NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee Meeting 

November 10, 2020 

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

Washington, D.C. 

Welcome 

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

words of welcome, asked Ms. Irma Rodriguez to provide the standard advisory 

committee guidance. 

Capability and Workforce Strategic Planning 

Mr. Anthony Springer, ARMD director of the Integration and Management Office, 

provided an overview on NASA Aeronautics’ current capabilities – people, facilities, 

computers, aircraft, etc. – and their relevant issues. How best to manage and maintain 

those capabilities and ensure those capabilities are properly funded are the two key 

questions to address in this area. 

To do this it is important to have accurate forecasts that predict what missions will be 

pursued and then consider if existing capabilities will suffice, whether present 

capabilities need updating, or if new investments must be made. The timeframe might 

be in the short term or the long term. Each timeframe requires its own capability 

decisions. Workforce considerations are of paramount importance. Ageing research 

facilities and supporting infrastructure at all of NASA’s field centers are of particular 

concern at present. 

Mr. Springer described NASA’s approach to how facilities of different sizes are 

managed by different organizations, programs, or centers. Larger facilities spread 

across the centers that can be used by any mission directorate or handled by agency 

level portfolios, while other hardware (such as aircraft) or smaller facilities might be 

managed by a particular center, directorate, or even program. 

Mr. Springer spent time talking about how a specific directorate – ARMD -- is looking at 

its capabilities needs now and for the future, and how best to plan for that future. Mr. 

James Kenyon, director of the Advanced Air Vehicles Program, provided more specific 

examples of how this program is addressing its capabilities needs. 

Mr. Jon Montgomery, ARMD’s deputy associate administrator for policy, noted that a big

reason why there is so much attention on capabilities strategy – as noted by inclusion in 

this meeting – is that the agency is facing intractable problems where large 

infrastructure, both in size and quantity, have had their maintenance persistently 

deferred for budgetary reasons. This puts any mission that relies on those facilities at 

risk. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

Mr. Borghese asked about the cost of using facilities and who pays those fees. There 

has been concern that potential users of NASA’s national research assets could not 

afford to use these government facilities. He noted how the use of larger facilities can 

be absorbed by NASA but wondered how smaller facilities are handled. 

Mr. Springer responded that for those class of facilities there is no agency-level funding 

stream, but other funding options exist. This includes outright user fees, money coming 

from center budgets, or funds provided by a mission directorate/program/project. Some 

maintenance expenses for facilities managed by one directorate can be offset by those 

facilities being used and paid for by other directorates. 

Mr. Tom Shih asked about the ability to accurately forecast workforce needs and 

expertise levels so as to meet future mission needs. Mr. Montgomery noted that 

workforce planning is key to mission success. Understanding what training and 

knowledge is needed for what a workforce will be doing 10 or 25 years from now is an 

important part of that forecast. 

Finding 

The committee applauds NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) for 

its planning to meet future needs regarding workforce and facilities. This approach of 

“leaning forward” is a necessary and welcome initiative that will make it possible for 

NASA to maintain its position as a global leader in the aviation research community. At 

the same time, the committee is concerned that key facilities will not receive the funding 

needed to properly maintain and upgrade them. The Landing and Impact Research 

Facility at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia is just one example of a facility

the committee is particularly concerned about. 

COVID and Cabin Air Flow Modeling 

Dr. John Cavolowsky, manager of the Transformative Aeronautics Concepts Program 

(TACP), provided a briefing on how NASA can provide its expertise to help industry 

recover from the existing pandemic, regain public confidence in air travel, and better 

prepare for the next health crisis. He detailed a particular area NASA can help with, 

which is modeling the flow of air within a passenger airliner cabin. 

He described NASA’s role as facilitating the conversation among those who do this kind 

of modeling, identify any gaps in available data, and determine what additional research 

is necessary. 

Dr. Cavolowsky described the preliminary results of a recent workshop involving more 

than 50 stakeholders who met on four days over the course of three weeks. Together 

they attempted to determine the current state of modeling cabin air flow, what still need 

to be researched, and a timeline for doing the work – among many other variables. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specific roles for NASA moving forward were identified and included building a 

common, open modeling environment; creating a dashboard that collects relevant data 

to help with validation of models and risk assessments; providing expertise in peer 

review of new studies; and continuing to facilitate organization of the various efforts so 

that any needed course corrections can be understood by all. 

The ultimate goal is to provide passengers with a sense of security that aircraft systems 

are in place to significantly minimize the chance of infection. 

Dr. Naveed Hussain provided additional perspective from his view at Boeing on the 

problems and potential solutions of virus transmission within an aircraft interior. This led 

to a rather detailed discussion about virus size, available filters, air flow rates and 

directions, and research already conducted on cabin air flow. 

Discussion 

Mr. Borghese raised the possibility of NASA using its expertise and demonstrated ability 

to use technology to solve complex problems – in both aeronautics and space – by 

finding a way to detect the presence of a virus in real time and apply a method to kill the 

virus or at least deactivate its harmful properties, also in real time. This led to a brief 

conversation about capabilities and available resources across the agency that might be 

available to tackle these goals, assuming it was determined NASA should pursue it. 

Because of the potential benefits such capabilities might have specific to the aviation 

community, the committee decided to express its opinion in a Finding as noted here. 

Finding 

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt the aviation community. As the 

commercial air travel industry looks ahead with hope for a return to normalcy, a key 

variable will be how quickly the flying public will feel safe sitting in the enclosed and 

relatively limited volume of an airliner cabin. The committee continues to recognize 

NASA’s public stature as a trusted government entity and encourages the agency to

offer its expertise where possible. To this end, the committee suggests ARMD consider 

spearheading a multi-disciplinary research initiative – perhaps involving the academic 

community – that could enable real-time detection of a potentially harmful virus in an 

aviation setting, such as an aircraft interior. 

Autonomy Plans 

Dr. Cavolowsky, TACP director; Mr. Lee Noble, director of the Integrated Aviation 

Systems Program (IASP); and Mr. Akbar Sultan, director of the Airspace Operations 

and Safety Program (AOSP), updated the committee on progress made during the past 

year as it relates to NASA acting as a catalyst to advance autonomous aviation systems 

and ensure U.S. competitiveness. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each director described how projects and sub-projects within their respective programs 

are focused on particular areas of autonomy, especially as it relates to vehicles and 

systems that contribute to realizing operational use cases expected as Advanced Air 

Mobility (AAM) is safely integrated into the National Airspace System. [Note that Urban 

Air Mobility (UAM) is considered a subset of AAM.] 

Within TACP much of this work is concentrated in the Transformational Tools & 

Technologies project. The focus: enabling the scaling of operations to achieve the full 

vision and potential of AAM, which includes removing onboard pilots and increasing the 

number of aircraft that can be operated by the same number of people 

Within IASP, the AAM project (not to be confused with the over-arching AAM mission) is 

looking into at least two technical challenges related to UAM. The first one is to develop, 

evaluate, and make recommendations for how to certify an initial, integrated suite of key 

vehicle automation functions to enable simplified piloting in urban environments. The 

second one is to develop and evaluate a reference architecture for operating a vertiport 

within a high-density urban environment. The main activity within AOSP, put simply, is 

to safely integrate all of this into the NAS using a service-oriented digital architecture. 

Dr. Cavolowsky noted the intention of the way this collaborative work is organized is to 

be sure the research portfolio within each program is aligned with the other programs, 

the goal being to meet the objectives of ARMD’s Strategic Thrust No. 6 – Assured 

Autonomy for Aviation Transformation. 

Discussion 

Discussion focused on the UAM Maturity Levels (UML) identified by NASA to measure 

progress in increasingly complex use of vehicles within busier airspace over everdenser population centers. Committee members expressed concerns that many 

members of the AAM community have not heard of or bought into precisely how NASA 

has defined each of the UML. Industry research activities and investment plans could be 

influenced depending on these UML definitions. Committee members suggested the 

Federal Aviation Administration would be less cautious about embracing the UML 

paradigm as defined by NASA if there was a better understanding and agreement about 

what each UML means. (See this report for a detailed description of the UML 

descriptions as of 2020.) 

Recommendation 

The committee recommends NASA find an appropriate venue through which to best 

work with industry (UAM and conventional legacy aviation operators) on agreeing to 

clear definitions and goals of each of the agency’s Urban Air Mobility maturity levels. 

The committee believes it is important that industry be fully engaged and aligned with 

these goals as they develop their technologies and systems. Among other benefits, this 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

will be key to ensuring the successful execution of the Advanced Air Mobility National 

Campaign planned by ARMD. 

Low-Boom Flight Demonstration Mission Update 

Mr. Peter Coen provided an overview of the Low-Boom Flight Demonstration (LBFD) 

mission and its X-59 Quiet SuperSonic Technology demonstrator aircraft, noting 

progress made since making a similar presentation a year ago. 

Key advancements during the previous year include significant progress on construction 

and assembly of the airframe, delivery of the jet engine that will power the X-59 and 

making progress on plans for the community overflights to gather public perception 

data. At the same time, challenges sparked by COVID-19 required replanning and some 

delays in meeting major milestones. First flight is now expected mid-year of 2022. 

Mr. Coen noted that these schedule delays are not expected to prevent NASA from 

delivering its promised dataset to the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

(CAEP), although the number of community overflight deployments might be affected. 

Currently the LBFD mission has five opportunities to complete four community test 

deployments. Should the CAEP experience a domino effect in schedule delays due to 

COVID, an additional community test deployment might be possible. 

Discussion 

Mr. Peter Bunce asked if the X-59 has autoland built into it. Mr. Coen was reasonably 

sure it isn’t and explained that the XVS vision system – a cockpit feature made 

necessary because the pilot’s forward view is blocked – is a key operational 

enhancement for safety. Developers have worked with the FAA and provided 

information about the XVS which could be used to support a possible future effort to 

certify it. 

Dr. Karen Thole asked about the availability of computer tools used to characterize the 

X-59’s sonic signature and if that tool is proprietary or might be restricted from use by 

the international community. Mr. Coen said they are open tools. He noted that Lockheed 

Martin has put a lot of its own intellectual capital into some of the design tools, and that 

could lead to proprietary classification in the future as the tools are evolved for a 

possible future commercial supersonic airliner. 

Finding 

The committee continues to be impressed by NASA’s approach to and progress with

the Low-Boom Flight Demonstration mission and its X-59 Quiet SuperSonic Technology 

demonstrator aircraft. Opening new markets for commercial supersonic air travel over 

land will have benefits that go beyond passenger convenience and airline economics to 

5 
 

 

 

 

inspiring a new generation of students to pursue STEM-related careers in aviation. The 

committee encourages NASA to keep industry informed on when to expect test data 

and then share that data as rapidly as possible when available. 

Software Usage Licensing 

Mr. Dan Lockney, Technology Transfer Program executive, briefed the committee on 

NASA’s software release policy and process. He noted that the agency produces about 

1,800 inventions each year, one-third of which are in the form of software. Cataloging 

and distributing these products is complicated. Challenges associated with copyrights, 

licensing, patents, open-source code, and other legal issues related to NASA’s ability to 

release software to various user groups were presented and various solutions identified. 

Discussion 

Dr. Eric Allison said his questions about software availability, especially as it relates to 

open-source code and cases where small companies who are not a NASA contractor 

would like to use that software for commercial purposes. He recommended this nonNASA webpage to read more information about government considerations regarding 

open-source software: 

Public Comments 

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

Committee Deliberations 

During the discussion about workforce and facility capabilities and how forecasting 

future needs is key to future mission success, Mr. Andy Cebula encouraged that when 

projecting those future needs not to forget the importance of planning for what’s 

required to develop new air traffic management technology. 

Dr. Karen Thole expressed support for NASA’s workforce development activities but 

noted there remains a challenge in recruiting graduates who are more excited, for 

example, about turbines and engines on airplanes for aeronautical purposes rather than 

about being rocket scientists and working on space applications. 

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

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

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

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

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

expanded. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Peter Bunce expressed his concerns about aviation safety with respect to the 

deployment of 5G networks and frequency allocations that affect radar altimeters. This 

led to the recommendation listed below. 

Recommendation 

The committee recommends that appropriate officials from NASA and the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) meet to discuss industry concerns about the effect of the 

announced spectrum allocation for 5G wireless networks on the safe operation of radar 

altimeters used by the aviation community. The purpose of the conversation would be to 

determine if the FAA would desire NASA to conduct research that might provide 

credible and objective technical data to inform any position the FAA would take in this 

regulatory matter. 

7 
 

List of Webex Attendees 

Committee Members 36.Lee Noble 

1. Mr. John Borghese, Chair 

2. Mr. Darin DiTommaso, Vice Chair 

3. Mr. Andy Cebula 

4. Mr. Anil Nanduri 

5. Dr. Eric Allison 

6. Mr. Eric Fanning 

7. Ms. Lisa Ellman 

8. Dr. Tom Shih 

9. Dr. Karen Thole 

10.Mr. Mike Hirschberg 

11.Dr. Naveed Hussain 

12.Mr. Peter Bunce 

NASA 

13.Akbar Sultan 

14.Alicia Wesley 

15.Angela Butcher 

16.Ann Harkey 

17.Anthony Springer 

18.Brian Pitman (USAF Detailee) 

19.Cheryl Quinn 

20.Curtis Armstrong 

21.Dave Hinton 

22.Dan Lockney 

23.Edgar Waggoner 

24.Eric Cooper 

25.Huy Tran 

26.Irma Rodriguez 

27.James Kenyon 

28.Jay Fletcher 

29.Jennifer Kibler 

30.Jessica Culler 

31.Jon Montgomery 

32.John Cavolowsky 

33.Justin Tilman 

34.Kenny McCombs 

35.Laura Kennedy 

37.Mary Dijoseph 

38.Maureen Kudlac 

39.Melissa Rivers 

40.Michael Patterson 

41.Michael Rogers 

42.Nateri Madavan 

43.Paul Krasa 

44.Peter Coen 

45.Richard Whals 

46.Robert Pearce 

47.Roger Kantz 

48.S Melissa Rivers 

49.Sasha Ellis 

50.Sharon Jones 

51.Shawn Engelland 

52.Sherilyn Brown 

53.Steven Clarke 

54.Steven Hishorn 

55.Tiffany Blake 

56.Vanessa Aubuchon 

57.William Johnson 

External (affiliation identified if 

provided) 

58.Eric Daning 

59.John Tylko (Aurora) 

60.Steve Cook (Northrup Grumman) 

61.Steve Moran (Spire Global) 

62.Natalie Alms (Federal Computer 

Week) 

FedWriters (NAC meeting support) 

63.Jim Banke 

64.John Gould 

8