1. HAC/TAC Honors and Awards Liaison Report Basil Hassan Technical Activities Liaison January 5, 2015 (to HAC) January 8, 2015 (to TAC)

2. Technical Activities Committee Summary Award Health Status Survey To TC/PC about Nomination Deadlines Engineer of Year Award Process

3. Technical Activities Committee Award Health Status Not presented in 2015 (October 1 Nomination Deadline):  HAP Arnold Award – Not enough nominations. Two carry over nominations on file.  Missile Systems – Management – Not enough nominations. One new nomination and one carryover nomination on file. This award has been on previous watch list.  Otto Winzen – Not enough nominations. One carryover nomination on file. Nomination Deadline Extensions (granted by VP-TAC):  Aircraft Design  Fluid Dynamics  Ground Testing  Jeffries Aerospace Medicine  Hypersonic Systems  Losey Atmospheric Sciences  Plasmadynamics and Lasers  Thermophysics

4. Technical Activities Committee Survey To TC/PC about Nomination Deadlines 40 Total Responses to Survey:  Q1- How much time does your committee(s) need to review and select a winner for your award? This time includes obtaining the majority vote on the proposed recipient from your committee(s) which endorse the selection of the evaluation subcommittee, notifying AIAA Honors and Awards and getting concurrence from the appropriate Technical Group Director (this time frame assumes that the selection/evaluation subcommittees from the participating TCs/PCs are in place when the subcommittee chair receives the nominations from AIAA Honors and Awards).  Q2 - How does your committee(s) typically operate with regards to evaluating, selecting, and voting on the proposed winner? Select all that apply:  Q3 - If your committee typically has a face-to-face meeting (such as at SciTech in January) as part of the process and the new nomination deadlines were such that you needed to conduct your selection process entirely remotely (i.e., via telecon and/or email), could you accommodate?  Q4 - Insert the name of your TC/PC.  Q5 - If you have any other comments that would be useful to this study, please enter them below.

5. Technical Activities Committee Survey To TC/PC about Nomination Deadlines Question 1 - How much time does your committee(s) need to review and select a winner for your award?

6. Technical Activities Committee Survey To TC/PC about Nomination Deadlines Question 2 - How does your committee(s) typically operate with regards to evaluating, selecting, and voting on the proposed winner? Select all that apply:

7. Technical Activities Committee Survey To TC/PC about Nomination Deadlines Question 3 - If your committee typically has a face-to-face meeting (such as at SciTech in January) as part of the process and the new nomination deadlines were such that you needed to conduct your selection process entirely remotely (i.e., via telecon and/or email), could you accommodate?.

8. Technical Activities Committee Survey To TC/PC about Nomination Deadlines Comments:  We try to discuss nominations and ensure that there is sufficient support for each potential nominee at our face-to-face meetings at Space 201x or our separate Spring meeting (~April timeframe). However, this is not mandatory for our discussion. We could likely conduct most/all of this via telecon or email/mailing list.  The full TC elects the award winner after significant discussion at SciTech. We could change but we like it as it is.  The FDTC has an Awards Subcommittee that carefully reviews the award nominations between October and the end of December. Most of that work is done by telecon and email. The awards committee makes it recommendation to the FULL TC membership at the Face-to-Face SciTech meeting. The nominations are not official until the TC meets and approves the recommendation  My feeling is that people will always say that they need longer, however, is we have sufficient reminders of the hard deadlines, we can work to those deadlines. I suggested 6 weeks for the evaluation, not because it actually takes that long, but rather because we sometimes have key people with other commitments or long- term travel, and therefore limited availability.

9. Technical Activities Committee Survey To TC/PC about Nomination Deadlines Comments:  We currently have 16 weeks and my concern is mostly about timing. The current October 1st deadline plus 2-4 weeks of AIAA flowtime puts the shorter flow of 8 weeks smack in the middle of Thanksgiving and Christmas. For Oct 1 deadline, we need at least 12 weeks (16 preferred). We would prefer the Feb 1 nomination deadline. We can give the TC some 8-10 weeks to respond with votes, and still allow institute its 2 weeks to process the results. The winner can be announced sometime early April, with plenty of schedule padding for the winner to plan attendance to AVIATION to receive the award  I would rather that it does not change.  It is very difficult to get nominees as the current timeline is too long. It is hard to get folks to take action on something more than 6 months away.  The FDTC is quite happy with the current system, and does not recommend changing the current October deadline for nominations.  The Oct. 1 deadline for the Jeffries Award works well for us. I don't think it should change.

10. Technical Activities Committee Survey To TC/PC about Nomination Deadlines Recommendation - Leave current system as is:  Moving Oct 1 deadline any later is problematic due to Thanksgiving/Christmas holidays.  Many TCs like to have face-to-face meetings as part of their process (i.e. SciTech).  Leave open option for “special case” deadlines that differ from standard (Feb, July, Oct) schedule if a case can be made (i.e. conferences that switch Forums on yearly basis, etc.)  Enforce deadlines. TCs are given plenty of notification.

11. Technical Activities Committee Engineer of Year Award Process for 2015 HAC / TAC Liaison led process  3 Technical and 3 Regional Deputy Directors selected by VP-TAC to evaluate nominations  Following criteria used (maximum 100 points): –Significance of the scientific or technical contribution - Rate the degree of uniqueness and/or innovation of the contribution (0 - 40 points) –Impact of the scientific / technical contribution to the aerospace community - Rate the significance of the contribution to make and impact on the aerospace community as a whole (0 - 40 points) –Recentness - Rate the timeliness of the scientific / technical contribution (0 – 10 points) –Participation and service to AIAA - Rate the nominee’s service to AIAA (0 – 10 points)* –* Intended to be used as a tiebreaker for otherwise equal packages

12. Technical Activities Committee Engineer of Year Award Process for 2015 2015 Committee  Rob Vermeland, Aerospace Sciences Group, Deputy Director  Sophia Bright, Engineering and Technology Management Group, Deputy Director  Karen Barker, Space and Missile Systems Group, Deputy Director  Norman Wereley, Region 1, Deputy Director-Technical  Sarah Shull, Region 4, Deputy Director-Technical  Christian Mari, Region 7, Deputy Director-Technical  Basil Hassan, HAC/TAC Liaison

13. Technical Activities Committee Engineer of Year Award - Process Improvements for 2016 Issues with Current Criteria  Many references were from same organization as nominee. Diversity in the reference pool should be emphasized in the award description (this should be the case for all awards).  Quality of references should be part of the grading criteria (similar to Fellow nominations).  Service to AIAA is not specifically called out in the award description (other than the nominee must be an AIAA Member). As originally suggested, this should be used as a tie breaker.  Recentness of the contribution is expected and called out into the award description. No need to have a grading category. Suggested Criteria for 2016 (maximum 100 points):  Significance of the scientific or technical contribution - Rate the degree of uniqueness and/or innovation of the contribution (0 – 40 points)  Impact of the scientific / technical contribution to the aerospace community - Rate the significance of the contribution to make and impact on the aerospace community as a whole (0 – 40 points)  Quality of the endorsements by References – How do references rate the contribution (0 – 20 points)  Service to AIAA is intended to be used as a tiebreaker for otherwise equal packages