<p> Future of Ground Testing Working Group Proposed Agenda AIAA Aviation Conference, Atlanta, GA</p><p>Schedule: Monday, June 16, 2014, from 0800-1200 Eastern Daylight Savings Time</p><p>Location: Atlanta Hyatt Regency, Executive Conference Suite 219</p><p>1. Review of need statement and initial work products</p><p> a. Are we attacking this activity correctly – in order to make a difference regarding the relationships between EFD, CFD, & Flt? And in order to improve understanding of what tools are required to produce and aerospace product?</p><p>2. Status of actions and progress since National Harbor</p><p> a. Discuss what is required by this working group to sustain the work effort between conferences (beyond a steering committee and telecoms)</p><p>3. Establish steering committee, 4-5 people, willing to ‘nudge’ others (and each other) and push for progress.</p><p>4. Determine acceptable dates for telecoms – specific dates and times – until SciTech 2015</p><p> a. Unless otherwise determined, Dunn can set these up</p><p>5. Develop a review template for evaluating responses for seminal studies</p><p> a. Dunn to provide at least two templates to consider</p><p>6. Get sign-ups for reviews; define timing and logistics of receiving, combining, and summarizing the reviews.</p><p>7. Discuss what our potential product could be by the time SciTech 2015 occurs – could we have one or two briefing work products?</p><p> a. Perhaps defined problems and approach?</p><p> a.i. Approach -- what will it take to accomplish RDT&E with computational methods – no wind tunnels or propulsion ground test capabilities?</p><p> b. Or perform some form of SWOT assessment (National GT capabilities in the current environment) from the document review?</p><p>8. Other business</p><p>Follow up work while we’re in Atlanta – we can find times and places to meet; possible topics: 1. Finalize the document review form</p><p>2. Steering committee to meet at place and time to be determined</p><p> a. Package the documents (some ‘seminal’ plus others) into groups of three </p><p> b. Assign at least two reviewers to each group of documents. </p><p> c. Send list out, with the updated review form, via email</p><p> d. Propose a timeline for reviews to be posted to the web site.</p><p> e. Define how (and who will do it) review information will be consolidated and posted for full group review.</p><p>3. What else? </p>