U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

25–095 2017

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–29] 

MILITARY PILOT SHORTAGE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 29, 2017 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio, Vice Chair 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

DON BACON, Nebraska 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

DAVE GIACHETTI, Professional Staff Member 

CRAIG GREENE, Professional Staff Member 

DANIELLE STEITZ, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Coffman, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Colorado, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel .................................................................................... 1 

Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative from California, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Brilakis, LtGen Mark A., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower and 

Reserve Affairs, United States Marine Corps .................................................... 3 

Burke, VADM Robert P., USN, Chief of Naval Personnel, United States 

Navy ...................................................................................................................... 3 

Grosso, Lt Gen Gina M., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and 

Personnel Services, United States Air Force ..................................................... 5 

Peterson, MG Erik C., USA, Director, Army Aviation, United States Army ..... 6 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Brilakis, LtGen Mark A. .................................................................................. 32 

Burke, VADM Robert P. .................................................................................. 38 

Coffman, Hon. Mike ......................................................................................... 31 

Grosso, Lt Gen Gina M. ................................................................................... 46 

Peterson, MG Erik C. ....................................................................................... 58 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Rosen .......................................................................................................... 71 

Ms. Speier ......................................................................................................... 69 

(1) 

MILITARY PILOT SHORTAGE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, 

Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 29, 2017. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Coffman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. COFFMAN. The hearing comes to order. I want to welcome everyone to the Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on the 

shortage of pilots in the military services. Today, we will hear from 

the services on their progress toward increasing the retention of 

military pilots, both officers and warrant officers. 

We know that pilot demand is increasing in the commercial sector, and the demand to hire qualified military pilots is higher than 

the available pool of candidates. This demand has led to a shortage 

of pilots across the services, with the problem being particularly 

acute in the United States Air Force, with a deficit at this point 

of over 1,000 total pilots. 

And we are here today to hear from the armed services on their 

plans to stem the exit of pilots from the military. We know we cannot buy our way out of this problem since the military cannot compete with the potential salaries and, in some cases, the lifestyle of 

the commercial airlines. So we must make sure the services are 

using all the levers in their control, from an increase in bonuses 

to changes in the assignment system to changes in promotion to incentives, these pilots—to incentivize these pilots to remain in the 

military. 

The Military Personnel Subcommittee will take every opportunity to thoroughly review and discuss the way forward to stop 

the outflow of military pilots. I look forward to hearing from the 

witnesses to understand the scope of the pilot retention problem 

and to assess the proposed resolutions for the services in increasing 

retention. 

Before I introduce our panel, let me offer Ranking Member 

Speier an opportunity to make opening remarks. 

Representative Speier. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coffman can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 
2 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And thank you to our witnesses who are here today. 

The Armed Services Committee has been receiving quite a bit of 

testimony over the last few months on the issue of readiness. There 

remains some debate on the severity of the readiness crisis or even 

whether it exists at all. For the most part, the solutions being considered by the administration and Congress involve vast funding 

increases so that the Department can buy new equipment and end 

strength. 

The shortage of military pilots does, of course, have a direct impact on readiness. So the reaction to the shortage has typically 

been along the same veins: to throw more money at the problem 

in the form of cash retention bonuses. But without addressing the 

root causes, this will do little to stem the departure of valuable experienced military pilots. 

As the witnesses and several members of the subcommittee are 

well aware, our service members are not in it for the money. Military pilots serve for love of country and for love of flying. There are 

many reasons besides money that military pilots leave the service 

for the private sector, including family concerns and a desire for 

more stability, too few flying hours, and too many assigned tasks 

unrelated to flying. 

Today, I am interested in hearing how each of the services are 

working to identify these root causes and how you use that analysis and the authorities Congress has provided to better target 

nonmonetary incentives as well as monetary in order to increase 

retention. I am also interested to hear what joint initiatives you 

may be undertaking together across services. 

It costs millions of dollars and years of training to produce just 

a single aviator. I am not telling you something you don’t already 

know. We therefore need to ensure we are thinking broadly and 

creatively about how best to retain the skilled aviators the Nation 

needs. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Speier. 

We will give each witness the opportunity to present his or her 

testimony and each member an opportunity to question the witnesses for 5 minutes. 

We would also respectfully remind the witnesses to summarize, 

to the greatest extent possible, the high points of your written testimony in 5 minutes or less. Your written comments and statements will be made part of the hearing record. 

Let me welcome our panel: Lieutenant General Mark A. Brilakis, 

Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, United 

States Marine Corps; Vice Admiral Robert P. Burke, [Deputy] Chief 

of Naval Operations; Lieutenant General Gina M. Grosso, Deputy 

Chief of Staff for Manpower and Personnel Services, United States 

Air Force; Major General Erik C. Peterson, United States Army, 

Director, Army Aviation. 

With that, General Brilakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 
3 

STATEMENT OF LTGEN MARK A. BRILAKIS, USMC, DEPUTY 

COMMANDANT FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, 

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

General BRILAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide an overview of the Marine Corps 

inventory of pilots and aviators. Since the first Marine aviator flew 

in 1912, our pilots, like all marines, have answered the Nation’s 

call, faithfully serving the American people and maintaining a 

first-class standard of military excellence. Today, Marine aviation 

is providing critical support to combat operations, and the Marine 

Corps is and will continue to be our Nation’s expeditionary force in 

readiness. 

Aviators and our aviation maintenance personnel are critical to 

our ability to meet the continued and increasing operational commitments, operational tempo, and challenging deployment-to-dwell 

ratios. 

While the Marine Corps does not currently have a shortage of 

aviation personnel, we are experiencing a shortage of trained aviators, particularly in specific platforms, and gaps in the necessary 

qualifications of our enlisted maintenance personnel. This is in 

large part exacerbated by current readiness issues with our aircraft. Addressing these issues is one of mine and the Deputy Commandant for Aviation’s highest priorities. 

Aviation readiness in the form of Ready Basic Aircraft and the 

resources to operate them throughout the year is the single most 

important factor in alleviating our aviation manpower challenges 

and contributing to retention. Our responsibility to train and to retain the best aviators and maintainers for our Corps is an operational imperative for us. We vigorously attack the accession and 

retention of all our Marine occupational fields, and doing so for the 

aviation field is particularly important due to the time and expense 

required to train these marines. We will continue to closely monitor 

the trends of our aviators, and we will take action should we begin 

to see a retention problem so that your Corps remains the most 

ready when the Nation is the least ready. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

[The prepared statement of General Brilakis can be found in the 

Appendix on page 32.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Vice Admiral Burke, you are now recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF VADM ROBERT P. BURKE, USN, CHIEF OF 

NAVAL PERSONNEL, UNITED STATES NAVY 

Admiral BURKE. Thank you, Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, and distinguished members of the subcommittee for this 

opportunity to discuss the status of naval aviation retention. I am 

honored to represent the men and women of the United States 

Navy. 

Naval aviation today is strong, the most capable maritime air 

force in the world, and our deployed units are ready to respond to 

any challenge. It is made up of more than 190,000 military and 

Navy civilian personnel, including 10,250 Navy pilots and naval 
4 

flight officers, who safely and effectively maintain, operate, and 

train with approximately 3,700 aircraft in support of worldwide 

carrier-based and expeditionary missions, to include combat operations. 

On any given day, two to five of our nine carrier air wings are 

deployed, returning from a deployment, or preparing to deploy. Our 

ability to sustain this effort depends upon a number of factors, 

among the most critical of which is our people. So I am here today 

to outline the current risks and projected manning challenges facing naval aviation and what we must do to sustain peak combat 

readiness. Our ability to attract and retain the very best young 

men and women our Nation has to offer is central to maintaining 

aviation personnel readiness. 

A number of factors are making this challenge increasingly complex, including an improving economy with low unemployment and 

increasing opportunity for employment in the private sector, particularly within the commercial airline industry. Additionally, 

naval aviators have expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of 

service, resulting from readiness challenges associated with limited 

aircraft availability and reduced flying hours while not deployed, 

which have inhibited timely attainment of tactical qualifications 

and subsequent career progression. 

Those who wear the cloth of this Nation do not do so for the 

money but rather to be part of something bigger than themselves. 

Historically, we have also been able to positively influence retention behavior by providing a fair compensation package, but more 

importantly, we provide an enticement few other employers can 

offer: a call to service. 

However, the allure of service is diminished when readiness 

shortfalls inhibit sailors’ ability to get the job done. Today, aviation 

depots struggle to get our airplanes through maintenance periods 

on time. These delays impact the time sailors have to train and 

hone their skills prior to deployment. Such challenges are further 

exacerbated by low stocks of critical spare parts and an aging shore 

infrastructure. While our first team on deployment is always ready, 

our bench, the depth of our forces at home, is thin and is growing 

increasingly frustrated. Additionally, operational tempo, uncertain 

deployment schedules, excessive administrative burdens, and quality-of-life issues for sailors’ families, including late permanent 

change of station orders and limited housing options, especially in 

non-fleet concentration areas, adversely affect individuals’ decisions 

to stay Navy. 

Restoring short-term fleet readiness will require sufficient and 

predictable funding, which will allow our pilots to fly the hours 

needed to maintain optimum proficiency and ensure our ability to 

conduct timely maintenance on our airframes. It would also enable 

the Navy to restore stocks of necessary parts, return more aircraft 

to operational status, and better prepare them to remain deployed, 

as required. Finally, it would allow our pilots to do what they want 

to do, which is to fly. 

We will continue to aggressively pursue resolution of aviator retention challenges through effective and responsible use of available resources and refinements to our plans and processes for re-
5 

cruiting, developing, retaining, and addressing the quality of service needs of our aviators. 

We welcome your assistance, look forward to working with you 

to address the challenges we face, and we appreciate your continued support for initiatives designed to help us achieve optimum 

personnel readiness, improve quality of service, and retain the best 

and brightest young men and women this Nation has to offer. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Burke can be found in the 

Appendix on page 38.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Vice Admiral Burke. 

Lieutenant General Grosso, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN GINA M. GROSSO, USAF, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL SERVICES, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

General GROSSO. Thank you, Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, and distinguished members of the subcommittee for the 

opportunity to discuss the status of the Air Force pilot shortages 

and our efforts to address it. 

America’s Air Force has been globally engaged for the last 26 

years in combat operations. During that time, we have provided air 

dominance through global vigilance, global reach, and global power 

for our joint force. Make no mistake: your Air Force is always 

there. 

However, being always there comes at a cost to equipment, infrastructure, and, most importantly, our airmen. And we are now at 

a decision point. Sustained global commitments and recent funding 

cuts affect capacity and capability for a full-spectrum fight against 

a near-peer adversary. Compounding this issue, an upcoming surge 

of mandatory retirements for airline pilots and an increasing market for global commerce is causing the civilian aviation industry to 

begin hiring at unprecedented rates. 

This confluence of circumstances has birthed a national aircrew 

crisis. This crisis is the result of multiple factors: high operational 

tempo over the last 26 years, a demand for our pilots from the commercial industry, and cultural issues that affect the quality of life 

and service for our airmen. 

As we closed fiscal year 2016, the total force, including our Active, Guard, and Reserve Components, was short 1,555 pilots across 

all mission areas. Of this amount, the total force was short 1,211 

fighter pilots. It should be noted that the cost to train a fifth-generation fighter pilot to prepare him or her for their first operational 

squadron is approximately $11 million. A 1,200 fighter pilot shortage amounts to a $12 billion capital loss for the United States Air 

Force. 

Civilian aviation companies are actively recruiting the worldclass experience of our rated airmen because Air Force pilots are 

highly attractive with their diverse experience and quality aviation 

training. Outpacing RAND’s 2016 study, major airlines hired more 

than 4,100 pilots last year, and they increased the salary of their 

pilot force by an average of 17 percent. These annual hiring levels 

are expected to continue for the next 10 to 15 years. 
6 

Civilian job prospects are not the sole reason the Air Force is losing talent. A 2015 exit survey revealed additional influences to 

leave include too many duties unrelated to flying, inability to maintain work-life balance, and availability of civilian jobs, in that 

order. 

The Air Force’s plan to address these shortfalls is three-pronged: 

reduce requirements, increase production, and increase retention. 

The Air Force reduced the number of pilots filling operational planning positions in order to prioritize manning at flying squadrons. 

We also are leveraging our total force partners to bolster staff and 

operational planning positions, deployments, and in pilot training 

units, as appropriate. 

The Air Force recognizes the need to increase pilot production 

and will expand undergraduate pilot training to maximum capacity 

at 1,400 pilots a year. Future increases in throughput will require 

additional manpower, infrastructure, operations, and maintenance 

resources. 

From a retention perspective, the Air Force is implementing 

many nonmonetary programs to strengthen the culture and improve the quality of life and service for our airmen. For example, 

we reduced additional duties, eliminated non-mission-essential 

training courses, and outsourced select routine administrative 

tasks and operational squadrons, just to name a few. All of these 

efforts give time back to our aviators so they can focus on their primary duty: flying. 

We are also grateful for your support to authorize an increase in the aviation bonus to $35,000 a year, the first increase in 18 years. 

Through a tiered business case analysis, we will identify areas of 

greatest need to retain pilots in exchange for a commitment beyond 

their initial service commitment. We are also considering incentives for hard-to-fill assignments, when many airmen choose to separate from service in lieu of accepting the assignment. 

The Air Force is committed to a holistic strategy to maintain our 

pilot inventory as we face external and internal challenges. While 

we aggressively pursue creative means to respond to the demands 

on our pilots, our attention will be focused on developing an agile 

set of solutions. We will not hesitate to seek your support for revised or new authorities and resources, as appropriate. We appreciate your support as we address the competition for our talented 

aviators and move out on bold and innovative solutions. 

Thank you for your time today on this important matter. I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Grosso can be found in the 

Appendix on page 46.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Lieutenant General Grosso, thank you so much for 

your testimony. 

Major General Peterson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MG ERIK C. PETERSON, USA, DIRECTOR, ARMY 

AVIATION, UNITED STATES ARMY 

General PETERSON. Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to discuss Army Aviation pilot shortages and our mitigation strategy. 
7 

Army Aviation is an asymmetric advantage for our joint airground team, providing the reach, protection, lethality, and situational understanding required to win. At the foundation are our 

highly trained Army Aviation professionals. The pilot component of 

our Total Army aviation force consists of 14,000 rated aviators 

across the Regular Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army 

Reserve. 

Several years of sustained fiscal constraints have required the 

Army to make difficult resourcing choices. Out of necessity, we 

have prioritized short-term readiness over long-term recruiting and 

training. We simply could not afford to train the number of new pilots we need to sustain a healthy force, a growing challenge that 

is masked by relatively healthy current aggregate strength. Specifically, we have accumulated a shortage of 731 Regular Army aviation warrant officers across year groups 2010 through 2017. We are 

temporarily sustaining acceptable aggregate pilot manning by relying on senior aviation warrant officers to fill junior positions, over 

25 percent of which are retirement eligible. 

We are addressing these challenges and we will build long-term 

readiness through three lines of effort: retention, training throughput, and accessions. Retention of experienced pilots is key to mitigating 7 years of constrained training throughput. Although overall 

Army retention is healthy, we have seen a recent increase in Army 

Aviation warrant officer attrition from 7 to 9 percent annually. 

Given growing commercial demand, we expect this trend to continue unless addressed. 

In anticipation, we are formalizing targeted incentives that encourage pilots to continue their Army aviation careers and to retain 

those who achieve advanced qualifications. Additionally, we are 

correcting the accumulated deficit in our training throughput by 

fully resourcing our flight school. Fully resourcing our flight school 

is not a quick fix, and it must be phased in over several years. It 

will require consistent funding at increased levels to be successful. 

We are also increasing our aviation warrant officer accessions in 

concert with the increased throughput of our pilot training. Over 

the next 3 years, we will increase our Regular Army aviation warrant officer accession training throughput by nearly 170 students 

annually. 

In summary, we are addressing our pilot manning challenges 

while simultaneously meeting our enduring requirements. We currently have the sufficient authorities to implement our pilot retention, training throughput, and accessions increase. However, sustained, predictable, on-time funding, and relief from the Budget 

Control Act are vital to any enduring solution that we attempt to 

apply. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished members of the 

committee, thank you for your enduring support of our Army and 

your shared commitment to our Nation’s defense. 

[The prepared statement of General Peterson can be found in the 

Appendix on page 58.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Major General Peterson. I wish to 

thank—oh. I won’t do that again. 

So, if we look at the biggest reason on the demand side of this 

equation, I think it is two factors, and I don’t know which one is 
8 

dominant. So one factor is you have got an aging population of pilots on the civil aviation side, and that might have been aggravated 

by the fact that they increased the retirement age for pilots and 

so—and now we are hitting that increased retirement age. And so 

we are seeing some significant retirements. So that is obviously 

part of the demand side. But a significant part of the demand side 

too, I would think, is that, in response to an aviation accident—I 

am trying to remember what year it was. I think it was in New 

York State. 

General GROSSO. 2012, I think. 

Mr. COFFMAN. 2012? There were—the reaction to that was to 

plus-up the number of hours required to, I believe, 1,500 flight 

hours—— 

General GROSSO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN [continuing]. For the civilian airlines, FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] requirement. And so the quickest 

way to get that is to look at the military, because that is very hard 

to get on the civilian side. And so—and I don’t know if that—if the 

FAA needs to revisit that number, if that was an overreaction to 

that accident or not, but that does seem excessive. So that is on 

the demand side. 

And then—so, on the supply side, I believe, I know, Lieutenant 

General Grosso, you briefed me on a retention bonus structure that 

you want to put forward. Do you want to tell the subcommittee 

about that? And before you do, let me just preface it by saying that 

I really think that, within the National Defense Authorization Act 

[NDAA], there really needs to be an econometric reevaluation of 

that number on an annual basis that will adjust accordingly. This 

situation is not going to last forever. It is demand-and-supply 

curve, and eventually that demand is going to be satiated at some 

level. 

General Grosso. 

General GROSSO. Thank you, Chairman Coffman. 

Sir, you are correct. In accordance with the guidance we received 

in the 2017 authorization act, we did come up with a business 

model to understand where our greatest need was. And this model 

is the model we use to give all special and incentive pays across 

every skill set in the Air Force, which is about $927 million across 

the Air Force, but it has four factors: manning, retention, replacement costs, and replacement time. And manning is weighted at 40 

percent, retention at 40 percent, replacement cost at 10 percent, 

and replacement time at 10 percent. And basically you put all 

these numbers together, and you get rank ordering. And based on 

the increase in the bonus, which you gave us in the 2017 NDAA 

as well, we looked at the greatest need, and we stair-stepped it 

down to match the weapons systems that were most in need in accordance with your direction. 

And we will do this every single year. So the program we come 

out with this year could look different than the program we come 

out with next year because, to your point, the environment may 

change, and people that choose to come and go will change. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Is the bonus structure the same across the board? 

Are you—do you mirror the Air Force, or do you all have your own 

structure that you are looking at? 
9 

General Brilakis. 

General BRILAKIS. Sir, thank you. 

And, first of all, thank you to the Congress for the authorities in 

the NDAA. 

Since 2011, the Marine Corps has not paid a retention bonus to 

pilots. Our inventories were solid, and attrition was not a challenge. 

Now, what we did, we came down from 202,000, and we have arrived at 182,000. In doing that, in leveraging all the authorities 

that you gave us, the priority was to reduce numbers of marines. 

And we saw an unequal reduction. And our retention, which is 

ideally about 91 percent for aviators, in the officer community, fell 

down to 86 and 87 percent. So we lost some aviators. We have 

made that up through accessions. And our challenge right now is 

I have got about 500, just over 500 officers still in the training 

pipeline, more than I need. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

General BRILAKIS. Okay? This year, the Commandant, because, 

in addition to reducing the size of the force, we are introducing new 

type/model/series into the inventory, the F–35, we are continuing 

the MV–22, the new versions of the Cobra and Huey, et cetera, the 

Commandant is going forward requesting from the Secretary of the 

Navy and the Secretary of Defense authority to pay a retention 

bonus in three communities: F–35; F–18, because the legacy platforms are our most challenged platform right now; and then the V– 

22. F–35 and V–22 are currently growing communities, and we 

don’t want to be caught short in those aviation communities. 

When we came down in the reduction, what we found is we are 

a bit imbalanced. We have got more majors and lieutenant colonels 

than is preferred. We have fewer company-grade officers than we 

really need to be flying in our tactical squadrons. And so we want 

to make sure that we have the opportunity and leverage to maintain those young officers as they come out of their required commitment to us and capture them for that extra bit of time before we 

have got them by the throat. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, General Brilakis. 

Ms. Speier, you are now recognized. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for your service to our country. General Grosso, 

the $35,000 bonus, I am presuming that that is not going to be a 

check that is presented to the airman on day one. 

General GROSSO. That is correct, ma’am. Aviators in the Air 

Force have a 10-year pilot service commitment. So that is when 

they graduate from the undergraduate pilot training. So that training takes a year, and after that year, they have a 10-year commitment. So it is typically at the 11th year of service that an airman 

would be offered some form of bonus should we need it. 

Ms. SPEIER. But is that $35,000 given in a lump sum, or is it 

given per year based on the number of years that the aviator would 

continue to serve? 

General GROSSO. So it can be a range of options. And every year 

we look at this differently. This year we are proposing to offer contracts for a year, 2 years, 5 years, 9 years, and 13 years, and you 
10 

can take some of that up front, and some of it will be anniversary 

payments. 

Ms. SPEIER. So no one aviator is going to get a $35,000 check, 

or will they? 

General GROSSO. It would—if they took it for a year, yes, ma’am, 

they would. And they would—they would owe us an additional year 

Active Duty service commitment. 

Ms. SPEIER. So, conceivably, an aviator would stay a total of 2 years and get a $35,000 bonus in day one? What happens if they 

decide to just quit? Do you claw that back? 

General GROSSO. Yes, ma’am. Yes. You must recoup. And the 

thinking on the 1 year was because of the work that we are doing 

on the culture piece, those things take time. And we have to build 

trust with our airmen, because after significant long periods of conflict where we took our eye off the ball a little bit, we have talked 

about putting resources back in the squadron. One of our chief’s 

primary goals is to revitalize the squadron, and we think that is 

getting traction, but that will take time. And we have gotten feedback from airmen they—if they—they are going to give us a year, 

basically. So they are going to take it for a year and see if we really 

mean what we say with some of these quality of life and quality 

of service, and then that gives them a chance to relook and take— 

in another year say, ‘‘Hey, are we doing better? Is my family in a 

good place? Did you do what you say you are going to, Air Force?’’ 

And then, next year, they will go into a new—we will look at the 

environment; we will look at what our retention patterns look like. 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. I am trying to get another question in. 

I particularly wanted to talk about nonmonetary inducements. 

And I noted that, in the report, there was a reference made to 260 

days away during deployment for some of these aviators and 110 

days away even when you are on home temporary duty. So those 

are long stretches away. And in your actual statement, General 

Grosso, there is a chart here that shows that actually the ranking 

of the lure of civilian jobs is much lower than additional duties, 

which was at 37 percent, and maintaining work-life balance and 

meeting family commitments, which was at 31 percent. Availability 

of civilian jobs was at 24 percent. 

So I think the lure of commercial airline jobs, while it does have 

some allure, I think addressing those top two would be significant. 

So, to each of you, I would like to ask the question in a minute 36, 

what, if anything, you are doing to try and address the nonmonetary issues. 

General BRILAKIS. Thank you, Ranking Member Speier. 

We did a survey about 18 months ago, and talking to our enlisted 

force and our officers on those issues of most importance to them. 

Flying hours is the number one concern. They want more time in 

the cockpit. They want more time in the back. Number two was the 

parts available to get those aircraft up so they could do that flying. 

And then the last—the third issue, which was of most concern to 

them, was the cycle, the tight cycle. As you know, the Marine 

Corps is on about a 1-to-2 ratio for deployment to dwell, and that 

is a very tight cycle. So three concerns: one, they want more time 

to fly; they want more parts to fix; and they would like a little bit 

more time at home. 
11 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. Admiral Burke. 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, ma’am. Similar situation for the Navy as 

the Marine Corps. It is flying time first. Again, they are getting 

plenty of it while they are deployed. Our deployment lengths had 

ramped up considerably as our force size went down over the 

course of 15 years, while our, you know, number of ships at sea on 

any given day remained the same. That is starting to come under 

control now. 

The things like PCS [permanent change of station] move lead 

times shrank down as we used PCS funding as a means of making 

our top-line budget come within under control. So families were 

getting a month, month and a half of lead time to move in the summer going to non-fleet concentration areas where it was difficult to 

find housing and things of that nature. 

And then just other sort of normal quality-of-service types of 

things, administrative distractions, career flexibility. We have really been using the tremendous flexibility that you gave us with the 

Career Intermission Program to good effect, particularly in the 

aviation community. We have had 13 aviators in, and 9 have come 

through it. In fact—— 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. My time has expired. Let’s see if we can—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Go ahead. 

Admiral BURKE. Sir, we just had a female O–4, was one of our 

top helicopters pilots that would have gotten out. We were able to 

convince her to take advantage of the Career Intermission Program 

so that she could get out. She was married to a naval aviator as 

well. And she got out, started a family. Just finished her intermission. Came back in, did her department head tour, did absolutely 

phenomenally, last week screened for commanding officer. So another success story there. 

But it is things like that where we have to add the career flexibility while our pilots are out of the cockpit to do life things and 

come back in and reenter the cockpit and be competitive in their 

careers. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Russell, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

General GROSSO. Ma’am, we also have done—I would put it—— 

Ms. SPEIER. Actually, maybe you could fold your answers into responses. 

Mr. COFFMAN. We can come back to that. 

Ms. SPEIER. Oh. We will come back to that question. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Russell, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate all of the things that you do. A couple of the 

questions—it is bonus question time. How much does American 

Airlines offer bonuses up to their pilots, for regional pilots? 

Bueller? Anyone? It is $35,000. Interesting figure. 

And so, you know, once again, we go in this chasing around that 

the $35,000 is some astronomical figure, when the reality is that 

is competitive to what the airlines are providing to very junior pilots in the course of their careers. And, you know, the phrase that 

comes to mind is nothing’s too good for the troops, and nothing’s 

what they get, you know. 
12 

So I applaud, you General Grosso, for putting together the proposals for the bonuses. They do retain. 

And, General Peterson, if I may, because of your extensive background in 160th SOAR [Special Operations Aviation Regiment], 

you are a very unique pilot with a very unique background. If you 

don’t have the types of pilots in our special ops aviation community, what impact does that have on the missions that our Rangers 

and our special operations forces [SOF] community do that we rely 

so heavily on for most of our missions? Could you speak to that for 

a little bit? 

General PETERSON. Without the retention of hand-selected and 

then exceptionally highly trained aircraft commanders, pilots, and 

command—air mission commanders, one, we would not be able to 

accomplish the complex missions in support of our elite SOF 

ground forces that our Nation asks us to do. The physical skill, the 

planning ability, the judgment, the maturity, and the leadership 

would not be present, and we would not have the ability to accumulate and grow that in support of the missions that they are 

asked for. 

Further, we would not be able to sustain those capabilities over 

time. Those same leaders that are selected and are retained at 

some cost and investment are also the mentors and teachers for the 

next generation. So they serve to accomplish their missions today, 

but they also grow the next generation that our Nation will rely 

upon. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, I can tell you from my own experiences, even 

as a combat infantryman, without helicopters to have conveyed us 

to a location, we would have had a lot less options on how to get 

to the enemy. And even without the United States Air Force, our 

paratroopers would have no delivery capability of any length to get 

to or even logistics or emergency supply parts or any number of 

things. 

So, really, this pilot shortage goes beyond just having, you know, 

somebody with the flight suit and standing next to the aircraft 

with a cool picture. It literally is everything that our military relies 

on no matter what their capacity is. And yet a typical warrant— 

you are talking about the aging of the warrant population. Even a 

W4, what are they making? $60,000 a year? I am not sure what 

it would be today. Anybody have an idea of what that would be? 

General PETERSON. It would be closer to $80,000 a year. 

Mr. RUSSELL. 80? Okay. So $80,000. And yet it takes $11 million 

to train a pilot to their first combat mission. Now, you know, I am 

not a mathematics major or a rocket scientist, but, you know, $11 

million or $35,000. Let’s see, retain them a couple more years or 

not. It seems like a good investment because when we don’t do it, 

much like the cliff that we had with our air traffic controllers in 

the 1980s, when President Reagan said, ‘‘Okay, fine, you want to 

protest; we will just hire a bunch of new ones,’’ and they did, but 

then they all left in one shot. And 25 percent of the pilot force just 

in the Army, not only are you losing your most experienced warriors as they go out of the cockpits and out of the service, but you 

don’t readily replace them, and then you are not going to have the 

incentive to bring them in. 
13 

And so I just want to say, for the record, I applaud what you do. 

We have to fix the problem. We can’t ignore it and we can’t say: 

‘‘Hey, you know, we will give you some busted up, you know, Army 

relief service furniture or something in your quarters, and that will 

be a good incentive for you.’’ We have to do better. 

So, with that, I am out of time. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Russell. 

Mr. Gallego, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is really for all the witnesses. So better data is obviously 

critical in shaping the response to the emerging pilot shortage we 

have in the military. Have we undertaken a comprehensive survey 

to better understand the pilot attitudes, whether it is across the 

services or each individual services or within each individual MOS 

[military occupational specialty], or whatever it is called on the officer level, and the factors that drive their decisions to either renew 

their commitments to serve or to pursue other careers with commercial airlines or just outside the military altogether? 

And we can just start from left to right with Lieutenant General 

Brilakis. 

General BRILAKIS. Thank you very much, Representative Gallego. 

As I said earlier, about 18 months ago, we pursued a specific survey to take a look at both officer and enlisted attitudes. We got 

good information from that. We are working on a longitudinal set 

of surveys that will cover a marine either from their first enlistment all the way through a 30-year career. It allows us to go in 

and take a look at attitudes on retention and separation, et cetera. 

So we believe that that will provide us better information in the 

future. 

The specific targeted survey that we did gave us really great 

feedback. It is not about money. It is not necessarily about jobs. It 

is about doing what they came into the Marine Corps to do, which 

is to fly airplanes, fix airplanes, and then serve those aircraft. 

On the officer side, our challenge is the number of Ready Basic 

Aircraft. It has been an issue. We have worked hard through it. 

And having those aircraft available to get that flight time, get the 

marine—get the pilots those hours per month that are necessary. 

On the enlisted side, it is the same thing. It is the satisfaction 

of seeing an aircraft you are responsible for actually take off loaded 

with bombs to go do the mission. And so those are the things we 

are working on as well. 

On our enlisted side, we are looking at—we do bonus for retention, but we are also looking to—seeking to capture experience, to 

retain it into—in the squadrons, and that is another initiative we 

are bringing forward this year. 

But you are absolutely right. Data is important. And we have 

specific data for right now, but we are working on having better 

data for the future. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you. 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. We do the exact same approach in the 

Navy, looking at everything from things that will inform our entire 

portfolio of Sailor 2025 efforts, which is aimed at everything under 

the nonmonetary aspect of things, everything from how we do detailing and assignments processes, to evaluations and fitness re-
14 

ports, to promotion boards and promotion policies, all the way 

down to, you know, our physical fitness programs and health and 

wellness things. 

But in addition to looking at all that data and our family services 

and spousal employment and all those sorts of aspects, I mean, we 

have a very good pulse on exactly where we stand with retention 

at our critical points. We target our retention bonuses for our naval 

aviators at the two critical points, which are department head, 

which is at the lieutenant commander level for naval aviators, and 

then at the post-command level after they have had O–5 or commander command. And we vary the rate at which we pay the bonuses by the type, model, and series of aircraft. And that is really 

largely a reflection of what their opportunities, how their job skills 

might translate into the outside job markets. 

And we know exactly how many have committed, because the 

contract lengths are designed to obligate them through that critical 

career milestone. So we have a very good indicator at all times of 

how many we have committed. And we talk to them almost on a 

weekly basis, how many are on the fence, how many are likely to 

say yes, and how many are definitely going to say no. So we keep 

a pulse of that all the time, and that helps inform our force management, if that answers your question. 

General GROSSO. We do, sir. We have—there is a survey you will 

see in the written statement, which is a retention survey that goes 

to the entire force every other year, and that is the data that Ranking Member Speier pointed out. But we also have exit surveys, and 

an exit survey is a person that has told us they are going to leave. 

They have established what we call the date of separation. And so 

that gives you sort of more real-time thinking. 

And that—from our pilots, the data is about the same. Maintaining work-life balance is the number one reason, and that is 45 percent. Availability of civilian jobs is 28 percent. And the potential 

to leave your family. And if you think about an aviator, over their 

12 years of commitment, in a 1-to-3 dwell, every 3 years, they have 

deployed 180 days. And they come back, because they are not proficient in the high-end fight, they go on TDY [temporary duty] a 

lot to get proficient again. So, when you are forcing the—sort of 

looking at their options, in the structure of the civilian airline industry, there is an incentive to get in early. So I realize I am out 

of time, but—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Go ahead, please, General Grosso. Go ahead and 

finish. 

General GROSSO. So the way the civilian industry is structured, 

it is a sort of first-in/move-up system. So, as you are at the 12-year 

point and you are looking back on a very busy life and things that 

we need do better on quality of service, which we are looking on, 

they say, ‘‘Gosh, should I get out and start my line number’’—many 

of them affiliate in the Reserve Component—so that they can start 

that successful second career for their family. And that is why that 

12-year point is very important from a civilian hiring. And we 

know, we have data going back 30 years, that as airline hiring goes 

up, retention goes down, and we can correlate that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Bacon, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BACON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
15 

I appreciate all four of you being here today again for subcommittee. Grateful to you. 

What I would like to ask those who are doing the bonus, do we 

have some data that shows that it is actually effective, that it is 

a good return on investment, because we know how many people 

sign up for the bonus, but how do we know how many of those 

would have signed up anyway to stay in? Do we have some data 

that shows that this does bring a sizeable number over? 

And the genesis of my concern is a lot of the reasons people are 

getting out has very little to do with the money itself; it is more 

about the other factors that were mentioned here. So just curious, 

can we correlate the number of folks that take the bonus by percentage or that said that that was the main reason why they 

stayed in? 

General GROSSO. I can’t correlate it that way, but what I can tell 

you, we did look: people that don’t take the bonus, 96 percent separate. So we do know that people that don’t take the bonus separate, 

and we do know that about two-thirds of them go to the airlines. 

So one-third don’t. 

But to your point, there is no question that you are paying some 

people to stay. So we think—I think all of us would agree, onethird, one-third, one-third, but because it is such a precious resource and because we invest so much money to make them, we 

think the tradeoff is worth it. 

Mr. BACON. But we are not really too sure how many of those 

who sign up for the bonus would have stayed in anyway. 

General GROSSO. No. You are correct. 

Mr. BACON. Okay. 

Admiral BURKE. Similar situation for the Navy. You just—you 

get to the point where, for some individuals, it could be economic, 

right. Exactly right. 

General PETERSON. With respect to the Army, sir, we are not applying the bonus at this point to our overall forces. We have used 

it as a targeted incentive in our special operations community only. 

And we feel like we have very good return on investment and 

trends with that very small population, but we are anticipating employing some of these incentives beginning in fiscal year 2018. 

Mr. BACON. Okay. And I know you are not doing the bonus, I 

don’t believe, on the Marine side, right? 

General BRILAKIS. No, sir. This year for—in fiscal year 2018, we 

will, for the first time since 2011, we will offer a retention bonus 

in three communities, because those are the communities where we 

believe we have some concerns. 

But to your point, statistically, analytically, et cetera, there is 

really not a whole lot of connection between paying a bonus and 

guaranteeing retention. 

Mr. BACON. It seems to me that we could get that data with a 

little bit of research and asking the right questions, because I think 

it would help make the case better that this is a good investment, 

seeing direct correlation of more people signing up. Just my 

thoughts. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bacon. 

Let’s see. Mr. Abraham, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 
16 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

By trade, I am a physician, and when I refer a patient to a heart 

surgeon, I hopefully always send them to the best, because they actually hold a life in their hands, much as your aviators do. The difference is they also hold the life in their hand while, by the way, 

dodging bullets. So it is a whole different dynamic on the level of 

our—not only our military aviators, but our military personnel in 

all. 

The other aspect is the intellectual knowledge base of an aviator 

that has been in service for 10 to 11 years is phenomenal, and I 

would compare that to a top tier executive level in a company as 

IBM, one of the big ones. And when they give them bonuses, they 

are not talking thousands; they are talking millions of retention bonuses to keep that intellectual property in place. 

Major General Peterson, I will ask you the question first. How 

does a CR [continuing resolution] for the remainder of fiscal year 

2017 affect pilot shortage? 

General PETERSON. In the very straight, simple terms, sir, it 

stops our initiatives to mitigate this. We will not be able to increase the throughput in our flight school with respect to investments in additional instructor pilots, contract instructor pilots, contract maintenance, as well as sustained additional airframes for 

the school. So it will essentially defer this problem another year 

until we have the requisite funding that has been budgeted for by 

the Army to implement these incentives. And then we will get closer to that cliff that we discussed about with the top-heavy population, the disproportionate top-heavy retirement eligible population. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. If we carry that forward with an imposition of sequestration in 2018, what does that do for your readiness? 

General Peterson, I will start with you. 

General PETERSON. In addition to exacerbating the pilot readiness challenge that we have, we will suffer readiness hurdles. With 

respect to airframe material readiness, very significant and important modernization programs will either be halted or slowed, to include the CH–47 Block 2, the Improved Turbine Engine Program, 

the Future Vertical Lift initiative and program. Probably the most 

salient and important is that we will slow or defer very important 

protection and countermeasures initiatives that are underway right 

now. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Other comments on the CR 2017, how will it affect 

each of y’all’s services? If you don’t mind going down the line. 

General BRILAKIS. Sir, if I—yeah. Real quickly, sir, very similar 

to General Peterson. We won’t be able to execute the bonuses that 

we would like to. Our retention season actually begins in July. So 

that will be impacted. The funds that are available to do that won’t 

be available. We will by the summertime have to basically idle 24 

flying squadrons. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Wow. 

General BRILAKIS. And then on top of that, with the lack of 

spares and repair parts, we are going to take a step backwards on 

the readiness efforts that we have done to bring back the number 

of Ready Basic Aircraft that are available for our pilots to fly. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Admiral Burke. 
17 

Admiral BURKE. For the Navy, we would be forced to reduce 

flight hours across all Navy aviation; 15 to 20 percent reduction in 

fleet replacement training squadrons. Those are the training 

squadrons. One-third of our junior aviators would not be able to 

complete basic qualifications and certifications. So squadrons going 

forward would be 20 to 30 percent undermanned, and that would 

pay forward for several years. I would be forced to cut accessions 

by a thousand going forward in April. That would translate directly 

to gapped billets at sea and ashore, including ultimately pilots, instructors, and aviation maintenance folks. And then there would be 

impacts to PCS fundings, which would cause delays in issuing orders and quality of service and quality of life, as we have discussed 

earlier. And then, similar to what General Brilakis laid out, we 

would have to stop bonus payments on most critical skills. So it 

would impact retention of, you know, experienced and specialized 

sailors, including aviation officers and aviation maintenance rates. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. General, real quick. 

General GROSSO. I echo—I mean, very much like the other services, it would have a devastating impact on our readiness, and we 

would have to stop flying, which has all the other negative consequences of trying to keep these aviators in the force. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, just one comment. You know, it is my understanding that 

now it is difficult not only to maintain just currency but certainly 

to maintain readiness. And those are two different numbers of 

flight hours, I understand that; to be able to just to fly the plane 

but to be able to fly and fight are two completely separate and distinct issues. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the indulgence. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Dr. Wenstrup, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here today. 

One question. What is tougher right now, recruitment, initial recruitment, or retention? What do you have the most trouble with? 

If we can go down the line. 

General BRILAKIS. Sir, fortunately, neither is a problem. 

Admiral BURKE. Navy overall recruiting is good. We just made 

our 120th consecutive month of meeting our recruiting mission. We 

are seeing beginnings of fraying at the edges. 

Overall, retention is good, although we are seeing individual specific areas, such as aviation officers, nuclear rates, special operations forces, and information warfare, you know, cryptological 

types of rates—we are having individual retention challenges there, 

but we are able to manage those with the authorities we have right 

now. 

General GROSSO. We have no issue recruiting talented people to 

be aviators. Our sole issue is retention, and we are not retaining 

enough to sustain the force. 

General PETERSON. We are not facing challenges with recruiting 

either. However, that recruiting pool is artificially restrained because of our throughput challenges due to tough fiscal decisions. 

We are seeing leading indicators of impending retention challenges 
18 

based on the retirement eligibility of our force as well as the increase in commercial demand. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. And I just have another point of curiosity, I 

guess. You are getting exit information, exit surveys. On the exit 

survey, do you ask them why they joined to begin with, or do you 

know that on entry? I imagine the entry reason is pretty much the 

same for everybody, to be honest with you, for many reasons, wanting to serve, et cetera, but on their exit, do you ask them why they 

joined? And I am just curious what changed for them to want to 

leave. 

General BRILAKIS. So what our experience—I commanded the recruiting force for a couple of years. So we had the opportunity to 

kind of watch that. And you are right. I mean, the American youth 

join the service in general for a number of predictable reasons. 

Why they join each different service, again, some predictable reasons. 

Why they leave, sometimes it is the opportunity to remain in the 

Marine Corps. We only retain about 27 percent of every year’s cohort because two-thirds of our force is in the operating forces and 

about one-third is in the supporting establishment. And it is a 

young force; it is a fighting force. 

When I answered your question, I was talking about the aviation 

enterprise, aviation maintainers, et cetera. We have some retention 

issues in the cyber force and some of the high-demand, low-density 

MOSes. Some of the reasons folks leave those is because there are 

opportunities on the outside. I mean, I can take a cyber marine 

who is getting paid maybe $55,000 a year; he is leaving and picking up a job for about $190,000 plus. Those are challenges that— 

I don’t think you are going to give us enough money to throw at 

those particular problems, but why they come and why they go 

have been pretty much standard across the board. The thing that 

is amazing right now is, with the employment rate as low as it is, 

we are still finding good people who want to serve. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. That is good to hear. Good Americans. I am referring more to aviation than anything else. Admiral. 

Admiral BURKE. I think a lot of people—well, now that you have 

changed the question to be specific to aviation, I mean, they join 

for the adventure and to be that part of something bigger than 

themselves. And I think they find that here and they are generally 

very happy with it. 

Why they leave, I mean, all the reasons we talked about earlier, 

but then there is the family separation thing. We ask a lot of our 

folks, and it is not for everyone. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. I am guessing a lot, when they enter, are younger, for one, and possibly single at the time. 

Admiral BURKE. They grow up and mature, and things change. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Yeah. General. 

General GROSSO. Yes, I would agree with that. They are just at 

different points in their life. And I think you make decisions depending on your situation 12 years later, which is very different 

than when you joined. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Right. 
19 

General PETERSON. Although I can presume that trends are probably the same, I am not aware of any specific question that we are 

asking on an exit survey that would substantiate that. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. All right. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Kelly, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, General Peterson, I am going to start with you real quick 

and talk about ARI [Aviation Restructure Initiative]. And they 

asked about—or they were going to get UH–72 Lakotas to modernize and enhance pilot training at Fort Rucker, where they train 

our aviation pilots in the Army. The goal was to retire the older 

fleet and create a more relevant, safer, and cost-effective training. 

Could you update us on how the modernization of helicopter pilot 

training is progressing, to include observations from the initial 

pilot training classes on the Lakota trainer? 

General PETERSON. Our modernization efforts are slowed a bit 

right now, just partially due to fiscal decisions on our fielding plans 

for the Lakota as well as some ongoing litigation. 

The Lakota is proving to be an exceptionally reliable and very 

beneficial trainer. It is too early to comprehensively substantiate 

the full benefit. 

What we do know is that the use of a more complex aircraft in 

initial pilot training, a twin-engine aircraft with essentially a modern glass cockpit, is translating very well to the assimilation of 

skills in the combat aircraft that the initial-entry aviators transition into for their subsequent training phases. And we are looking 

forward to substantiating that and objectively documenting that as 

we get to the pure fleet. 

At this point, we are roughly half-and-half, with respect to the 

very early phases, with our legacy fleet training aircraft and the 

Lakota. 

Mr. KELLY. And we have talked about—I am not going to put you 

on the spot, but the bottom line is there is a lawsuit that is slowing 

that down. And that definitely has an impact on not going forward 

and replacing with something, that has an impact on our training 

and readiness and the ability to train our new pilots. 

Would that be correct, General Peterson? 

General PETERSON. It does. But, again, we are compensating 

with the extension of the legacy aircraft, which was proven in past 

years, sir. 

Mr. KELLY. And this is for Lieutenant General Grosso. 

One question that I have, the $35,000 bonus, it amazes me that 

anyone questions that. After 5 years in service, that 11-year captain that gets out or a warrant officer, that 11-year person at that 

time that is critical, when they go to the airlines 5 years later, they 

are probably at the airline making double what a U.S. Army major 

or a U.S. Air Force major or a WO3 would be making at that point. 

Would be that correct? 

General GROSSO. The data we have right now is very quickly you will get to $160,000 a year, so probably. I haven’t really done the 

math, but I think that is correct. 

Mr. KELLY. Yeah, quite a bit. And that is not for the 20-year 

guys. I know. I have missed every bonus I have ever been offered 

because I was too old to get it and been in too long when it became 
20 

critical. But that is those 11- and 12-year people at that critical 

stage, that midlevel management, that is when that $35,000 is applied, that critical point in their career. Is that correct? 

General GROSSO. That is correct. 

Mr. KELLY. And this is for all three of you all. And I don’t know 

if you have experienced it, but there are some things you can’t replicate—you know, the CTCs [Combat Training Centers] in the military and the Army or your Red Flags in the Air Force or those 

things. But does anything replicate combat experience other than 

combat experience? 

General BRILAKIS. I think it is relative to the combat experience 

you have gotten. If you are doing low-level counterinsurgency operation, you are getting a much better overall training experience at 

Red Flag or at the Fighter Weapons School or at WTI [Weapons 

and Tactics Instructor]. That is all high-end stuff against simulated 

high-threat IADS [integrated air defense systems]. But, I mean, 

combat is combat. 

Mr. KELLY. And, again, those things are great, and I have done 

many of those things, but it still doesn’t replicate. 

And then I guess the final question that I would have is, it is 

not just the flying experience that you lose, it is also that command 

experience, that leadership, that management. So a brand-new 

flight trainee coming out of Columbus Air Force Base in my district 

does not have the same skills as that major who has been an operations officer for a squadron. 

Would that be correct, Lieutenant General Grosso? 

General GROSSO. Yes, sir, it would. 

Mr. KELLY. And so, just taking out the flying side of that, you 

can’t replicate that leadership experience at those critical levels, 

midlevel management, whether you are talking about maintenance 

in the NCO [noncommissioned officer] level or warrant officers who 

were WO3s or majors or senior captains. You can’t replicate that 

anywhere, can you? 

General GROSSO. No, you can’t. It takes 10 years to make it. 

Mr. KELLY. And if you get out, you can’t get back in and start 

over at the same spot, can you? 

General GROSSO. Well, we do have programs to bring people in 

that have separated. But it is challenging because we don’t have 

enough capacity to train them again. 

Mr. KELLY. Yes, ma’am. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. 

Let’s see. Colonel Martha McSally, United States Air Force, retired A–10 pilot, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, all of you, for 

your testimony. 

I think you have talked about it at some level, but some of the 

conversations I have had with some of the leadership in the services is about it not being a win-lose and a finite pie when we are 

looking at this as a nation. 

We have requirements for our airlines, and a good, strong, growing economy and airline industry is good. We have requirements 

for our military. And if we are looking at this as a finite pie and 

win-lose, in the end, we are not going to be able to compete, probably, with quality of life and, you know, resources, and especially 
21 

at a time where pilots are not flying and, because of sequestration, 

they are doing more ‘‘queep’’ and all the stuff that drives you crazy, 

right, and impact on the family. 

So what are you all thinking innovatively about turning this into 

a win-win, to partner with the airlines for individuals to be able 

to fly in the military and maybe have seasons of flying with the 

airlines and then come back for a 3-year tour later on and then go 

back to the airlines, so that we are partnering together and we are 

all winning as opposed to competing with each other? 

General GROSSO. So, ma’am, our chief is meeting with the senior 

executives in the airline industry, and we are looking at just that. 

And based on the authorities that Congress has already given us 

with the Career Intermission Program, we are going to see if we 

can get, to your point, a win-win and get some predictability for the 

airmen, who may want to start their line number early, and get 

predictability for the Air Force and how can we get a better winwin. 

And we are also starting to look at can we allow aviators to fly 

part-time on their own. 

So I think those are just two ideas, and there are, I think, many 

more ways to think about this, for the Nation to get a win-win between the military and the private sector. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yeah, I totally agree. And when you think about 

the bonus and people at that 12-year point, you know, taking the 

bonus, in the past, maybe you get somebody inching towards the 

13, 14, with the old retirement system, even if they didn’t necessarily want to stay, they would start to make a decision like, 

‘‘Well, I might as well just suck it up and get to 20 now.’’ I mean, 

not everyone is like me, thinking about getting out at 18, the last 

time that I previously did. Most normal people, I think, as they get 

closer to 20. 

Are you concerned about the blended retirement system and that 

not providing a hook, you know, to bridge them from, say, 13, 14 

to 20 now, that they have the option to leave? Is that, do you think, 

going to be a factor? 

General GROSSO. Well, we are concerned because we really don’t 

know. We do a lot of force modeling, and we know how the old retirement system pulls people. So you are exactly right. But we do 

have that continuation pay in the new retirement system, and the 

intent of that is to get people to 20. So we are going to have to be 

very agile at executing that. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Any other services? 

Admiral BURKE. I would just add, we thank you for the help in 

the fiscal year 2017 NDAA that gave us the flexibility of the timing 

on that continuation period. That was very important to us, because we see that as a component, with existing retention tools 

that we have. Because, you know, we are going to probably have 

to modulate those other retention tools, along with that continuation pay, to influence retention behavior. So, together, we think 

we will be able to influence the behavior that we need to get them 

to 20 and beyond. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. Thanks. 

I think, you know, the career intermission is a great first step 

in a direction of—I just think, in general, the next generation, they 
22 

want to be able to move in and out of the workforce, go get different experiences. I think we need to open up that revolving door. 

And when you think about the millions of dollars it takes to 

bring somebody to become a 10-year pilot, for example—how long 

does it take to replace a 10-year pilot, right? It is a joke, right? Ten 

years—many of them got out and didn’t go to the airlines. Maybe 

they, you know, went to start a business of their own or they tried 

some other—grass is always greener, and now they are realizing 

they miss the camaraderie, they miss the mission. 

So I would really urge you to look—and it is challenging to try 

and find these people—where are the experienced pilots that have 

left? Maybe they are 2, 3, 5, 8 years out. It doesn’t matter. I mean, 

retraining them, with the experience they have had, and bringing 

them back even for one assignment is worth the investment if you 

can find them. 

Are you doing any initiatives to go find those that are not in the 

airlines but, you know, working in many different sectors of the 

economy? 

General BRILAKIS. We have a Return to Active Duty Program. It 

has to be a short MOS. We are looking for the talent. I am not 

quite sure we ever looked at anybody being away for 6 or 8 years. 

Still have a PFT [physical fitness test] to get past. But we are open 

to those opportunities. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yeah, I just think it is that kind of, sort of, innovation that we have to be thinking of in order to not say, ‘‘Oh, we 

have to produce some more pilots,’’ and just start at the beginning 

of, you know, the line again. 

General BRILAKIS. Yes, ma’am. We have had conversations with 

industry as well, similar to what General Grosso discussed. And we 

are taking a look at the CIP [Career Intermission Program] and 

how we could fit that into a model that works for us. 

Admiral BURKE. One of the items that we are working on under 

Sailor 2025 is more permeability between the Active and Reserve 

Components in the Navy. We are nowhere near as permeable as 

the Army and Air Force are and would like to get more. 

But, recently, we brought a number of Reserve Component airline pilots now, but they were former naval aviators, in to help us 

stand up our remote-pilot Triton project down in Jacksonville. And, 

you know, they wanted to stay, so we were able to help them out. 

So, after having gone to the airline industry, they wanted to come 

back. So there is a little bit of that dynamic as well. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. Thanks. I am out of time. I appreciate it. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. McSally. 

Vice Admiral Burke, going back to this retention bonus structure, 

can you brief the subcommittee in terms of what you are looking 

at right now in terms of a bonus retention structure? 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. Our current structure right now, we 

have two main points of concern. So our department head area is 

the most critical, and that applies for lieutenant commanders. And 

we pay by type/model/series or community, the type that they are 

flying. Our most critical needs right now are electronic attack aircraft, strike fighters, and then helicopter mine countermeasures. 

And those folks are getting the top rates, and we are paying them at—current rate is $25,000 per year. And then, depending on 
23 

type/model/series, others are less. And they are eligible for that 

after they finish their initial obligation, which is 8 years after 

winging. So typical winging occurs at about the 3—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Define ‘‘winging.’’ 

Admiral BURKE. Yeah, at 3 years. You get your aviator wings at 

about the 3-year point after you finish flight school. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Admiral BURKE. So it is probably somewhere between 10 and 11 

years of commissioned service is when your Active Duty service obligation is over. 

So they become eligible for this bonus. And this bonus now obligates them for 5 years, which takes them through a department 

head tour and all the way through. If for some reason they don’t 

select for O–4, they don’t make it through their department head 

tour, we recoup. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Oh. 

Admiral BURKE. So, you know, they don’t get paid for that which 

they do not serve. 

So there is that aspect of it, and then we vary the rates. We put 

some economic factors in there. We have some economic modeling 

that we base the rates on. It is not extremely sophisticated. It is 

the best that we have available to us. We are working to get much 

more predictive analytics behind it and make it more sophisticated 

as we go forward. 

And then our second critical zone is the post command level. So 

the first command opportunity is at the O–5 for commander level 

in the Navy, and then we ask them to obligate to the post-command level. There are numerous post-command jobs on aircraft carriers, such as, you know, the operations officers, the air bosses, 

things like that, that run critical operations on aircraft carriers. 

And we need them to obligate to stick around a little bit longer. 

And we structure that bonus to keep them at least through the 

window where they would make O–6, the theory being that, once 

they make O–6, they will stick around a little bit longer. So that 

is a 2-year bonus at $18,000 per year. 

And both of those have had some positive effect. We are not getting exactly the response we want, so we are going to tweak both 

of those this year, both in terms of the bands and the numbers a 

little bit. But we don’t expect to make full use of the legislative authority that you have given us, but we are going to move them both 

a little bit up in each direction. 

One of the ideas that we are looking at here is something that 

we did in the surface warfare community last year. We tied merit 

to the bonuses, as well as need, and early-look screeners for the 

next milestone. So, in the case of aviators, if you screen early for 

department head, that is based on a look at your professional performance. The idea would be perhaps they are eligible for the 

bonus earlier and could get extra payments for it, thereby you are 

securing a contract with the best talent sooner. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Admiral BURKE. So we are looking at structuring something 

along those lines. 

But, right now, we are paying for those two specific windows at 

a fraction of the available authority you have given us. 
24 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Major General Peterson, United States 

Army, what is your approach in terms of retention bonuses going 

forward? 

General PETERSON. Sir, we are looking at two specific targeted 

windows at the outset. First is at the cessation of their obligation 

for flight school, which is the 6-year mark. That will be the first 

hook for a multiyear commitment subsequent to that. And then at 

the retirement window, to retain that talent subsequently. 

It is too early for us to tell the impacts of the blended retirement 

and the opportunities that may pull that window left to that 15- 

year mark. But we are looking for those leading indicators. 

And then, last, we are exploring warrant officer aviation incentives, not tied to merit, but tied to actual, objective qualifications 

for advanced qualifications and skills, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Fair enough. 

Let me just say one thing to all the services, in that I believe 

that this situation is temporary, this national shortage of pilots. 

And my concern is what always seems to happen in government is 

that there is a response to it and somehow there is a feeling that, 

once that response is baked in, that it is permanent. 

And I just want to stress that this is really a temporary solution 

to a temporary problem. And I fully expect that we will come up— 

that you will come up with dynamic measures that, as this problem 

recedes, that these retention bonuses recede. 

Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I would also like to point out that I have a friend who 

did over 30 years at United Airlines as a captain, and, you know, 

pilots talk. And the United Airlines retirement system went belly 

up, and instead of getting $150,000 a year in retirement benefits 

per year, it was reduced to something like $60,000. So that is something to remember, too, in terms of the solid nature of the retirement system that exists in the U.S. Government. 

So a couple of quick questions, and I won’t belabor any of this. 

General Grosso, there was a time in the not-so-distant past when 

the Air Force was giving the same bonus out to all pilots regardless 

of whether there was a particular need in a particular specialty so 

that, you know, a tanker pilot was getting the same bonus as a 

fighter pilot. 

Have you changed that now so that it reflects more in terms of 

what your need is? 

General GROSSO. Yes, ma’am, we have. And I can give you great 

detail when you have time. 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. I was kind of alarmed when I heard, in answer to one of my colleagues’ questions about the continuing resolution, that we would conceivably be in a position where we offered 

a bonus to an aviator and then, because we are doing a CR instead 

of an appropriation, that we end up reneging on that bonus. Is that 

what happens? 

General BRILAKIS. The challenge in the CR, if it wasn’t authorized in the previous year, we are not authorized to pay it. And so, 

if we had planned to a pay a bonus in the fiscal year 2018 timeframe that we weren’t paying—and, remember, we are going to be 

doing a bonus for the first time in 6 years, so it is not in our 2017 
25 

budget. It wasn’t in our 2016 budget, and so it won’t be available 

to us in this 2017 year budget. And the flexibility, we will have to 

reprogram—have to go for a specific reprogramming action to free 

up the dollars to be able to do that. 

Ms. SPEIER. But we now have a contract with this aviator to give 

him this bonus, and we are reneging on it? Or you are saying we 

are reprogramming dollars so you are able to pay that bonus? 

General BRILAKIS. It is about reprogramming money. 

Ms. SPEIER. Got it. Okay. I think it is really important not to renege on these bonuses. I think that would be a disaster in the making. 

I think it was you, General Brilakis, who was talking about 

parts, was it not? Or was it you, Admiral Burke? 

General BRILAKIS. I did, ma’am. I think we both—— 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. So we have been focused on the pilots, but, 

as you pointed out, if you don’t have the parts to fix the planes, 

the pilot can’t fly. And what are we doing about the mechanics? Is 

there a shortage of mechanics that we should be addressing as 

well? Could you just—— 

General BRILAKIS. So, for our part, on the enlisted maintainer 

side, our challenge is not necessarily the number, but it is also experience. Your aviation maintenance marine gets his basic training 

in his field, but on top of that there are additional certifications. 

Because aircrafters are so critical, and the fact is, every time you 

go up, we want you to come down in the same way, they have certifications that are required. Those certifications take time, upwards of a year or multiple years to receive all the different certifications so you can sign off on the maintenance. 

Our challenge has been, in the drawdown, the availability of 

those marines with those experiences, et cetera. So, on the enlisted 

side, while we do pay retention bonuses to manage the numbers, 

we are also pursuing in the beginning of this next retention year 

what we call an op-4 kicker, an additional payment for marines 

who are willing to reenlist and then go, in that 4-year reenlistment, 

24 months in the squadron, retaining those capabilities. 

Because, more often than not, a marine who reenlists has a location option. He may want to go to recruiting duty or at the drill 

field, because our marines serve across the Marine Corps. This 

bonus is going to take that experience, hard-won experience, at the 

senior sergeant staff NCO level, retain it in the squadron in certain 

numbers, so they can train the next generation in those certification requirements. That is new for us. 

Ms. SPEIER. Anyone else have any comments about mechanics? 

Admiral BURKE. We are in good shape, mechanics. 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. 

Admiral BURKE. We just—— 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. 

General GROSSO. Ma’am, we are short mechanics. Based on decisions made in the 2014 President’s budget, we are ramping up accessions and having no trouble bringing new airmen in. But, obviously, there will be an experience gap. We expect to be balanced 

in fiscal year 2019. 

General PETERSON. We are reasonably strong with respect to our 

mechanics. However, we do have experience challenges that have 
26 

been brought on by force management levels in recent years where 

mechanics have not deployed with their units and they have been 

replaced by contractors. We are overcoming that now, but we will 

not regain that years of experience. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask this last question, but 

I do want everyone to think about it. 

We are not using aviators in the same way, in all likelihood, that 

we have used them in past wars. And with the advent of drones, 

I think we all have to think about the makeup of our forces in 

terms of the technological advances that have taken place and how 

we are going to engage in subsequent actions around the world. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member Speier. 

Just a very quick point, Major General Peterson. That entire 

issue with force management levels and leaving maintenance personnel behind so that we don’t reach some artificial cap in Afghanistan and use private contractors in their stead was a horrible decision, in my view. And it is something that this subcommittee needs 

to revisit and make sure that it never occurs again. 

I wish to thank the witnesses for their testimony this afternoon. 

This has been very informative. 

There being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 29, 2017 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 29, 2017 

(31) 

Opening Remarks - Chairman Coffman 

Military Personnel Subcommittee Hearing 

Military Pilot Shortage 

March 29, 2017 

I want to welcome everyone to the Military Personnel Subcommittee 

hearing on the shortage of pilots in the military services. Today we will hear 

from the services on their progress toward increasing the retention of military 

pilots, both officers and warrant officers. We know that pilot demand is 

increasing in the commercial sector and the demand to hire qualified military 

pilots is higher than the available pool of candidates. This demand has led to 

a shortage of pilots across the Services with the problem being particularly 

acute in the Air Force, with the deficit at this point of over 1,000 total pilots. 

This trend cannot continue and we are here today to hear from the Armed 

Services on their plans to stem the exit of pilots from the military. We know 

we cannot buy our way out of this problem since the military cannot compete 

with the potential salaries-and in some cases the lifestyle--of the 

commercial airlines. So we must make sure the Services are using all the 

levers in their control-from an increase in bonuses to changes in the 

assignment system to changes in promotions-to incentivize these pilots to 

remain in service. 

The Military Personnel Subcommittee will take every opportunity to 

thoroughly review and discuss the way forward to stop the outflow of military 

pilots. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses to understand the scope of 

the pilot retention problem and to assess the proposed resolutions for the 

Services in increasing retention. 

Before I introduce our panel, let me offer Ranking Member Speier an 

opportunity to make any opening remarks. 
32 

NOT PUBLIC UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

STATEMENT 

OF 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL MARK A. BRILAKIS 

DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR MANPOWER & RESERVE AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL 

OF THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVlCES COMMlTTEE 

CONCERNING 

AVIATOR MANPOWER 

ON 

29 MARCH 2017 

NOT PUBLIC UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 
33 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, it is my privilege to appear before you today to provide an overview on Marine 

Corps aviator inventory. 

Since the first Marine aviator t1ew in 1912, our aviators, like all Marines, have answered 

our Nation's call, faithfully serving the American people and maintaining a first class standard of 

military excellence. Your Marine Corps is, and will continue to be, our Nation's expeditionary 

force in readiness. We will be ready to rapidly respond to crises around the globe, to ensure the 

continued security of the American people, and to protect the interests that underpin our Nation. 

Marines will be alwaysfaithful to the trust which the American people have vested in them. 

Everything we do in the Marine Corps must contribute to their combat readiness and combat 

effectiveness. 

A VlA TION RETENTION 

Our aviation Marines, those that operate the aircraft and the officers and enlisted Marines 

who are responsible for their maintenance, are a critical component of how the Marine Corps 

trains and fights. We vigorously track the accession and retention of all of our Marine 

occupational fields, and doing so for the aviation field is particularly important due to the time 

and expense required to train the majority of the Marines that make up this lield. Our analysis 

shows that the Marine Corps is currently not experiencing a retention challenge for our aviators 

or enlisted maintenance Marines. While there are imbalances in grade and occupational lields, 

current aggregate inventory levels are at I 00% of overall requirement. Our aviators generally 

have a higher retention rate than our ground Marine officers. This has been true for the past 30 

2 
34 

years and is still true today. All of our onicer occupationallields, aviation and ground, 

experienced an intentional increase in attrition rates during the draw down period from 2012 to 

2015 as we encouraged specific grades to separate or retire from the service. During the 

drawdown period, we also reduced the size of accession cohorts for the same reason. Now that 

our drawdown has concluded, and we are implementing a modest end strength increase, attrition 

is trending back down to our lower rates associated with stabilized end strength. 

In regard to future commercial airline hiring, we note that the majority of Marine Corps 

aviators are from rotary wing and tilt-rotor communities. These aviation communities have 

historically been in less demand than the pilots of jet and larger multi-engine aircraft. Since the 

Marine Corps inventory is directly managed to meet structural grade/MOS requirements, a 

certain level of attrition is healthy, and in tact, required to be able to maintain our grade/MOS 

designs. At this time, our current and forecast aviator attrition rates do not exceed this healthy 

level and we have no data indicating that there is any specific draw for Marine aviators to depart 

the service in numbers greater than forecast. However, we will continue to closely monitor the 

retention trends of our aviators and take action should we begin to see a change in this arena. 

TRAINING CHALLENGE 

Training for our aviation community is both long and expensive. It begins with groundbased instruction in aerodynamics and instrumentation, and progressing first to primary flight 

training in basic aircrafl and then to advanced instrument Hight and military formations in 

advanced tactical aircraft. Training continues in the operating forces as winged aviators continue 

to progress in more advanced tactical maneuvers. Training schedules are complex and must be 

coordinated as training squadrons compete for limited training ranges and airlield hours. 

3 
35 

Currently, our initial training pipelines are experiencing challenges that are impacting 

aviation platforms in the operating force, primarily at the Company Grade level. Due to 

readiness issues with training aircraft, e.g. parts supply issues, it is taking longer to train our 

pilots. As a result, there is currently a number of aviators in the training pipeline who normally 

would already be in the fleet squadrons. Fortunately, higher ranking aviators, Majors and above, 

are currently making up for this shortfall. Still, we are exploring a targeted monetary bonus for 

Captains who have completed their initial undergraduate pilot obligation and some Majors in 

specific challenged inventories in order to encourage even higher retention. The specific and 

targeted nature of these potential bonuses will provide us the ability to increase and expand these 

incentives should we begin to see problems arise in our aviator retention rate. 

AVIATION READINESS 

Another challenge impacting our aviation community, and the Marine Corps overall, is 

degraded aviation readiness. Since the conclusion of the combat operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, degraded aviation readiness is making it difficult to replace the advanced instructor 

and combat qualifications many of these aviators currently hold. Addressing readiness is one of 

our highest priorities. Independent Readiness Reviews with each of our aviation platfonns are 

providing external assessments from independent experts to reveal current readiness issues for 

targeted solutions. The increased funding we've received for readiness, reliability, consumables, 

and parts is beginning to positively impact readiness. Additionally, we continue to modernize 

and transition into our new airframes, like the MV-22, AH-lZ and the F-35. Adequate manning 

will continue to be critical as we outfit with new aircraft while maintaining our operational 

tempo and strive to improve readiness. A continued commitment to investing in the 

4 
36 

modernization of our legacy aircraft is paramount to our plans to retum to an optimal state of 

readiness and combat any potential retention problems that may otherwise be on the horizon. 

CONCLUSION 

The bottom line is that the Marine Corps does not currently have a shortage of aviators, 

as measured against our aggregate structural requirement, however we are experiencing a 

shortage of trained aviators, particularly in speciiic platforms, due to training and readiness 

issues with our aircraft. These aviators are critical to our ability to fulfill continued and 

increasing operational commitments, high operational tempo, and challenging deployment-todwell ratios. Overall, training time and full-mission ready aircraft, as well as pay, are all 

important factors in an aviator's and maintainer's decision to stay or depart the service. We take 

seriously our responsibility to train and retain the best aviators and maintainers for our Corps. 

We will continue our rigorous tracking of retention in the aviation field so that your Corps 

remains the most ready when the Nation is least ready. 

The Marines of our Corps represent the American people who have stepped forward 

and sworn to defend and protect our Nation. Our individual Marines are our most precious asset. 

They are proud of what they do. They are proud of the "Eagle, Globe, and Anchor" and what it 

represents to our Nation. With your support, a vibrant Marine Corps will continue to meet our 

Nation's call. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

5 
37 

Lieutenant General Mark A. Brilakis 

Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs 

Lieutenant General Mark Andrew Brilakis is currently assigned as the Deputy 

Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. 

He graduated from Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and was 

commissioned through the Platoon Leaders Class in May 1981. 

Assignments in the Operating Forces include: Battery Officer, I st Battalion, 1Oth Marines; 

Battery Commander, Battalion FDO, and S-3, 5th Battalion, I Oth Marines; Naval Gunfire 

Control Officer and Assistant Supporting Arms Coordinator, Amphibious Group Two; 

Future Operations and MAGTF Planner, G-3, II MEF; Executive Officer, lOth Marine 

Regiment; Commanding Officer I st Battalion, I Oth Marines; Commanding General, 3d 

Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Deputy Commanding General, III Marine Expeditionary 

Force, and Commanding General, 3d Marine Division. 

Assignments in the Supporting Establishment include: Company Officer and Commanding 

Officer, Company A, and Course Developer, MCl Company, Marine Barracks, 

Washington DC; Commanding Officer, Weapons Training Battalion, Training Command; 

and the Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruiting Command. 

Headquarters and Staff assignments include: Status of Forces Officer, Plans, Policies, and 

Operations Department, HQMC; Head, Program Development Branch, Programs and 

Resources Department, HQMC; Director, European Liaison Office, Headquarters, U.S. 

European Command, Deputy J-3, United States European Command, and Assistant Deputy 

Commandant (Programs), Programs & Resources Department, HQMC. 

Military Education: Amphibious Warfare School; Command and Staff College; School of 

Advanced Warfighting; and CMC Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

Masters in Military Studies, Marine Corps University. 
38 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL 

RELEASED BY THE HOUSE 

ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

STATEMENT OF 

VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT P. BURKE, U.S. NAVY 

CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL 

AND 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 

(MANPOWER, PERSONNEL, TRAINING and EDUCATION) 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

ON 

PILOT SHORTAGES 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL 

RELEASED BY THE HOUSE 

ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

MARCH 29, 2017 
39 

INTRODUCTION 

Chainnan Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the status of Navy Aviation retention. 

I am here to outline the current risks and projected manning challenges facing Navy 

aviation and what we must do to ensure we sustain combat readiness. The thriving civilian 

market offers strong employment alternatives to aviation officers, and we are keeping a close eye 

on retention. High-tempo operational environments combined with decreased readiness have 

added additional pressures on these highly skilled aviators and lead to decreasing retention rates. 

We must address current and future shortfalls through continued judicious application of targeted 

incentives and non-monetary retention tools, aimed at retaining required personnel and 

sustaining required readiness levels. Aviators are keenly watching the many quality oflife and 

service initiatives Navy leadership is undertaking, while monitoring increasing opportunities and 

associated incentives available in the recovering civilian aviation market. 

A VIA TOR RETENTION VERSUS REQUIREMENTS 

Our ability to attract and retain the very best young men and women our nation has to 

offer is central to maintaining aviation personnel readiness. A number of factors have made this 

challenge increasingly difficult and complex, including an improving economy with low 

unemployment. Navy aviator retention through department head assignment, nominally the 10-

12 year career point, has fallen below the three, five, and ten year average continuation rates, a 

trend that is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. While mid-level officer retention 

represents our greatest challenge, resignations have also increased among junior and senior 

aviators due, in part, to intense competition from private industry. Post-command commander 

(0-5) losses have steadily increased since 2009, turther diminishing essential talent and 

experience. Navy is also experiencing a smaller pool of o11icers entering the window for 

department head assignment, which drives retention rate requirements above historic averages to 

meet operational requirements. Retention among some communities must increase significantly 

over the next several years to maintain operational squadron department head requirements. 

It is absolutely vital that we retain mid-level and senior aviators, capitalizing on their 

experience, leadership, and the multi-million dollar investment they represent to ensure 

maximum combat readiness and ability to execute the National Military Strategy. 

WHY ARE A VIA TORS LEAVING? 

Aviators are leaving the Navy for two primary reasons: The first reason is increasing 

opportunity and pay in the Airlines. The second reason is dissatisfaction with the Navy due to 

readiness challenges that have limited aircraft availability and resulted in reduced flying hours 

and associated tactical qualifications, and in some cases, have impacted career progression. 

According to feedback from the latest Aviation Department Head Decliner Survey, aviators are 

dissatisfied with other quality of service issues to include operational tempo, excessive 

administrative burdens, and low incentive pay when compared to opportunities outside the Navy, 

2 
40 

as well as quality of life issues for their families, including late PCS orders, reduced health 

care/child care availability, and limited housing options, especially in non-fleet concentration 

areas. 

The airline industry is emerging from a decade of consolidation and restructuring and is 

positioned for greater stability in the foreseeable future, which, when coupled with mandatory 

retirement age, working hours, and global hiring can be expected to exert a significant pull on 

military pilots as reorganized airlines enhance their compensation offerings. Independent 

industry analysts have confirmed the forecasted hiring of 50,000 airline pilots over the next I 0 

years, representing an approximate 400 percent increase, or 2,000-3,000 pilot increase per year, 

and the hiring has begun. Additionally, the total airline career income and benefit packages are 

lucrative in light of their first-year pay scales. As the economy continues to improve and airlines 

offer increased pay, we must have the ability to retain needed aviator inventory to maintain 

mission readiness. 

In 2007, the law governing the age at which commercial pilots must retire changed from 

60 to 65. December 2012 marked the fifth anniversary of the increased retirement age and the 

airlines are beginning to see the results of the mandatory retirements. Approximately 30,000 

pilots will retire from global and major airlines in the next ten years. 

Naval aviators are a prime target of the industry. In July 2013, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) increased the minimum number of flight hours required to be eligible for 

employment to f1y a commercial aircraft from 250 to I ,500. Navy pilots typically reach 1,500 

hours as lieutenants while under their initial minimum service obligations. Industry analysts 

expect that global and major airlines will need to aggressively recruit pilots with military 

backgrounds to make up commercial pilot shortfall projections. Discussions about the 

opportunity for quicker upgrades to airline captain (more rapid pay increases) as the hiring pace 

surges among commercial airlines are cause for concern within the Naval Aviation Enterprise as 

well as tor the aviation communities of other services. 

Navy's largest internal retention factors include readiness. Retention impacts readiness 

and readiness impacts retention. We must view these issues in tandem and understand that 

struggles to maintain the proper numbers and skill sets of aviators, manifests in readiness risk. ln 

tum, readiness issues affect quality of service and quality of life, influencing retention behavior. 

As Sailors prepare to ensure our next aircraft squadrons deploy with all that they need, the strain 

is significant. Aviation depots struggle to get our airplanes through maintenance periods on 

time. In tum, these delays directly impact the time Sailors have to train and hone their skills 

prior to deployment. These challenges are further exacerbated by low stocks of critical parts and 

an aging shore infrastructure. While our first team on deployment is ready, our bench the 

depth of our forces at home - is thin. 

There arc three main drivers of our readiness problems: 1) persistent, high operational 

demand for naval forces, 2) funding constraints, and 3) continued uncertainty about when those 

budgets will be approved. 

3 
41 

• The operational demand for our Navy continues to be high, while the fleet has gotten 

smaller. Between 2001 and 2015, Navy was able to keep an average of 100 ships at sea 

each day, despite a 14 percent decrease in the size of the battle force. The fleet is smaller 

today than it has been in the last 99 years. Maintaining current deployment levels has 

taken a significant toll on Sailors and their families, as well as on our equipment. 

• The second factor degrading Navy readiness is the result of several years of constrained 

funding levels for our major readiness accounts, largely due to fiscal pressures imposed 

by the Budget Control Act of 2011. 

• The third primary driver of reduced readiness is the inefficiency imposed by the 

uncertainty around when, and if, budgets will actually be approved. The inability to 

adjust funding levels as planned, or to commit to longer-term contracts, creates additional 

work while driving up costs. This results in even less capability for any given dollar we 

invest, and represents yet another tax on our readiness. We are underfunded and 

spending more time to maintain a less ready Navy. 

Attempts to address maintenance and training backlogs resulting from high operational 

tempo have been further exacerbated by budget caps included in the Budget Control Act and 

fiscal uncertainty. Our attempts to restore stability and predictability to deployment cycles have 

been challenged both by constrained funding levels and by high operational demands. Although 

we remain committed to return to a seven month deployment cycle as the norm, the need to 

support the fight against ISIS compelled our extending deployments in 2016 up to eight and a 

half months, in some cases. This collective pace of operations has increased wear-and-tear on 

aircraft and crews and has added to the downward decline in readiness, lower retention, and 

decreasing available time for maintenance and modernization. Deferred maintenance bas led to 

equipment failures, and to larger-than-projected scope of work for aviation depots. This has 

forced us to remove aircraft from service for extended periods, thus increasing the utilization of 

the rest of the fleet and forcing them to use airframes at higher-than-projected rates, which 

further increases maintenance workload and reduces depot output. 

Reversing this vicious cycle and restoring short-term readiness of the fleet will require 

sufficient and consistent funding. This funding would allow our pilots to fly the hours they need 

to remain proficient, recapitalize our expended aircraft and ensure that we can conduct required 

maintenance on those airframes we need to retain. It would also enable Navy to restore stocks of 

necessary parts, get more aircraft ready to fly and better prepare them to remain deployed as 

required. 

Years of sustained deployments and constrained and uncertain funding have resulted in 

having to retain aircraft beyond their design life, and exacerbate the readiness debt, which will 

take years to alleviate. If the slow pace of readiness recovery and declining retention continue 

the result will be poorly trained operators at sea, and a force improperly trained and equipped to 

sustain itself This also jeopardizes the lives of our Sailors. Absent sufticient funding for 

readiness, retention, modernization and recapitalization of force structure, Navy cannot return 

to full health, where we can continue to meet our mission on a sustainable basis. As we strive to 

improve el1iciency in internal business practices, those efforts are being actively undermined by 

4 
42 

the absence of regular and timely budgets. Although we face many readiness challenges, we 

remain committed to maintaining the finest naval aviation force in the world. That commitment 

will require constant vigilance and a dedication to retention and readiness recovery, in full 

partnership with the Congress. 

WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT? 

The commercial airline industry is expected to hire at an increased level for an extended 

duration, providing a lucrative alternative for highly sought after Navy aviators with requisite 

knowledge and experience. Navy cannot compete dollar for dollar with private industry, 

particularly America's airlines. Nonetheless, enhanced military compensation will be a 

fundamental factor in any long-range solution to ensure adequate retention in undermanned, 

highly skilled, warfare specialties. 

The primary monetary tools supporting aviator retention are Aviation Career Incentive 

Pay (ACIP) and Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP), recently changed to Aviation Incentive Pay 

(AviP) and Aviation Bonus (AvB) respectively. Congress' recent enactment of an increase in 

the statutory cap for AvB was well-received and appreciated by aviators. The National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 increased the AvB maximum annual amount 

payable from $25,000 to $35,000 per year, and the AviP from $850 to $1,000 per month. Navy 

is working options for a judicious approach to utilizing these increases in a responsible and costeffective manner. 

Navy offers two aviation retention bonuses targeting aviators at critical career decision 

points: Aviation Department Head Retention Bonus (ADHRB) offered to lieutenants (03) and 

lieutenant commanders (04), and Aviation Command Retention Bonus (ACRB) oJTered to 

commanders (05s). Historically, these targeted bonuses have proven effective and cost-efficient 

in attacking retention problems in specific communities, jobs, and experience levels, in a costeffective way so as to attract and retain high-quality personnel to meet fleet requirements. 

Effective implementation of these programs is critical to our effort to influence retention 

behavior. As aviators accessed during fiscal years 2005-12 ncar completion of their active duty 

service obligation, the challenge to retain high-quality aviators is increasing. We will continue to 

review the adequacy of compensation and the effectiveness of our programs to initiate efficient 

solutions. 

It is imperative that we maintain adequate numbers of quality career force aviators to till 

operational billets, not only at the department head level, but also for second sea, command and 

post-command tours. The ACRB is designed to retain post-command commanders (05) into the 

grade of captain (06). For FY201 0, the bonus amount was reduced from $45,000 to $36,000, 

and in FY2012 it was canceled. Perhaps not coincidently, the number of post-command 

commanders leaving the Navy has steadily increased since 2009. In an effort to reverse this 

trend, a restructured version of the program was reinstated for FY20 15 at $36,000 but the 

structure of the program has not yet sufficiently intluenced retention behavior, and we continue 

to lose aviators with vital experience and leadership. 
43 

Not surprisingly, the "take rate" of retention bonuses has proven to be an accurate 

indicator of aviator retention behavior. While some individual type/model/series and designators 

have achieved their individual department head bonus contract goals, the Navy has not achieved 

the overall department head bonus contract goal since 2013. To address the decline in aviator 

retention as these bonuses lose their effectiveness, Navy is examining a plan to leverage the 

recently increased cap to target specific communities with retention issues that are exposing 

operational manning requirements to increased levels of risk. 

Signed bonus contracts are used as a proxy for indications of retention to ensure the 

department head requirements are met. While some communities are meeting their 

requirements, other communities have struggled. Fleet requirements have been met through 

distribution mitigation methods to offset shortfalls, such as transitioning pilots from one 

community to another. Navy is considering increased bonus amounts for Strike Fighters (VFA), 

Electronic Attack (V AQ), and llelicopter Mine Countermeasure (I IM) aviators. Of immediate 

concern is VF A and V AQ pilot manning. 

For example, we are currently experiencing a chronic shortfall among VAQ pilots, for 

which we have not retained sutiicient numbers of 0-4s to meet fleet department head 

requirements since May 2011. For active duty year groups 2004-2006, we have attained less 

than half of required VAQ pilot department heads (!6 of34). !fall four of the remaining VAQ 

pilots in year groups 2005 and 2006 sign bonus contracts, the best possible outcome is 20 

retained of34 required. Consequently, we have been forced to transition some junior Strike 

Fighter (VFA) pilots into the VAQ community, upon selection to depmimcnt head, to ensure that 

deploying VAQ squadrons were fully manned with 0-4 pilots. This, however, is only a 

temporary solution since VF A has also begun to experience declining retention, falling short of 

its pilot manpower requirement. 

Similar to VAQ, for the active duty year groups 2004 to 2006, we only have signed 

contracts for three-quarters of our required VFA pilot department heads (116 of 149). While 52 

remain eligible to sign bonus contracts, trend data indicates only a quarter of these will contract, 

yielding a predicted best possible outcome of thirteen additional pilots or 129 of the 149 

required. This situation will become dire if retention trends in these communities continue their 

downward trajectory. 

Navy's reserve support type/model/series needs are also reflective of these shortages, 

with smaller, but no less significant, retention issues for VAQ, HM, and Maritime Patrol (VP). 

Navy is also evaluating additional incentives for aviators with high demand subspecialties such 

as Weapons Tactics Instructors and Test Pilots. 

In addition to bonuses, Navy continues to assess and pursue non-monetary incentives to 

improve retention across the force, as outlined in Sailor 2025, a dynamic set of approximately 45 

initiatives designed to help us do just that. Built on a framework of three pillars- a modernized 

personnel system, ready relevant learning, and career readiness - Sailor 2025 is a roadmap 

designed to change our approach to personnel programs by providing our personnel with choice 

and flexibility. These initiatives target modernizing personnel management and training systems 

6 
44 

to tind, recruit, train, and manage the careers of our talented people more ertectively, thus 

improving the Navy's warfighting readiness. 

SUMMARY 

Aviator retention remains a high priority. Navy is deliberate in managing the aviation 

officer communities and judicious in executing the respective aviation incentive pay programs. 

We are closely monitoring declining aviation retention trends. Manning mitigation techniques, 

such as tour extensions and junior othcer re-tours, have minimized gaps, but low inventory 

coupled with declining retention have pressurized the distribution system. We remain firmly 

committed to improving our personnel readiness posture while addressing concerns of our 

outstanding aviation officers. Although aviation continues to be attractive to young people eager 

for a rewarding career in service of our country, continued and future low retention of 

experienced combat-proven aviators is not in the best interest of the nation or the combat 

readiness ofthc Navy. 

Navy remains concerned regarding issues that impact the quality of service and life for 

aviators and their family to include: lack of spare parts and equipment, lack of flying hours, 

deployment frequency, and minimum-notice permanent change of station moves. Aviation officer 

retention is dramatically impacted by the relative strength of our compensation and bonus packages 

over time, as compared with the lure of a strong economy ollering excellent opportunities tor 

educated professionals, and a perception of increased quality oflife in the civilian sector. 

Unfortunately, any declines in retention mean those remaining have to work that much harder to 

meet the demand for forward deployed naval forces and, in tum, further impacts retention. It is 

imperative that we continue to focus on improving aviation retention and incentives during this 

time of high competition for talent. 

We will continue to aggressively pursue resolution of aviator retention challenges 

through effective use of all available resources. A comprehensive and competitive 

compensation package comprised of targeted special and incentive pays and bonuses, combined 

with quality of life and quality of service etforts, are essential to this effort. We look forward to 

working with you as we collectively work to address the challenges we face, and appreciate your 

continued support for initiatives designed to achieve optimum personnel readiness, improved 

quality of service, and retain the best and brightest young men and women this nation has to 

offer. 

7 
45 

5/27/2016- Present 

Vice Admiral Robert P. Burke 

Vice Adm. Robert Burke grew up in Portage, Michigan, and holds bachelor's and master's 

degrees in electrical engineering from Western Michigan University and the University of 

Central Florida. 

Burke's operational assignments include service aboard both attack and ballistic missile 

submarines, including USS Von Steuben (SSBN 632), USS Maryland (SSBN 738) and 

USS Bremerton (SSN 698). He commanded USS Hampton (SSN 767) in Norfolk, 

Virginia, and was commodore of Submarine Development Squadron (DEVRON) 12 in 

Groton, Connecticut. Burke was recognized by the United States Submarine League with 

the Jack Darby Award for Leadership in 2004 and the Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale 

Award for Inspirational Leadership in 2005. 

His staff assignments include tours as an instructor and director for the Electrical 

Engineering Division at Naval Nuclear Power School, junior board member on the Pacific 

Fleet Nuclear Propulsion Examining Board, submarine officer community 

manager/nuclear officer program manager; senior Tactical Readiness Evaluation Team 

member at Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet; the deputy director for 

Operations, Strategy and Policy Directorate (15) at United States Joint Forces Command; 

the division director, Submarine/Nuclear Power Distribution (PERS-42); and director, 

Joint and Fleet Operations, N3/N5, U.S. Fleet Forces Command. 

As a flag officer, Burke has served as deputy commander,U.S.6th Fleet; director of 

operations (N3), U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa; commander, Submarine Group 8;and 

most recently as director, Military Personnel Plans and Policy (OPNA V Nl3). 

He assumed duties as the Navy's 58th chief of naval personnel, May 27,2016.Serving 

concurrently as the deputy chief of naval operations (Manpower, Personnel, Training and 

Education) (N I), he is responsible for the planning and programming of all manpower, 

personnel, training and education resources for the U.S. Navy. He leads more than 26,000 

employees engaged in the recruiting, personnel management, training and development of 

Navy personnel. His responsibilities include overseeing Navy Recruiting Command, Navy 

Personnel Command and Naval Education and Training Command. 

His awards include the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit (five awards) 

and various campaign and unit awards. 

Updated: 17 June 2016 
46 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

PRESENTATION TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBJECT: MILITARY PILOT SHORTAGE 

STATEMENT OF: 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL GINA M. GROSSO 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF MANPOWER, PERSONNEL 

AND SERVICES UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED 

BY THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH29,20l7 
47 

INTRODUCTION 

Your Air Force has been globally engaged for the last 26 years in combat operations. 

During that time, America's Air Force provided air dominance through global vigilance, global 

reach, and global power for our joint force. Make no mistake, your Air Force is always there. 

However, being "always there" comes at a cost to equipment, infrastmcturc, and most 

importantly, our Airmen-and we are now at a decision point. Sustained global commitments 

and recent funding constraints have affected capacity and capability for a full-spectmm light 

against a near-peer adversary. Compounding this issue, an upcoming surge of mandatory 

retirements for airline pilots and increasing market for global commerce is causing the civilian 

aviation industry to begin hiring at an aggressive rate. This confluence of circumstances has 

birthed a national aircrew crisis. 

NATIONAL AIR CREW CRISIS 

The national aircrew crisis is the result of multiple factors: high operational tempo over 

the last 26 years, a demand for our pilots from the commercial industry, and cultural issues that 

affect the quality of life and quality of service of our Airmen. At the end of FY 2016 the total 

force including active, reserve, and guard components was short 1,555 pilots across all mission 

areas ( 608 active, 653 guard, 294 reserve). Ofthis amount, the total force was short I ,211 

fighter pilots (873 active, 272 guard, 66 reserve). Unfortunately, our greatest concern is the 

active fighter pilot shortage is projected exceed 1,000 by the end ofFY 2017. 

The nation requires Airmen to be "always there" to deliver air, space and cyber effects. 

These capabilities demand resources and time to train in order to ensure readiness. In the aircraft 

maintenance field, we were short approximately 3,400 aircraft maintainers at the close of 2016. 

2 
48 

Because of this shortage, we cannot generate the sorties needed to fully train our aircrews. 

Though our end-strength has decreased 38% since 1991, we have experienced significant growth 

across several mission areas. The increased operational tempo levied on remaining personnel 

removes the time required to train for conflicts in different environments. A quarter-century at 

war has strained the force through reduced sortie rates and training availability. At current force 

structure levels the operational tempo and deployments that your Air Force maintains in order to 

support the joint force simply does not allow time for personnel to adequately train for future 

conflicts. More than an entire generation of airmen have prioritized operations over training. 

Our aircrews arc not able to maintain full-spectrum readiness against all threats with these 

conditions. 

Civilian aviation companies are actively recruiting the world-class experience of our 

rated Airmen. Air Force pilots are highly attractive because of their proficiency, diverse 

experience, and the standardization and quality of military aviation training. A 2016 RAND 

study, requested by FYI6 NDAA and endorsed by OSD, modeled a potentially large growth in 

hiring in the airline industry over the next decade, which could require the Air Force to 

significantly increase retention efforts. RAND modeled major airline hiring levels between 

3,200- 3,800 pilots per year and an average 13 percent increase in airlines salaries. In reality, 

actual airline hiring and salary increases surpassed those predictions. According to Future and 

Active Pilot Advisors, major airlines hired more than 4, I 00 pilots last year and salaries increased 

by 17 percent. These annual hiring levels are expected to continue for the next I 0-15 years 

(Table 1). 

3 
49 

Table I. Airline Hiring and Retirements 

Major Ail"Jine Hiring and Retirements 

'"' 

Sources: 

Table 2. 2015 Rated Exit Survey Results "Top 5 Influences to Leave" 

Civilian job prospects are not the sole reason the Air Force is losing talent. A 2015 exit 

survey revealed additional motives for separation, highlighting negative impacts to the quality of 

life and quality of service of our aviators and their families (Table 2). Pilots are making choices 

to leave the service on factors like additional duties (creating the daily flying schedule, vault 

4 
50 

security duties, ancillary training, and administrative support) maintaining a work-life balance, 

and the pace of work while at home from deployment. This combination of high operational 

tempo, civilian airline pilot demand, and cultural issues have created a perfect storm--one the Air 

Force is acting quickly to address. Your Air Force's action plan to mitigate these shortfalls is 

three-pronged: reduce requirements, increase production and increase retention. 

MITIGATION EFFORTS- REDUCED REQUIREMENTS 

The demand for rated pilot experience is insatiable. However, the Air Force no longer 

has available capacity to man historical requirements with pilots unless it is absolutely critical. 

The 2017 Rated Staff Allocation Plan reduced the total number of pilots assigned to institutional 

organizations by 13% when compared to 2016. These key staff positions, such as planners at 

Combatant Commands, Air Operations Centers, and Training units are currently manned at 23-

26 percent for fighter pilot specific positions and 79-84 percent in all other rated positions. Even 

with these reductions, the Air Force can only fill 96 percent of fighter pilot requirements at 

operational units. The Air Force is implementing additional initiatives to mitigate shortages on 

staffs, deployed positions, and in the training enterprise. Voluntary return to active duty 

programs allow members of the Air Reserve Component to fill staff and training positions. 

Additionally, the Air Force is exploring opportunities for Air Reserve Component members to 

volunteer for 179- and 365-day deployments. 

MITIGATION EFFORTS- INCREASED PILOT PRODUCTION 

The Air Force recognizes the need to increase pilot production and has taken steps to 

expand Undergraduate Pilot Training to maximum training capacity. However, sufficient 

5 
51 

manpower, infrastructure, and operations and maintenance resources would be needed to support 

any future increase in throughput. The Air Force is actively pursuing additional ways to increase 

production across the entire training pipeline to mission-ready status. This includes creating two 

new F-16 Formal Training Units, increasing the number of total force active-associate units, 

leveraging opportunities to increase active duty fighter pilot absorption at Air National Guard 

(ANG) fighter units, and exploring a specific helicoptor track for undergraduate pilot training to 

increase capacity for fixed wing pilots. 

The Air force appreciates Congress authorizing and funding an increase in activeduty end-strength to 321,000 tor FY17. This essential growth enables the Air Force to train and 

develop new pilots and maintain legacy aircraft longer than before. This immediate end-strength 

increase is vital. The Air Force will consider end-strength increases as it works with the 

Secretary of Defense to develop the Fiscal Year's 2018 President's Budget request. Further, we 

must retain these newly trained Airmen. 

MITIGATION EFFORTS- INCREASED RETENTION 

Given the American taxpayer investment and the substantial time required to train and 

season an Air Force pilot, it is vital that our nation retains this talent. The Air Force employs a 

variety of monetary and non-monetary force management initiatives to produce the right mix and 

number of experienced Ainnen. The Air Force will implement the first increase in the Aviation 

Bonus in 18 years. A tiered business case analysis model identifies areas of greatest need, and 

our pilots who continue to serve beyond their initial service commitment will receive up to 

$35,000 per year, authorized by the FY17 NDAA. Air Force is also considering incentives for 

6 
52 

hard to lill assignments where many Airmen choose to separate !Tom service rather than 

accepting the position. 

Retaining our pilot force goes beyond financial incentives .. .it's about culture. The Air 

Force is implementing many non-monetary efforts to strengthen the culture and improve the 

quality of life and quality of service for our Airmen. We reduced additional duties, removed 

non-mission-essential training courses and outsourced select routine administrative tasks. All of 

these efforts allow our pilots to focus on their primary duty: flying. 

We increased the transparency and flexibility of the assignment process to promote 

family stability. We are also exploring options that allow active duty pilots to work for the 

civilian aviation industry through the Career Intermission Program and then return to the active 

force upon completion of that intennission. 

BOLD INITIATIVES 

But we are not stopping at these mitigation efforts. The Air Force is aggressively 

pursuing bold initiatives to address the shortfalls in pilot manning and stabilize the inventory 

over the long term. Restructuring retention packages and making fundamental changes to how 

we manage our Airmen will take time. But our goal with these long-term solutions is to set the 

conditions for the Air Force to regain and maintain a full-spectrum, mission-ready force in 

support of the National Military Strategy. 

We know based on exit survey data that not all pilots separate fi·om the Air Force for the 

same reason. Therefore, the Air Force must divest a "one size fits all" retention model, and we 

should tailor retention packages to the individual Airman fi·om a host of options. This could 

include a traditionallinancial bonus, or it could include other incentives like preferential basing, 

7 
53 

longer time lines between required Permanent Changes of Station (PCS ), or methods for 

deployment relief. In any case, Airmen can choose a retention package that fits their current 

needs. 

Maintaining a work/life balance and meeting family commitments is paramount to our 

serviccmembers. When the Officer Personnel Act was passed in 1947, only 25 percent of 

married couples with children had two income earners. Today, that number is over 60 percent. 

Moving families every 2-3 years makes it difficult for spouses to pursue and maintain a career. 

The way we relocate our Airmen must keep pace with today's family, or we will lose talent. 

Additionally, our Airmen deserve an updated assignment system that can meet manning 

requirements as well as ensure mission success. Therefore, a beta test is currently underway that 

could change how we execute assignments. This test involves the usc of algorithms to optimize 

assignments based on the needs of the Air Force and desires of our members and their familiesan assignment system for the 21st century. 

In the past, the Air Force used warrant officers for mission sets that required technical 

proficiency. While reinstituting this model is not an impossible option, other courses of action 

may deliver the same desired result in a much shorter timeline. The Air Force will examine 

possible alternate career paths for pilots. A tailored number of our pilot force could diverge from 

the current "up-or-out" career progression model into a technical, non-command career track. 

This would allow them to remain in service while focusing principally on flying duties. This 

would retain valuable talent and keep credible instructors in operational squadrons and 

schoolhouses where they are needed most. 

8 
54 

CONCLUSION 

The Air Force is committed to a holistic strategy to maintain our pilot inventory by 

reducing requirements, increasing pilot production, and improving retention through bold 

monetary and non-monetary programs. While we aggressively pursue creative means to respond 

to the demands on our pilots, our attention will be focused on developing an agile set of solutions 

and will not hesitate to seek the Congress' support for revised or new authorities and resources in 

the future. We appreciate your support as we face this national crisis for our most valuable 

resource, our talented Airmen, and believe our actions should be bold and decisive to retain a 

group core to our identity. 

9 
55 

Lieutenant General Gina M. Grosso 

Lt. Gen. Gina M. Grosso is the Deputy Chief of StatTfor Manpower, Personnel and 

Services, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. General Grosso serves as the 

senior Air Force officer responsible for comprehensive plans and policies covering all life 

cycles of military and civilian personnel management, which includes military and civilian 

end strength management, education and training, compensation, resource allocation, and 

the worldwide U.S. Air Force services program. 

General Grosso entered the Air Force in 1986 as a Reserve Officer Training Corps 

distinguished graduate from Camegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She 

has held several command and staff positions throughout her career. As a staff officer, she 

served as an operations analyst, personnel programs analyst, Air Staff and Office of the 

Secretary of Defense action officer, Major Command Director of Manpower and 

Personnel, Director of the Air Force Colonel Management Office, Director, Manpower, 

Organization and Resources, and Director of Force Management Policy. Her command 

tours include a Headquarters Squadron Section, Military Personnel Flight, Mission Support 

Squadron, command of the Air Force's sole Basic Military Training Group, and as Joint 

Base and 87th Air Base Wing commander at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ. Prior 

to her current assignment, she was the Director of the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response (SAPR), Office of the Vice Chief of Staff, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 

Washington, D.C. 

EDUCATION 

1986 Bachelor of Science, Applied Mathematics and Industrial Management, Carnegie-Mellon 

University, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

1992 Master's degree in business administration, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va. 

1993 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell A FB, Ala. 

1997 Air Command and Staff College, Seminar 

1999 Master's degree in national security and strategic studies, Naval Command and Staff College, 

Newport, R.I. 

2000 Air War College, Seminar 

2004 Fellow, Weatherhead Center for lntemational Affairs, Harvard University, Boston, Mass. 

ASSIGNMENTS 

1. October 1986- October 1988, Operations Analyst, followed by Commander, Headquarters 

Squadron Section, 554th Range Group, Nellis AFB, Nev. 

2. November 1988- April 1992, Personnel Programs and Force Programs Analyst, Deputy Chief of 

Staff, Personnel, Headquarters Tactical Air Command, Langley AFB, Va. 

3. May 1992- May 1993, Executive Officer, Directorate of Personnel, Headquarters Air Combat 

Command, Langley AFB, Va. 

4. May 1993 -July 1993, Student, Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

5. August 1993 -May 1995, Commander, Military Personnel Flight, 6th Mission Suppmi 

Squadron, Mac Dill AFB, Fla. 

6. June 1995- January 1997, Chief, Personnel Policy, followed by Deputy Chief, Support Division, 

Air Force Colonel Matters Office, Pentagon, Washington D.C. 

7. January 1997- July 1998, Member, Chief of Staff of the Air Force Operations Group, 

Headquarters Air Force, Pentagon, Washington D.C. 

8. July 1998- July 1999, Student, Naval Command and Staff College, Newport, R.I. 

9. July 1999- July 2001, Commander, 51st Mission Support Squadron, Osan Air Base, South 

Korea 

10. July 2001- May 2002, Assistant Director, Enlisted Plans and Policy, Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, the Pentagon, Washington D.C. 
56 

II. May 2002- July 2003, Military Assistant, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military 

Personnel Policy, Pentagon, Washington D.C. 

12. July 2003- July 2004, Fellow, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard 

University, Boston, Mass. 

13. July 2004- July 2006, Commander, 737th Training Group, Lackland AFB, Texas 

14. July 2006- July 2007, Director, Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, 

Hickam AFB, Hawaii 

15. July 2007- March 2009, Director, Air Force Colonels Management Office, the Pentagon, 

Washington D.C. 

16. March 2009- June 2011, Commander, Joint Base and 87th Air Base Wing, Joint Base 

McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J. 

17. June 2011- August 2012, Director, Manpower, Organization and Resources, the Pentagon, 

Washington D.C. 

18. August 2012- January 2014, Director, Force Management Policy, the Pentagon, Washington 

D.C. 

19. February 2014- October 2015, Director, Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Offke, Office of the Vice Chief of Staff, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

20. October 2015- present, Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower, Personnel and Services, 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington D.C. 

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

1. July 200 I • May 2002, Assistant Director, Enlisted Plans and Policy, Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, Pentagon, Washington D.C., as a lieutenant colonel 

2. May 2002 -July 2003, Military Assistant, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military 

Personnel Policy, Pentagon, Washington D.C., as a lieutenant colonel 

3. March 2009- June 2011, Commander, Joint Base and 87th Air Base Wing, Joint Base McGuil·eDix-Lakehnrst, N.J., as a colonel and brigadier general 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Defense Superior Service Medal 

Legion of Merit with two oak leaf cluster 

Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters 

Army Commendation Medal 

Air Force Commendation Medal 

Joint Service Achievement Medal 

Air Force Achievement Medal with one oak leaf duster 

Air Force Outstanding Onit Award with one oak leaf cluster 

Air Force Organizational Excellence Award with three oak leaf clusters 

National Defense Service Medal with bronze star 

Global War on Terrorism Medal 

Korean Defense Service Medal 

Humanitarian Service Medal 

OTHER ACHIEVMENTS 

Tactical Air Command, Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, 1990 CGO of the Year 

Tactical Air Command, 1991 Junior Personnel Manager of the Year 

Distinguished Graduate, Squadron Officer School, 1993 

6th Air Base Wing Lance P. Sijan Leadership Award, Junior Ot11cer Category for 1995 

Headquarters Air Force, Senior Personnel Manager of the Year for 1996 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant Oct. 2, 1986 

First Lieutenant July 17, 1988 

Captain July 17,1990 

Major Aug. 1, 1996 

Lieutenant Colonel July I, 1999 
57 

Colonel Aug. I, 2003 

Brigadier General April 1, 2011 

Major General July 24, 2014 

Lieutenant General Oct. 15,2015 

(Current as of October 2015) 
58 

RECORD VERSION 

STATEMENT BY 

MAJOR GENERAL ERIK C. PETERSON 

DIRECTOR OF ARMY AVIATION, 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF G-3/5/7 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

FIRST SESSION, 115TH CONGRESS 

ON ARMY PILOT SHORTAGES AND STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE 

MARCH 29,2017 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 
59 

STATEMENT BY 

MAJOR GENERAL ERIK C. PETERSON 

DIRECTOR OF ARMY AVIATION, 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF G-3/5/7 

Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

to discuss the state of Army Aviation pilot shortages and our Army's mitigation strategy. 

The Total Army Force consisting of the Regular Army, the Army National Guard 

(ARNG), and the Army Reserve (USAR) employs over 4,000 total aircraft in its 

inventory, including both fixed- and rotary-wing (and an additional 8,000 unmanned 

systems). Those aircraft are expertly operated by approximately 14,000 rated aviators 

(and an additional1 ,600 active component unmanned operators) across all three 

components. These Soldiers are operating in 39 countries around the world executing 

combat and theater security cooperation missions, while the remainder operate and 

train across all 54 States and Territories, building decisive action readiness and meeting 

domestic mission requirements. 

Army Aviation provides an asymmetric advantage for our Nation as a combat 

multiplier. We remain focused on ensuring Combatant Commanders and our joint and 

coalition partners have the required reach, protection, lethality and situational 

understanding to win in an increasingly complex world, in exceptionally challenging 

conditions. The distinct advantage that Army Aviation provides is built on a foundation 

of highly trained and professional Army Aviation leaders and Soldiers. 

For nearly 16 years, Army Aviation has been tested in the most demanding of 

operational environments at an unprecedented pace and duration, and our Soldiers and 

leaders have performed magnificently. Nevertheless, force structure adjustments and 

fiscal constraints caused the Army to make very difficult resourcing choices. We 

prioritized short-term readiness over the long-term recruiting and training required to 

achieve a strong, healthy force. We simply could not afford to train the number of pilots 

2 
60 

we needed to sustain a fully manned, healthy force. More importantly, the current pilot 

strength across our force masks long-term pilot challenges that lie ahead. 

Background 

In response to a changing fiscal environment, and as a direct result of the 

implementation of the Budget Control Act of 2011, programmed training allocations 

were set below the minimum requirement. Due to these allocation shortfalls, there is a 

significant inventory gap in Regular Army Aviation Warrant Officers commissioned 

between 2010-2017. Additionally, more recent challenges with training throughput and 

civilian hiring competition for aviators further exacerbates the deficit. Although current 

pilot fill rates in our Regular Army Combat Aviation Brigades remain acceptable in all 

but the Apache fleet, the Army accessed 731 fewer Regular Army Warrant Officers over 

the past seven years than required to maintain a healthy force in the long term. We are 

currently achieving marginally acceptable manning by relying on senior Aviation 

Warrant Officers serving in junior positions. Simply put- in the short term, we are "top 

heavy" in compensating for our current accession and training deficit. Solutions we 

apply, however creative, will help but will not make up for several years of lost 

opportunity to recruit, access and train the right number of aviators. Although substantial 

shortages have not yet materialized in the Reserve Components; without deliberate 

action, shortfalls can be expected across the Total Army Force. 

A recent development that compounds this problem is the active recruitment of 

Army helicopter pilots by the airline industry. From a historical perspective, the draw on 

military rotary-wing pilots by the major airlines has been relatively low. However, as the 

senior commercial airline pilots age and retire from the major airlines, the demand for 

replacement pilots has outpaced supply. As a result of this demand, major airlines have 

adjusted their entry requirements to facilitate an aggressive recruiting campaign for 

military rotary-wing pilots. Although this campaign is in its infancy, the new airline entry 

requirements allow a much larger portion of Army pilots to join, and when coupled with 

enticing monetary incentives, will undoubtedly challenge the Army's ability to maintain a 

healthy and highly-skilled aviation force in all components. 

3 
61 

Current Efforts and Way Forward 

The Army is addressing the challenge of Aviation Warrant Officer shortages and 

will build long-term readiness through closely managed and simultaneous resourcing, 

equipping, and training strategies, while managing risk to aviation readiness across the 

Army. To accomplish this, we are focusing on three lines of effort: retention, training 

throughput, and accessions. 

Retention of highly competent aviators is key to mitigating personnel shortages 

while the Army produces additional aviators to fill those shortages. Although retention 

across the Army is healthy, we have seen a steady increase in attrition of Aviation 

Warrant Officers over the last three years. Aviation Warrant Officer attrition rates have 

historically been around seven percent over the last decade but are now approaching 

nine percent. This trend is expected to continue unless we take swift action. Over 25% 

of these Aviation Warrant Officers are retirement eligible, with increasingly attractive 

opportunities in the civilian market. A growing shortage of mid-grade pilots available to 

replace the retirement eligible pilots further complicates the problem until a sufficient 

level of flight school graduates are able to mature within the pilot inventory to offset 

current shortages. These factors cause the Army to move pilots from one unit to another 

to meet deployment requirements, reducing dwell time and potentially intensifying the 

problem. To address retention issues the Army is formalizing graduated incentives that 

encourage pilots to continue their military aviation career as well as further rewarding 

pilots who advance their aviation qualifications. Attrition analysis indicates two key 

areas to target for retention incentives: pilots nearing the end of their six year Active 

Duty Service Obligation (ADSO) and retirement eligible Warrant Officers. Incentives 

under evaluation include Assignment Incentive Pay (AlP), Aviation Bonus (AvB) pay, 

and additional incentive pay for specialized qualifications (i.e. Instructor Pilot and 

Maintenance Test Pilot). 

Additionally, the Army is increasing its capacity to train new pilots to ensure 

adequate inventories in the future. This commitment to fully resourcing our flight school 

is not a quick fix and must be phased in over several years. The Army plans to budget 

4 
62 

at a higher level than in the past to be successful. The United States Army Aviation 

Center of Excellence (USAACE) at Fort Rucker, Alabama provides world-class aviation 

training. Maintaining high standards for training is critical to ensure the aviation force is 

ready to meet mission requirements and reduces risk. To achieve the appropriate 

number of trained pilots to support 23 Aviation Brigades (11 Active Component, 10 

Army National Guard and 2 Army Reserve), the Army requires the training base to 

operate at near maximum capacity. Core requirements to meet this capacity include 

Initial Entry Rotary Wing (IERW) training as well as graduate level training to support 

production of instructor pilots and maintenance test pilots. The Army must carefully 

balance these core requirements with an increasing demand for training in support of 

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and requests for training from sister services. While the 

Army must maintain our commitments with sister services and foreign partners, we have 

an obligation to place increased priority on mitigating our growing shortages first. 

As the Army provides additional resources to its training base, we will also 

synchronize an incremental increase to Regular Army Warrant Officer accessions to 

deliberately grow our throughput to meet operational demand and correct for previous 

under accessions. Over the next three years, the Army will increase Regular Army 

Aviation Warrant Officer throughput by nearly 170 students. Maintaining the proper level 

of accessions of both Commissioned and Warrant Officers across all components is 

critical to the sustainment of 23 Aviation Brigades in the Total Army. Processes for 

analyzing and adjusting accession levels must also remain flexible to allow for future 

end state growth as operational requirements evolve. 

Specifically, the Army is implementing nine strategies outlined below to 

overcome these shortfalls, and plans to budget at a higher level of resourcing than it 

has in the past, to fully implement. We already see positive change to throughput with 

consistent reductions to training backlog without jeopardizing the quality of pilots 

produced: 

• Increase accessions from a planned 308 in Fiscal Year 2017 to 475 Regular Army 

Aviation Warrant Officers over the next 2-3 years. 

5 
63 

• Offer graduated incentives and promotion opportunity that encourage pilots to 

continue their military aviation career as well as further rewarding pilots who 

advance their aviation qualifications. 

• Actively recruit AH-64 and CH-47 qualified pilots who have recently left service. 

Leadership will assess aviators from this population for qualifications that would 

allow select personnel to augment training cadre at flight school. 

• Look across the Total Army to leverage experience from aviators in our Reserve 

Components at the training base without negatively impacting Reserve Component 

units. 

• Augment training base with higher instructor pilot fill rates through Call to Active 

Duty, Retiree Recall, and Active Duty Operational Support. 

• Augment training base with aircraft (AH-64E and CH-47F), simulation devices, and 

instructor pilots. 

• Adjust Program of Instruction (POl) to gain efficiencies where possible without 

reducing quality of training. 

• Establish a Mobile Training Team to conduct AH-64D Aircraft Qualification Courses 

at unit Home Station (conversion of unit from OH-58D to AH-64D). 

• Provide maintenance augmentation by operational units in support of training base 

as operational requirements allow. 

Conclusion 

As we focus on the future, the Army is taking steps to maximize Total Army 

Aviation Training capacity to meet current requirements while anticipating future growth. 

Though the Army currently possesses sufficient authorities to support increased 

accession and improved retention within assumed top-line budget projections, it is 

important that we are provided consistent budgetary support at our request levels to 

avoid shortfalls of the past. We can assure you that the Army's senior leaders are 

working to address current manning challenges, as well as the needs of the Army to 

provide capability anywhere, any time, against any threat. 

6 
64 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for 

your steadfast support of the outstanding men and women in uniform, our Army 

Civilians, and their Families. 

7 
65 

United States Anny 

Major General ER1K C. PETERSON 

Director~ Army Axiation 

Office of tho Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/517 

'Lnited States Arm~-

450 Arm~- Pentagon 3A474 

Washington, DC 10310-0450 

Sin<e: August 2016 

SOLKCE OF CO?vi:\IISSJO).;-:ED SER\ 1C:E ROTC 

EDl:CATIOKAl DEGREES 

L'ni:versity of ldnho- BS - Geography 

l:nrrcrsitt of [dnho - BS - Cmiography 

Touro College, Kew Y ark- :VlBA- Business Adruinistmtion 

Kational Defense. L'Piversity- :'..fS- Katioual Security and Strategic Studies 

:\ill!Ti\.RY SCHOOLS A TIEl': TIED 

Aviation Officer Basic and Advanced Courses 

l:nited States .,;,.tmy Command and General Staff College 

Kational War College 

FOREIGKLAKGl:AGE(S) Kane recorded 

PRO:'.iOTJOKS 

2LT 

lLT 

CPT 

?vi/\J 

LTC 

COL 

BG 

:'.1G 

FRO:~v! TO 

Aug 16 Present 

Jun 14 Jul 16 

Jun 13 Jilll 14 

Aug 12 ?vlay 13 

Nov 09 Jul 12 

Aug 01 Xm- 09 

DATE OF APPOIJ\TiiE:i\1 

17 :vlay 86 

28 Kov 87 

1 Sep 90 

1 :vlar 97 

1 Jun 01 

1 Dec 06 

1?vlay 13 

1 Jnll6 

ASS!Gl\!v!El':! 

Director. Army A\iation, Office of the Deputy Cbief ofStalf. G-3!'5/i. t:nited States Army. 

Washington, DC 

Commonding General, C:nited States Army Special Operations A>iatiou CommancL Fort Bragg North 

Carolina 

Deputy Commanding General (Support), ld Infantry Dh1sion. Eighth C:nited States Army, Republic of 

Koren 

Depnt;< Commanding General, United States Army Cadet Cornu1ancL Fort Knox, Kentuck-y 

Chief of Stnff, I Oth :'vlall!ltain Dh1sion (Light lntootr;), F art Drum, New York md Combined Joint 

TaskForce-lOiRegianal Commond-South. OPER<\TIOK E?-;TILKIKG FREEDOM. Afghanistan 

Commander, lOth Combat A'iation Brigade. Fort Drum, Ke.w York and OPER<\TION IR."'-Ql 

FREEDO:'vl_ Iraq 

Aug 06 Jun 07 Studen~ National War College, Wruhington, DC 

Jul 04 Aug 06 Director, Flight Concepts Di11sion. Fort Eustis, Virginia and OPERATION IR4QI FREEDO:Yl,lraq 

and OPERA. TfON El\TILKIKG FREED0:\1_ A.tghanistan 

Jun 0~ Jul 04 Commander, 2d Battalion, !60th Spedol Operations A>1ation Regiment (Airborne). Fort Campbell 

Kentuclq· a.~d OPER<\TIOK E),lJLKIKG FREED a:'.{ Afghanistan 

:'.1ar 01 :VIur 02 Senior Special Operations A>iation ObserYeriController, Joint Readiness Training Center Operations 

Group, Fort Polk, Louisiana 

Jun 9& .'v!ru- 01 Executil·e Oflker, later Commander, B C ompony, 3d Batta)jon, !60th Special OperatiollS A-,iation 

Regiment (llirborne), Hunter Army AirtielcL Georgia 

Jun 97 Jun 9S Student, Cnited States Anuy Command ll!ld General Staff Officer Course, Fort leavenworth, Kansas 

Ylar 94 JUD 97 Adjutant, later Operations Officer, ~d Battalion, ]60th Special Operntions A'iation Re.giment 

(Airborne), F crt Campbell, Kentucl.:y and OPER.i\.TIOK Ll'HOLD DE:Y!OCRi\.CY, Hciti 

Jul 93 ?vlar 94 Student, A\iation Officer Advanced Course, Cnited State> A\iation Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama 
66 

Dec SS Jul 93 Commander, later Platoon Leader, B Company, later Commander, Headquarters and Headquarters 

Company, 3d Battalion, !60th Special Operations lwiation Regiment (A.irborue), Hunter .".nny 

A.irlield, Georgia and OPER."cTIOK DESERT SIO~'l, Saudi Arabia 

Jul S7 Dec SS Section Leader, later Platoon Leader, 27lst Combat A'iation Compillly, 17thA;iation Brigade, 

Republic of Korea 

SDI:.I"'-RY OF JOTI\T ASS!Gl\-:\!ElS"TS 

Chief of Stoff, 1Oth :\·!ountain Di\ision (Light lnfaol:ry), Combined Joint 

Task Force-lO.•Reg:ional Commillld-South, OPERA II OK E:N'Dl:Rll'\G 

FREEDO:Yl, Afghanist"" 

Commander, 1d Battalion, 160th Special Operations A'iation Regiment 

(Airborne). OPER.U!Ol'\ El\"DtJ""RTh'G FREEDO:\l Afghanistan 

SL-:\l:\'L"'-RY OF OPER.'>.TIOKAL ASSlGlS-:\1E?>i!S 

Chief ofStafr~ lOth :\fountain Di\isiou (Light Infantry), Combined Joint 

Task F arce-JO.Regional Cowmand-Sou!b, OPERATION El\'Dl:RIKG 

FREED0:\1, Afghanistan 

Commander, lOth Combat ;hiationBrigade, Fort Dn:un. KewYork and 

OPERA.TJOK IRAQI FREEDOiv1, Iraq 

Director, Flight Concepts Di:lision, F art Eustis, Virginia a'ld OPER.~ TIOK 

IRAQI FREEDO\I, Iraq 

Director, Flight Concepts :lli.ision, Fort Eustis, Virginia 211d OPERATION 

E~lJCRll'\G FREEDO:\I, .Afghanistan 

Commander, ld Battalion, 160th Spedill Operations A;iation Regiment 

(Airborne), OPERA TIOJ'\ El\'DL"RIKG FREEDO:Y[, Afghanistan 

Adjutilllt, later S-3, 2d Battalion, !60th Spedal Operations A;iatioo 

Regiment {Akbome\ Fort Cnmpbdl, Kentuch.")' illld OPERAHON 

U'HOLD DE\WCR.ACY, Haiti 

Corumander, later Platoon Leader, B Company, later Commrn1der, 

Headquarters illld Headquarters Company, 3d Battalion, !60th Special 

Operatio!lS A;iation Regiment (Airborne), Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia 

andOPER.ATIOKDESERI STOR.\{ SaudiArabia 

CS DECOR.li. TIOKS lu'<"D BADGES 

Distinguished Ser;ice :'v[edal 

Legion of:Yferit ("ith 3 Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters) 

Brame St"! ::Vledal (with Silver OakLeaf Cluster) 

~deritorious Senice 2\1edal (\\ith 4 Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters) 

Air :\fedal for Valor 

Air Medal (N'umera14) 

Anny Commendation :'vfedal (-,,ith I Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster) 

.".nny Achievement :Medal (with I Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster) 

Combat Action Badge 

::Viaster Parachutist Badge 

Air Assault Badge 

:'.Jaster Army A;iator Badge 

DATE GRWE 

Sep 10- Oct 11 Colon-el 

Apr 03 - Apr 04 Lieuten<mt Colonel 

DATE GR. WE 

Sep 10- Oct 11 Colonel 

Oct 08 - Oct 09 Colonel 

1\o;- 05 -Apr 06 Lieutenant Colonel 

Apr 05 - Jun OS lieutenatlt Colonel 

Apr 03 - Apr 0-i Lieutenrn1t C olond 

Oct 9-t- Kov 94 Captain 

Nov 90- Apr 91 Captain 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 29, 2017 

(69) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER 

Ms. SPEIER. In my opening statement, I discussed the importance of understanding the real reasons that pilots leave the service, which are often non-monetary. If a pilot is not happy with their assignments or deployment schedules, all the 

money in the world may not be able to keep them in the service. Given these issues, 

can each of you briefly explain how you are employing non-monetary incentives to 

retain pilots? 

General BRILAKIS. The Marine Corps works individually with officers to try and 

match their personal preferences with suitable requirements in the operating force 

which may positively influence an individual’s decision to remain, vice resign. Duty 

station preference, unit preference, time on station waivers, geo-location preference, 

and assignments outside of their primary occupation are areas we look at to 

incentivize the retention of aviators, while also filling mission critical requirements. 

Ms. SPEIER. In my opening statement, I discussed the importance of understanding the real reasons that pilots leave the service, which are often non-monetary. If a pilot is not happy with their assignments or deployment schedules, all the 

money in the world may not be able to keep them in the service. Given these issues, 

can each of you briefly explain how you are employing non-monetary incentives to 

retain pilots? 

Admiral BURKE. Career exit surveys indicate a number of complex, inter-related 

factors leading to pilot decisions to leave service, including an improving economy 

with increasing opportunities for commercial airline industry employment. Aviators 

also express dissatisfaction in their quality of service due to readiness challenges 

associated with limited aircraft availability (number of airframes and lack of spare 

parts), reduced flying hours, timely attainment of tactical qualifications and career 

progression, frequency of moves, and deployment lengths/time away from family. 

Non-monetary retention incentives have focused on improving quality of service and 

work-life balance through increased choice and flexibility in a successful career 

path. While relatively new, we are seeing progress through initiatives such as the 

Career Intermission Program (CIP), increased graduate education options, opportunities for Tours with Industry (TWI), the High School Senior Stability initiative, and 

efforts to incorporate personnel management process changes as part of Sailor 2025. 

Increasing numbers of aviation officers are taking advantage of CIP, which affords 

them a one-three year sabbatical for various reasons, such as starting a family, furthering education, or fulfilling other ambitions that might otherwise have caused 

them to leave the Navy. After intermission, they return to service without harm to 

their career progression or competitiveness. The intent of TWI is to familiarize a 

cadre of Sailors with corporate planning, organization, management techniques, innovations, and best practices by placing them with leading private sector corporations for one year. The experience enhances their professional development and better prepares them for follow-on Navy tours, during which their new skills can be 

leveraged. Under the High School Senior Stability initiative, when a dependent family member enters their junior year of high school, the Sailor may submit a request 

to remain in the same geographic location to permit the dependent to complete their 

senior year of high school. Such career broadening measures, aimed at increasing 

career flexibility, experience and choice, when coupled with judicious applications of 

monetary incentives, are key to improving aviation retention in the long term. 

Ms. SPEIER. Congress increased the aviation bonus from $25,000 to $35,000 in the 

FY17 NDAA. Vice Admiral Burke and LTG Grosso: does this amount provide 

enough flexibility to use higher bonuses to retain the most critical skills, while also 

providing the rest of the pilots with a lower incentive? 

Admiral BURKE. End-strength and pilot production levels are not directly contributing to aviation retention challenges, thus neither is expected to improve near-term 

retention. While we are accessing and training sufficient numbers of pilots to meet 

requirements, mid-grade and senior pilots in some communities, such as Strike 

Fighter (VFA), Electronic Attack (VAQ) and Mine Warfare (HM), are leaving the 

Navy at higher-than-expected rates, challenging our ability to meet subsequent flying and non-flying assignment requirements. Aviation accessions are based on an 

annual demand to fill first fleet squadron billets with junior officers who replace in-
70 

cumbents vacating billets for routine tour rotations/progression. Retention rates of 

aviators after the first tour have historically proven sufficient in the aggregate to 

meet manning and selectivity requirements for subsequent career milestone billets—such as department head and command—and the many sea shore billets the 

aviation community fills. Annual aviation accessions of around 1,000–1,100 annually, since 2012, coupled with our ability to train accessions on time, has provided 

a sustainable model, as long as retention goals were being met. Today’s retention 

challenges, in some communities, are occurring between the 10 and 20-year service 

points. While end-strength increases may eventually yield larger accession year 

groups that could equate to larger overall pilot inventories, increasing populations 

beyond that needed for immediate first fleet squadron billets would take over 10 

years. Also, while increasing pilot production could generate more pilots for first 

fleet sea tours in the near term, creating excess populations in some fleet squadrons, this cadre could still choose to resign at the end of their initial minimum service requirement, prior to serving a critical department head tour, so the increase 

would not necessarily resolve the retention challenges we face today. 

Ms. SPEIER. In my opening statement, I discussed the importance of understanding the real reasons that pilots leave the service, which are often non-monetary. If a pilot is not happy with their assignments or deployment schedules, all the 

money in the world may not be able to keep them in the service. Given these issues, 

can each of you briefly explain how you are employing non-monetary incentives to 

retain pilots? 

General GROSSO. The AF is employing several non-monetary incentives to improve 

pilot retention, to include increased assignment and development education flexibility, and removing dozens of non-flying additional duties and computer based 

training modules from their workload. Arguably, the most meaningful non-monetary 

incentive for pilot retention has been the addition of civilian contractors in flying 

squadrons to assist with laborious non-flying tasks required for day-to-day flight operations. These individuals allow pilots to spend more time studying, flying, and 

learning how to be the best in the world at what they do. Although ACC is currently 

the only MAJCOM to have assigned admin contractors, PACAF, AETC, USAFE, and 

AFGSC should also have contractors in place by the spring of 2018. Additionally, 

increasing end-strength numbers will certainly help with the pilot shortage as many 

of those members will be maintenance personnel tasked with keeping old aircraft 

flying and flying is what our pilots want to do. Furthermore, AETC’s maximum 

available pilot production is ∼1,400 per year due to available runways, daylight and 

training ranges. The Air Force must develop additional training capacity in order 

to increase production to 1,600 pilots annually, the amount we will need to sustain 

60 fighter squadrons and mitigate pending shortfalls in other platforms. 

Ms. SPEIER. Congress increased the aviation bonus from $25,000 to $35,000 in the 

FY17 NDAA. Vice Admiral Burke and LTG Grosso: does this amount provide 

enough flexibility to use higher bonuses to retain the most critical skills, while also 

providing the rest of the pilots with a lower incentive? 

General GROSSO. The Air Force appreciates the $35,000 annual cap authorized in 

the FY17 NDAA. The Air Force will use the FY17 NDAA Aviation Bonus authority 

and implement using a business case model to identify areas of greatest need. The 

business case model will be run annually and consider manning levels (current and 

trend), retention levels (current and trend), timeline for generating replacements, 

and costs to train/generate replacements. However, based on the RAND study directed by the FY16 NDAA, we believe the $35,000 cap limits the Services’ ability 

to retain pilots in our most critical need area (Fighter Pilots), but also limits the 

Services’ ability to retain aviators in areas of lesser need. The RAND study suggested a higher bonus authority was needed to incentivize the retention levels required to maintain our pilot force. We will analyze the effectiveness of our FY17 

Aviation Bonus program under current authorities and then may need additional 

support in the form of increased authority to include an increased Aviation Bonus 

ceiling. 

Ms. SPEIER. In my opening statement, I discussed the importance of understanding the real reasons that pilots leave the service, which are often non-monetary. If a pilot is not happy with their assignments or deployment schedules, all the 

money in the world may not be able to keep them in the service. Given these issues, 

can each of you briefly explain how you are employing non-monetary incentives to 

retain pilots? 

General PETERSON. Although retention across Army Aviation is not an immediate 

problem, recent trends indicate the need for increased focus on Aviation Warrant 

Officer incentives. Retention of highly competent aviators is key to mitigating current personnel shortages while the Army produces additional aviators to fill those 

shortages. The Army is unique in that the preponderance of our Rated Aviators are 
71 

Warrant Officers. This allows, by design, the career paths of Aviation Warrant Officers to focus on pilot related duties and advancement through specialized pilot 

training, with minimal requirements to serve in assignments outside of Aviation. 

The primary incentive for an Army Aviator to remain in service will always be the 

opportunity to develop within their craft and seek advanced pilot and leadership positions. The Army encourages and supports this endeavor by offering other incentives to assist the aviator both personally and professionally. Two opportunities 

available to Aviation Warrant Officers are the Degree Completion Program and 

Broadening Assignments such as Flight School Instructors and Training Center Observers. Both of these opportunities allow Warrant Officers a break from the high 

Operational Tempo that is common within Army Aviation units, as well as the opportunity to either complete their educational goals or to develop their tactical and 

technical warfighting skills. It is also an important goal for the Army to provide not 

only aviators, but all Soldiers, the ability to be assigned to personally desirable duty 

stations for a duration that allows predictability for the Soldier and their family. 

Our human resources personnel carefully manage this important consideration 

based on Soldier preferences and operational and institutional requirements. As current shortages are mitigated and manning levels improve, the Army will have better 

capacity to meet these goals. The Army is exploring all options to enhance the current programs available and institute additional programs into policy. There are opportunities within the Degree Completion and Broadening Assignments to expand 

the current target population providing more access to the programs. The Army will 

also continue to emphasize assignment stability within its ability to meet our Country’s operational requirements. Critical to the success of any current or future program is the health of our current force. Manning shortages limit opportunities for 

aviators to serve in broadening or educational assignments based on requirements 

to man aircraft and units in support of Army requirements at home and abroad. 

Fixing current manning shortages will allow for these opportunities in the future 

and help to stabilize our Total Force. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. ROSEN 

Ms. ROSEN. What parts of the personnel system (for example, assignments or promotions) do you assess must be changed to aid in retention? 

Admiral BURKE. Through Sailor 2025, Navy is pursuing a dynamic set of approximately 45 non-monetary initiatives designed to improve retention across the force. 

Built on a framework of three pillars—a modernized personnel system, ready relevant learning, and career readiness—Sailor 2025 is a roadmap designed to change 

our approach to personnel programs by providing Sailors with choice and flexibility. 

These initiatives target modernizing personnel management and training systems 

to more-effectively find, recruit, train, and manage the careers of, talented people, 

thus improving retention and warfighting readiness. For example, we are modernizing Navy’s fitness reporting and evaluation system, increasing emphasis on meritbased pay incentives, and continuing efforts to improve the transparency and accessibility of our detailing system/process for Sailors and their families. While existing 

statutory authorities provide the necessary tools to adequately influence current aviator retention behavior, we continually assess the sufficiency and effectiveness of 

our efforts to enable efficient retention, and when needed, recommend changes to 

provide the tools and flexibility needed to meet emerging demand. 

Ms. ROSEN. Will the end-strength increases in the FY 17 NDAA help with the 

shortage, or are there other physical barriers to increasing pilot production such as 

school-house size or instructor cadre? 

Admiral BURKE. End-strength and pilot production levels are not directly contributing to aviation retention challenges, thus neither is expected to improve near-term 

retention. While we are accessing and training sufficient numbers of pilots to meet 

requirements, mid-grade and senior pilots in some communities, such as Strike 

Fighter (VFA), Electronic Attack (VAQ) and Mine Warfare (HM), are leaving the 

Navy at higher-than-expected rates, challenging our ability to meet subsequent flying and non-flying assignment requirements. Aviation accessions are based on an 

annual demand to fill first fleet squadron billets with junior officers who replace incumbents vacating billets for routine tour rotations/progression. Retention rates of 

aviators after the first tour have historically proven sufficient in the aggregate to 

meet manning and selectivity requirements for subsequent career milestone billets—such as department head and command—and the many sea shore billets the 

aviation community fills. Annual aviation accessions of around 1,000–1,100 annually, since 2012, coupled with our ability to train accessions on time, has provided 

a sustainable model, as long as retention goals were being met. Today’s retention 
72 

challenges, in some communities, are occurring between the 10 and 20-year service 

points. While end-strength increases may eventually yield larger accession year 

groups that could equate to larger overall pilot inventories, increasing populations 

beyond that needed for immediate first fleet squadron billets would take over 10 

years. Also, while increasing pilot production could generate more pilots for first 

fleet sea tours in the near term, creating excess populations in some fleet squadrons, this cadre could still choose to resign at the end of their initial minimum service requirement, prior to serving a critical department head tour, so the increase 

would not necessarily resolve the retention challenges we face today. 

Ms. ROSEN. Since flight hours are a motivator for retention, is your aircraft force 

structure robust and healthy enough to support all of your minimum required pilot 

flying hours? Will you be able to increase flying time with an increased budget or 

will it require more airplanes? 

Admiral BURKE. The aircraft force structure is not currently adequate to fulfill the 

minimum number of required flying hours to establish and maintain optimum aviation readiness. Available funding must be spread over a number of priorities, including depot capacity, readiness accounts—particularly those that buy/sustain the supply of aircraft parts—and procurement. Shortfalls in each of these areas impose risk 

in meeting both minimum flight hour requirements as well as current and future 

Global Force Management (GFM) operational commitments. While investments in 

the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget begin to address the gap between strike 

fighter inventory and GFM demand by fully funding depot capacity, consistent longterm investments will be essential to fully-funding flying hours, enabling depot operations, making readiness and supply accounts whole, and procuring replacement 

aircraft at a rate that outpaces consumption. 

Ms. ROSEN. I am deeply concerned with how pilot shortfalls are impacting the Air 

Force service-wide, and am particularly interested to hear how it’s affecting Nellis 

and Creech Air Force Bases. Can you please explain how these shortfalls affect the 

Air Force’s ability to conduct Red Flag, their main combat training exercise, and 

their ability to maintain UAS crews at Creech and the missions those Airmen fly 

overseas? 

General GROSSO. Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) crew manning and the impact 

of pilot shortfalls on Nellis AFB operations are two very distinct and separate challenges. First, with Congressional assistance, the USAF implemented a ‘‘Get Well 

Plan’’ and Continuous Process Improvement Plan (CPIP) to improve RPA crew manning and stabilize RPA operations tempo. As a result, RPA crew manning is rapidly 

improving and we are on glide path through FY19 to stabilize the enterprise’s operations tempo. Second, the fighter pilot shortage is straining our ability to leverage 

the world-renowned elite training and operational capacity at Nellis AFB. Although 

we will not compromise the high quality tactical training Red Flag provides the 

USAF, joint and coalition participants, continued fighter pilot shortages may impact 

the way we conduct these exercises in the future. However, all exercises and sorties 

are currently being flown as scheduled. 

Ms. ROSEN. What parts of the personnel system (for example, assignments or promotions) do you assess must be changed to aid in retention? 

General GROSSO. The assignment process is one of the areas within the personnel 

system we are working to improve. Our pilots are leaving because they are frustrated with the lack of predictability offered under our current process. The Air 

Force is taking steps to increase the transparency and flexibility of the assignment 

process to promote family stability. Our Airmen deserve an updated assignment system that can meet manning requirements as well as ensure mission success. Therefore, a beta test is currently underway that could change how we execute assignments. This test involves the use of algorithms to optimize assignments based on 

the needs of the Air Force and desires of our members and their families—an assignment system for the 21st century. We are also examining alternate career paths 

for pilots (and other officer career fields) other than the current one-track model. 

The intent is to investigate the ability to offer more flexibility in how we manage 

and develop the force, reviewing multiple career progression options such as a technical, non-command track for pilots to allow them to concentrate on flying duties. 

The Air Force has also reduced additional duties, removed superfluous training 

courses, and hired contractors in flying squadrons to perform burdensome administrative tasks. All of these efforts allow our pilots to refocus on their primary duty: 

flying. 

Ms. ROSEN. Will the end-strength increases in the FY 17 NDAA help with the 

shortage, or are there other physical barriers to increasing pilot production such as 

school-house size or instructor cadre? 

General GROSSO. Increases in Air Force end-strength will help mitigate the pilot 

shortage. Two primary factors are required to produce and sustain pilots: maintain-
73 

ers and aircraft. The Air Force is currently more than 3,400 maintainers short. Endstrength increases are critical to reducing this shortfall. A healthy maintenance 

force provides the foundation for operation aircraft which increases sortie production 

essential for making and seasoning pilots. Additional physical barriers do exist in 

both school-house size and instructor cadre. Air Education and Training Command 

(AETC) is currently growing school-house capacity from 1,200 pilots per year to approximately 1,400 pilots per year in 2020. This will be the maximum limit of pilots 

that can be produced at the current training bases. Air Force pilot production beyond 1,400 will require additional pilot training base to provide the necessary runways and training ranges. Looking further into the future, the Air Force must develop additional training capacity in order to increase production to 1,600 pilots annually, the amount we will need to sustain 60 fighter squadrons and mitigate pending shortfalls in other platforms. As a point of comparison, Major U.S. Airlines hired 

more than 4,100 pilots in 2016. Lastly, the Air Force needs to ensure a robust instructor pilot cadre to train new pilots. We look forward to working with Congress 

to develop retention packages that ensures the availability of these critical personnel. 

Ms. ROSEN. Since flight hours are a motivator for retention, is your aircraft force 

structure robust and healthy enough to support all of your minimum required pilot 

flying hours? Will you be able to increase flying time with an increased budget or 

will it require more airplanes? 

General GROSSO. The current pilot flying hours do not support all of the minimum 

training requirements. The Air Force is executing flying hour programs to the maximum efforts based on current maintenance manning and aircraft force structure. 

Growing Air Force end-strength which includes assessing additional aircraft maintenance capacity is critical to re-establishing a healthy maintenance foundation and 

making improvements to flying hour programs. In the fighter community, the current active duty force structure is too small to experience and season the required 

number of pilots. The Air Force requires additional fighter force structure in order 

to maintain a healthy fighter pilot inventory with the appropriate experience ratios. 

As overall pilot production numbers increase, the execution of additional flying 

hours within the existing training structure quickly become constrained by the limited number of existing training bases. A new basing option may be required in the 

2020 timeframe to gain additional increases in production. Lastly, accelerating the 

acquisition of the next-generation trainer aircraft (T–X) is critical to providing additional pilot production capacity. 

Æ