.

NASA Aeronautics’ current role is based in part on input solicited and received from 

industry and the Department of Defense (DoD), as well as by surveying other mission 

directorates at NASA. That role includes fundamental research to support development 

of new expendable and reusable systems, starting small and evolving to larger 

concepts, for both civil and military applications.

Technical challenges for hypersonics will be divided into four themes: system level 

design, propulsion, vehicle technologies, and high temperature, durable materials.

NASA is working closely with the DoD in this area to ensure research is not duplicated. 

Part of this partnership includes an emphasis on developing the future workforce.

Mr. Borghese asked about limitations or barriers to what could be shared or made 

public about its fundamental research, given the DoD connection. Mr. Dryer explained 

they are sensitive to this and are working within rules related to ITAR export control and 

national security guidelines. The desire is to be as open as allowed.

It was asked to what extent would the hypersonics project address thermal protection 

system technology, an area in which the space side of NASA has much experience. Mr. 

Dryer answered this area is not part of NASA Aeronautics research policy by direction 

of the NASA Chief Engineer. The Space Technology Mission Directorate is responsible 

for entry, descent and landing (EDL) research.

With research roles clearly understood between NASA and the DoD, NASA has an 

opportunity to produce important validation data sets and must find the best way to 

share the right information across the community. Also noted was the trust NASA has 

gained with the DoD is important, and moving forward, that engagement must be at 

multiple levels, from the engineer to senior manager.
NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Summary of Minutes/November 2017 6

An important aspect to hypersonics is manufacturing and the manufacturing readiness 

level for newer materials in terms of their use in additive manufacturing and their 

availability within a supply chain. Other areas to pay attention to include leveraging 

NASA research in staged combustion and lean burn commercial applications, a focus 

on how best to communicate and work with the DoD on retiring risk, and keeping the 

emerging work force in mind by always looking for ways for NASA to collaborate with 

academia.

Dr. Clarke indicated that as different concepts are worked on, be sure to cover the 

space in terms of technology development and not pass judgement on which ones will 

be successful or not. Just provide the base from which others can move forward.

FINDINGS

The Committee believes that the work that NASA is doing is important in order to 

maintain US supremacy in Hypersonics by developing tools, technologies and 

methodologies as well as training the future workforce in this area. The project has a 

clear focus on the understanding of the fundamental physics of transition for multi-mode 

hypersonic engines and other key hypersonic phenomena and technologies and NASA 

has an opportunity for important technology validation. NASA also has a focus on the 

important challenge of understanding and validating the quantification of uncertainty, as 

minor changes can have a significant impact to vehicle performance. 

The Committee expressed concern that NASA project personnel have to access to the 

data collected even in cases where the data is sensitive. 

The Committee also suggested outreach opportunities with universities in this important 

area for the US.

4. Autonomy Thrust - Unmanned Air Mobility (UAM) Update

Mr. Robert Pearce, ARMD Deputy Associate Administrator for Strategy, updated the 

Committee on the Urban Air Mobility (UAM) strategy within the autonomy thrust.

Although labelled as “Autonomy,” the topic discussed was broader in terms of 

convergence and transformation, and how NASA is approaching emerging markets. 

Industry input to help determine research activities will remain a key to success. 

While answering fundamental questions in areas such as improving performance and 

efficiency always remaining part of the equation, a key element to be addressed is how 

to enable this new market to actually operate, particularly as part of the National 

Airspace under different traffic and weather conditions.

Multiple users providing different services will require more flexibility. New entrants want 

to move faster in terms of design, testing, and certification than long-established 
NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Summary of Minutes/November 2017 7

timelines. NASA must find ways to engage in this process and add value, and be ready 

to adapt to changes at every step.

In examining all possible vehicle modes and use cases, NASA will look to address 

common areas in design and vehicle certification issues, operations, procedures, noise 

and other forms of community impact, and most importantly, safety.

A virtual mission development integration office (vMDIO) model, similar in concept to 

the LBFD virtual program office, soon will be put together to effectively and efficiently 

manage this research area across all four participating NASA Aeronautics field centers, 

as well as industry.

Dr. Clarke commented there’s a continuum between doing something to learn 

something and doing something to show success. As the pendulum swings back and 

forth, there is a struggle in that many in the emerging UAV/UAM market have the 

mindset to go and build something, test to see if it works and learn as you go. NASA 

Aeronautics must decide where it sits on the pendulum, then commit itself to that 

direction.

The Committee suggested UTM providers might follow a cable model in terms of 

dividing services over a particular geographic area. Multiple UTM providers operating 

over the same area could introduce operational difficulties and safety considerations.

The Committee asked about the inclusion of access to space as part of the UTM/UAM 

autonomy model NASA Aeronautics envisions. The answer: Convergence of 

technology, autonomy, electric, etc., are not as prevalent in an area such as supersonic, 

which is not part of the model. In the same way, access to space – commercial or 

otherwise – is not part of what is being considered in this area of research.

Dr. Clarke suggested a change in viewpoint, looking ahead to a time when UAS 

operations are more common than commercial aviation flights – similar to the way 

space launch operations’ impact on the National Airspace is much less frequent than 

commercial air traffic. There may be some interesting synergies in terms of how a 

solution develops.

Mr. Borghese asked for more clarification about the charter and operations of the 

vMDIO. Mr. Pearce offered that, among its duties, the vMDIO would do fundamental 

market studies (contractors already are actively doing this) and based on the results 

ensure that ARMD resources among its programs and projects are aligned and 

prioritized in a logical way. 

There was much discussion about the timing and content of deliverables for the two 

contractors doing the market studies, and concern expressed that 12 months is too long 

to be getting this information back considering how fast the market is changing. NASA 

must be ready to be flexible depending on the results, and continue that flexibility should 

these studies become out of date.
NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Summary of Minutes/November 2017 8

Dr. Ducharme agrees that the virtual mission development integration office is an 

excellent way to work in this area.

The Committee indicated that this area is changing fast – reminiscent of the N.A.C.A. 

days 100 years ago – so NASA has to work out not only what are the technologies, how 

to make flight safe, what are the regulations, all those areas are dynamic and they're 

changing dramatically.

Dr. Clarke added that no matter what the future holds, NASA must be able to articulate 

the key things it is working on and how it can make an impact. 

Dr. Clarke also indicated that NASA must be able to answer this whole idea of what is 

autonomy. Is it autonomous operations? Or is it autonomous decision making?

Committee members expressed a desire to see modifications to the way the two market 

studies are being conducted. Timing should be harmonized (perhaps at six months) and 

a potential debate of sorts between the two views should be considered – a red team, 

blue team approach in which the resulting output is something like purple.

Dr. Ducharme suggested to do an analysis of the key things needed to enable this 

future and clearly identify what NASA’s role is based on core competencies, working

with partners, etc. 

Dr. Clarke suggested to look at the issue of autonomous operations, which is decision 

making, and what NASA needs to address.

The Committee added that as it relates to decision making in terms of necessary 

research activities, determine what is uniquely aerospace, or inherently in the purview of 

NASA/government, vs. something more general. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee agrees that the NASA research in autonomous vehicles and autonomy 

is important for the U.S. Because of new technology, market demand and industry 

investment, autonomy and autonomous vehicles could change aviation similar in scope 

to the birth of aviation. Because of these dynamics, the Committee agrees with the 

approach to have independent evaluations of the autonomous vehicle market and 

recommends that NASA harmonize the two studies so that they have the same time 

frame to get more value added. 

Given the fast moving space of these new entries and the uncertainty they bring to 

aviation, the Committee also recommends that the NASA Aeronautics Research 

Mission Directorate (ARMD) identify issues and gaps that need to be addressed 

regardless of the studies’ outcomes. 
NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Summary of Minutes/November 2017 9

Major Reasons for the Recommendation

Currently the two studies are in a different time frame – 4 months vs. 12 months. The 

thought is that there might be some sharing of information and discussion of outcomes 

that will be beneficial for NASA to balance areas off each other during the study. 

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation

The studies will lack the benefit of a healthy discussion on any differences in outcomes. 

If the studies result in different outcomes at different time periods, there will be 

uncertainty on which outcome should be used for NASA technology investment.

5. 2018 Work Plan & Schedule Discussion

The NAC Aero committee will meet three times in 2018. Specific dates and locations will 

be announced.

NASA Aeronautics managers appreciate the NAC Aero Committee’s interaction and 

comments. This maintains the desired role that the NAC Aero group operates as an 

advisory committee, providing guidance based on their broad areas of technical 

expertise and experience.

NASA Program Directors appreciate the NAC Aero committee’s willingness to be 

briefed at a high level that speaks to major goals, strategic research thrusts and broad 

topics as opposed to detailing every nuance of a specific project. This is helpful as the 

Committee’s system-level perspective directly aids in planning the direction those 

project details take.

The question was asked of the Committee “Are we giving you the information in a way 

that allows you to make your assessments and provide back your recommendations in 

a way that is consistent with the full picture?” The responses were complimentary. 

Among the relevant comments made by committee members:

 The presentations that we receive are consistently excellent.

 The work that you're doing is the right type of work that NASA should be doing 

for aeronautics.

 This is not a technical review. This is a strategic review of NASA’s priorities, 

plans and accomplishments.

 Having the opportunity to tour the Centers or view some demonstrations before

the meeting helps prepare members to provide the right level of comments 

during the presentations.
NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Summary of Minutes/November 2017 10

The Committee was asked if a future briefing detailing how NASA Aeronautics works 

with its various partners to coordinate, collaborate and transfer information at a high 

level – such as with Research Transition Teams – would be beneficial. The answer was 

positive.

A suggestion was made to ensure that when public demonstrations, media days, etc., 

take place to showcase NASA Aeronautics technology, committee members are invited

to witness the activity if their schedule permits.

6. Public Comments

There was one comment from a member of the public indicating that the presentations 

were well structured, very informative and gave the Committee an opportunity to 

understand what NASA's strategy is and comment in a way that NASA can take that 

information and have a better outcome in all their pursuits.

# # #

Jim Banke

FedWriters

321-698-0591

jim.banke@nasa.gov
NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Summary of Minutes/November 2017 11

List of Attendees:

Name Affiliation

John Borghese Committee Chair

John-Paul Clarke Member

Eric Ducharme Member

Karen Thole Member

Irma Rodriguez Committee Executive Secretary

Jaiwon Shin NASA ARMD

Jon Montgomery NASA ARMD

Bob Pearce NASA ARMD

Ed Waggoner NASA ARMD

Jay Dryer NASA ARMD

John Cavolowsky NASA ARMD

Starr Ginn NASA

Dana Gould NASA

Ruben Del Rosario NASA

Paul Krasa NASA

John Koelling NASA

Brad Flick NASA

Jessica Nowinski NASA

Steven Schmidt NASA

David McBride NASA

Carmen Arevalo NASA

Lee Olson FAA Liaison to NASA

Steve Spearman FedWriters

Peter Iosifidis Lockheed Martin

Jose Hernandez AERO Institute

Mike Beavin NASA - Webex – remotely

Andrea Storch Webex – remotely

Akbar Sultan NASA - Webex – remotely

Darrell Branscome Webex – remotely

Unmeel Mchta Webex – remotely