United States General Accounting Office

GAO Briefing Report to Congressional

Requesters

June 1995 GOVERNMENT

AIRCRAFT

Observations on Travel

by Senior Officials

GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-260353 

June 5, 1995

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

United States Senate

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio

House of Representatives

In response to your request, we reviewed the Department of Defense’s

(DOD) and selected civilian agencies’ aircraft used to transport senior level

military and civilian personnel during a 30-month period from October

1992 through March 1995. Our specific objectives were to determine if

(1) the DOD inventory of operational support airlift (OSA) aircraft was

excessive to wartime requirements to support the current military

strategy; (2) the rules and regulations governing the use of these aircraft

had recently been changed, and what impact the changes made on senior

level travel; (3) senior DOD officials’ trips to the most frequent destinations

could have been made aboard government contract carriers; and (4) DOD

helicopters used in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area were justified

based on wartime requirements and how often they were flown to nearby

destinations. As requested, we are also providing information on the

inventory, related costs, and use of aircraft by selected civilian agencies.

On May 25 and June 5, 1995, we briefed your staff on our review. This

report documents the information presented at those briefings.

Background As of April 1995, DOD had a fleet of about 600 aircraft that can be used to

transport senior level military and civilian personnel. About 500 fixed-wing

planes and 100 helicopters perform OSA missions. According to DOD

Directive 4500.43, dated October 30, 1985, OSA includes airlift

transportation in support of command, installation, or management

functions using DOD-owned or controlled aircraft. Some DOD senior

travelers are “required” to fly aboard government aircraft and to maintain

continuous secure communication links with the national command

authorities. Required users include all 4-star generals or admirals and a

limited number of key DOD civilians, such as the service secretaries. The

OSA directive excludes some aircraft, such as those assigned to the Air

Force 89th Military Airlift Wing. The 89th Wing provides worldwide airlift

support for the President, Vice President, and other high-level officials in

the U.S. and foreign governments. There is no single manager for DOD’s OSA

aircraft.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
B-260353 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has delegated responsibility

to the General Services Administration (GSA) for managing civilian

agencies’ aircraft programs. Prior studies have made specific

recommendations to improve the management and operation of

government aircraft programs.

Results in Brief DOD’s policy states that the OSA inventory of fixed-wing aircraft should be

based solely on wartime requirements. DOD has not provided central

guidance on how the military services are to count their OSA aircraft or to

determine their wartime requirements, leaving each service to

independently establish its own wartime requirements. In 1994 the Air

Force concluded that its OSA inventory is excessive to its wartime

requirements, while the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps determined

that their OSA inventories are currently slightly less than wartime

requirements.

A February 1993 report on Roles, Missions, and Functions issued by the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the recent report of the

Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces indicate that the

existing number of aircraft dedicated to OSA missions has been and

continues to be excessive. Our review showed that the current OSA

inventory is 10 times greater than the number of OSA aircraft used

in-theater during the Persian Gulf War. Nevertheless, DOD has only recently

begun to better quantify its OSA wartime requirements and to consider the

availability of one service’s aircraft to help fulfill the OSA needs of the other

services.

Adverse publicity and increased congressional concern with potential

abuses have resulted in a number of statements during 1994 by the White

House and the Secretary of Defense emphasizing the need for senior

officials to carefully consider the use of government aircraft in lieu of

commercial transportation. On May 9, 1995, the Deputy Secretary of

Defense issued a revised policy memorandum to eliminate an entire

category of “required mission use” for justifying individual OSA flights. This

new standard requires that many more OSA flights will have to be justified

based on a cost comparison between DOD’s OSA aircraft and commercial

carriers. Our review indicated that since mid-1994, the total number of

senior level officials’ OSA flights has been declining. Appendix I provides

information on the number of flights of the most frequent senior level

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
B-260353 

military and civilian passengers. During a 26-month period in our review,1

the number of senior officials’ OSA flight segments2 per month ranged from

a high of about 1,800 to a low of about 1,000. We found that many of the 20

destinations most frequently traveled to by senior level DOD officials were

also served by government contract carriers. Our data show that many

trips could have been accomplished by contract carrier. But, it should be

recognized that some of the trips we identified were made by required

users and that the contract flights may not have provided the same

scheduling flexibility made possible by government-owned aircraft.

We found that the Army and the Air Force helicopters located in the

Washington, D.C., area are not justified based on OSA wartime

requirements. Rather, these aircraft have various classified military and

civilian agency contingency missions. The individual classified missions

require fewer than the total number of helicopters assigned by the Army

and the Air Force to the Washington, D.C., area.

The DOD senior travelers’ most frequent helicopter flight was to or from

Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs, Maryland, located about 15 miles

from the Pentagon. On December 30, 1994, the Secretary of the Army

prohibited Army officials’ use of helicopters for such trips, except in

unusual circumstances. The cost difference between a helicopter flight

and a car can range from about $400 to almost $1,600, depending on the

type of helicopter flown.

Civilian agencies have over 1,500 aircraft, costing between about

$900 million and $1 billion a year to operate. However, only 19 are “more

often” or “routinely” used for senior level travel. These 19 aircraft cost

about $24 million a year to operate. As you specifically requested, we

reviewed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and

Coast Guard senior officials’ use of aircraft and found that although the

usage of such aircraft was infrequent, many of the most frequent

destinations are served by government contract carriers. Inspector

General civilian agency aircraft program reports have identified several

similar problems within the various programs, such as aircraft acquisitions

not being adequately justified and cost comparisons with commercial

service not being completed or accurate (see app. II).

1

Our review covered a 30-month period, including fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995 (through March

1995), but complete records from all of the services were only available for a 26-month period from

January 1993 through February 1995.

2

Agencies record travel in individual flight segments rather than in round trips.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
B-260353 

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Defense (1) provide uniform

guidance to the services concerning how to compute OSA wartime

requirements, (2) develop the appropriate mechanisms to ensure the

availability of each service’s aircraft to help fulfill the OSA needs of the

other services, and (3) reassign or otherwise dispose of excess OSA

aircraft.

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense adopt, and direct the

other service secretaries to adopt, the Army’s policy of restricting

helicopter flights to Andrews Air Force Base and possibly to other nearby

locations as well.

Scope and

Methodology

We interviewed officials and reviewed policies, regulations, procedures,

related DOD studies, and data on the number of DOD and civilian agencies’

aircraft used for transporting senior level military and civilian personnel,

related costs, and modernization efforts; the methodology, scope, and

results of the military services’ review of their wartime requirements for

OSA aircraft; and the use of OSA aircraft during the Persian Gulf War. Also,

we interviewed officials concerning the civilian agencies’ recent audits

that were conducted by their respective Offices of the Inspector General

as a part of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency aircraft

management review, and we reviewed copies of their audit reports.

In addition, we used data obtained from the military services’

computerized records maintained by their central aircraft schedulers and

the Coast Guard and NASA’s manual reports to GSA on senior level travel to

identify the most frequent traveler’s names and their origins and

destinations for fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995 (through March 1995).

We did not independently verify the computerized data or manual reports.

We asked agency officials to provide us the full names and current titles of

the most frequent senior level travelers for their identification. We did not

validate the purpose of individual trips nor did we evaluate the

cost-effectiveness of using government aircraft.

Also, we used the airlines’ computerized scheduling system and the

Federal Travel Directory to determine if government contract carrier

service was available for the most frequent flights. For local travel by

helicopter within the Washington, D.C., area, we compared helicopter

flying hour costs with anticipated automobile travel times and costs for

the most frequent helicopter flight—between Andrews Air Force Base and

the Pentagon.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
B-260353 

We discussed the results of our review with DOD, GSA, Coast Guard, and

NASA representatives. Generally, they agreed with the information

presented in this report. We made changes and incorporated their

comments where appropriate.

We conducted our review from January through May 1995 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards. A list of the

organizations we contacted or visited during our review is contained in

appendix III, and appendix IV is a list of related reports by our office, DOD,

and civilian agencies’ Inspectors General.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen, Senate Committee

on Armed Services, House Committee on National Security, and Senate

and House Committees on Appropriations; the Secretaries of Defense, the

Army, the Air Force, the Navy, Agriculture, Energy, State, Transportation,

the Interior, and the Treasury; the Attorney General; the Administrators of

the General Services Administration and the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Copies will also be made available to others upon request.

If you or staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact

me at (202) 512-5140. The major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix V.

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations

 and Capabilities Issues

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Contents

Letter 1

Briefing Section I 

Background

10

DOD’s Operational Support Aircraft Used to Transport Senior

Officials

10

DOD’s Estimated Operation and Support Costs For Fiscal Years

1993-1995

12

Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

14

DOD OSA Requirements Policy and Prior Studies 14

Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces (CORM) 16

OSA Fixed-Wing Inventories and Requirements 18

OSA Inventories as of April 1995 by Aircraft Type 20

OSA Requirements as of April 1995 by Aircraft Type 22

OSA Aircraft Used In-Theater During the Persian Gulf War 24

Each Service Defines OSA Differently 26

Service Assessments Differed in Scope and Methodology 28

Service Assessments Differed in Scope and Methodology -

continued

29

Services Requirements Assessments Were Limited in Scope 32

OSA Requirements Process: Planned and On-Going Efforts 34

Briefing Section III 

Senior Officials Travel

on Government

Aircraft

36

Recent Policy on Government Aircraft Use 36

Various Senior Federal Travel Reports Are Required 38

DOD OSA Aircraft Fixed-Wing Flight Segments by Senior Level

Officials Jan. 93 thru Feb. 95

40

Top 20 DOD Pair Destinations Jan. 93 thru Feb. 95 42

Briefing Section IV 

Helicopter Use in the

Washington, D.C.,

Area

44

Helicopter Inventory In the Washington D.C., Area 44

Army/Air Force Helicopter Lifts Oct. 93 thru Mar. 95 46

Top 20 Pair Destinations for Air Force and Army Helicopters

Located in the Washington, D.C., Area

48

Briefing Section V 

Civilian Agency

Aircraft

50

Civilian Agency Aircraft Inventory and Operating Costs For Fiscal

Years 1993 and 1994

50

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Contents

Aircraft “More Often” or “Routinely Used” To Transport Senior

Officials

52

Top 14 Coast Guard and NASA Pair Destinations of Senior

Officials

54

Appendix I 

Most Frequent Senior

Level Travelers

56

Appendix II 

Civilian Agency

Inspector General

Audits

62

Summary of Findings/Recommendations From Civilian Inspector

General Audits

62

Appendix III 

Agencies Visited or

Contacted During Our

Review

64

Appendix IV 

List of Related GAO,

DOD, and Civilian

Agencies’ Reports

66

Appendix V 

Major Contributors to

This Report

68

Tables Air Force Fixed-Wing OSA Aircraft: Most Frequent Military and

Civilian Passengers Oct. 92 Thru Feb. 95

57

Army Fixed-Wing OSA Aircraft: Most Frequent Military and

Civilian Passengers Jan. 93 Thru Mar. 95

58

Navy Fixed-Wing OSA Aircraft: Most Frequent Military and

Civilian Passengers Oct. 92 Thru Mar. 95

59

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Contents

Most Frequent U.S. Coast Guard and NASA Senior Level

Passengers Oct. 92 thru Sept. 94

60

Air Force Helicopters: Most Frequent Senior Level Passengers

Oct. 93 thru Feb. 95

61

Army Helicopters: Most Frequent Senior Level Passengers Jan. 93

thru Mar. 95

61

Abbreviations

AFB Air Force Base

CINC Commander-in-Chief

CORM Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DOD Department of Defense

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

GAO General Accounting Office

GSA General Services Administration

IG Inspector General

JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

OIG Office of the Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSA Operational Support Airlift

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PCIE President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency

USMS U.S. Marshal Service

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section I 

Background

GAO DOD's Operational Support Aircraft Used 

to Transport Senior Officials

Operational Support Airlift (OSA) 

consists mostly of fixed-wing aircraft

The Air Force's 89th Military Airlift Wing 

aircraft are not OSA by regulation

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section I 

Background

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) primary aircraft used to transport

senior level military and civilian personnel are the military services’

operational support airlift (OSA) aircraft, which are primarily fixed-wing

aircraft consisting of many types of airplanes.1

 Very senior level officials

are also flown aboard the Air Force 89th Military Airlift Wing’s fixed-wing

and rotary-wing aircraft. The 89th Wing is located at Andrews Air Force

Base, Camp Springs, Maryland.

According to DOD Directive 4500.43, dated October 30, 1985, OSA aircraft

includes all airlift transportation in support of command, installation, or

management functions using DOD-owned or controlled aircraft. This

excludes aircraft to support presidential activities, namely the 89th

Military Airlift Wing.

DOD’s concept of the OSA mission was established in 1981. Prior to 1981,

DOD maintained certain aircraft primarily to meet peacetime needs of

military commands, bases, and installations for transporting cargo and

passengers. Many aircraft were assigned to this “administrative support”

category when they were no longer fit for their original mission. However,

in 1981, DOD changed the designation of these aircraft from “administrative

support” to “operational support airlift.” DOD’s basis for this fleet of aircraft

was changed from peacetime needs to wartime requirements.

In addition to the primary aircraft used to transport senior level personnel,

some other DOD aircraft may be used for that purpose. For example, within

the Air Force, we found that several strategic aircraft, such as the C-5 and

C-141, which are not included in OSA, are sometimes used to transport

senior level passengers. However, information regarding those trips was

not routinely documented. A full discussion of helicopters in the

Washington, D.C., area is included in section IV.

1

OSA aircraft carry both cargo and passengers. The total number of passengers carried during fiscal

years 1993 and 1994 was in excess of 542,000 and 501,000, respectively.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section I 

Background

GAO DOD's Estimated Operation and Support 

Costs For Fiscal Years 1993 - 1995

Fiscal year Estimated costs

1993 $359

1994 398

1995 378

 Total $1,135

Dollars in millions

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section I 

Background

The estimated operation and support costs for OSA-type aircraft have

averaged about $380 million annually for fiscal years 1993-1995 for the

military services and the 89th Military Airlift Wing. The costs include

contract support costs, which includes, for example, mechanics and

spares; petroleum, oil, and lubricants; and maintenance.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

GAO DOD's OSA Requirements

Policy and Prior Studies

OSA aircraft must be justified based on 

wartime requirements

Feb. 1993 JCS report concludes OSA 

inventories exceed wartime requirements

Apr. 1994 OSD report on reserve component 

OSA, directed the services to revalidate their 

OSA requirements

Sept. 1994 Air Force brief concluded DOD 

OSA inventories exceeded requirements

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

In DOD’s February 1993 report on Roles, Missions, and Functions of the

U.S. Armed Forces, the Chairman of the JCS concluded that current OSA

inventories, of about 500 aircraft, exceeded wartime needs. The

Chairman’s report recommended that excess OSA inventories be reduced

and directed the U.S. Transportation Command to schedule intra-theater

airlift.

In April 1994, the Offices of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve

Affairs and the Secretary of Defense for Program Evaluation and Analysis

issued a report to Congress on OSA aircraft operated by the national guard

and reserve components. To determine current OSA aircraft inventories,

the report proposed that OSA aircraft be divided into two groups based on

mission. Because the Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986

directs that DOD assign forces to either the combatant

commanders-in-chief (CINC) or to the services, the report divided the

reserve component OSA inventory into aircraft that support the CINCs and

those that support the military departments. The report concluded that

DOD’s OSA inventories were based on Cold War planning scenarios and

exceed wartime requirements. The report recommended that (1) DOD not

procure new aircraft except to modernize the fleet and (2) each service

validate its wartime OSA requirement based on current planning scenarios

and report the results to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) by the

end of fiscal year 1994.

The Air Force then independently studied OSA inventories DOD-wide for

their Chief of Staff. Known as the “McPeak Brief,” the September 1994

study concluded that total OSA assets were in excess of wartime

requirements and should be reduced. The Air Force Chief of Staff

recommended that the Air Force should own and operate all OSA aircraft

with potential savings from reducing service fleets, consolidating aircraft

sites, and reducing personnel requirements. Army officials told us that

they were not asked to provide data to the Air Force for this study. In

addition, we were told that the service secretaries have strongly resisted

giving up either scheduling, control over, or ownership of their OSA

aircraft.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

GAO Commission on Roles and Missions of 

the Armed Forces

11-member commission established to assess 26 

issues; e.g., Force Structure, Prepositioning

OSA was a subset of the Aviation Infrastructure 

Issue

CORM report recommends:

Air Force should provide OSA

Reduce OSA inventories

CORM report released on May 24, 1995

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

The Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Services is an

11-member group established to assess 26 issues from an operational and

infrastructure perspective. The original 26 issues included a broad range of

concerns such as prepositioning and force structure. OSA was a subset of a

larger consideration of aviation infrastructure. However, in August 1994,

the Secretary of Defense requested that the Commission address OSA as an

issue.

The Commission released its report on May 24, 1995. The Commission

concluded that current OSA inventories exceed wartime requirements and

that the total number of OSA aircraft should be reduced. The Commission

recommends that the Air Force be the single provider of OSA aircraft.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

GAO OSA Fixed-Wing Inventories and 

Requirements

Inventories and requirements based on 

each service definition

OSA inventory is 6% of all fixed-wing 

aircraft

Total fixed-wing inventory

OSA fixed-wing 

inventory 

OSA fixed-wing 

requirement Difference

Air Force 5,338 131 Classified Inventory exceeds requirement

Army 263 235 280 45 shortfall

Marine 610 24 27 3 shortfall

Navy 2,396 130 183 53 shortfall

Total 8,607 520

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

In response to a requirement to assess wartime needs for OSA aircraft, each

service determined its current OSA requirements in 1994. The Army, the

Marine Corps, and the Navy determined that their wartime requirements

exceeded current OSA inventories, while the Air Force concluded that its

existing OSA inventory was in excess of its wartime requirements. The

figures for the OSA inventories and requirements are based on each of the

services’ definitions of OSA.

The OSA fleet represents 6 percent of DOD’s total fixed-wing inventory.

Total fixed-wing inventory includes attack, bomber, and fighter aircraft as

well as transports, tankers, and trainers. Some of these aircraft could

provide an OSA capability, such as tactical airlift aircraft, while others, such

as bombers, do not provide a viable OSA capability. The Air Force

fixed-wing inventory figure excludes classified aircraft. The Army’s

fixed-wing OSA inventory and requirement include 109 and 122 aircraft

respectively, which they consider to be for combat service support. Each

of the other services also have OSA aircraft designated for these purposes.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

GAO OSA Inventories as of April 1995 by 

Aircraft Type

Type Air Force Army Marine Corps Navy Total

C-130 2 14 16

C-12 12 128 18 67 225

C-9 2 27 29

C-20 3 4 1 6 14

CT-43 1 1

EC/C-135 2 2

UP/VP-3 11 11

C-23 16 16

U-21 76 76

C-26 33 10 43

C-21 75 1 76

C-22 3 3

CT-39 3 5 8

Total 131 235 24 130 520

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

Based on information provided by the services, we calculated a current

inventory of 520 fixed-wing OSA aircraft. Our total of 520 fixed-wing OSA

aircraft differs from totals provided in other studies. The 1993 report from

the Chairman of the JCS concluded that there were 500 OSA fixed-wing

aircraft. An April 1994 report from OSD counted 354 OSA “service support”

fixed-wing aircraft and an unidentified number of “CINC support” aircraft.

The September 1994 “McPeak Brief” identified 576 fixed-wing OSA aircraft

and the May 1995 Commission on Roles and Missions report counted 551

fixed-wing OSA aircraft. These various fixed-wing OSA totals demonstrate

the effect of each service defining its OSA inventory differently and a lack

of agreement within DOD as to which aircraft constitute OSA.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

GAO OSA Requirements as of April 1995 by 

Aircraft Type

Type Air Force Army Marine Corps Navy Total

C-130 24 24

C-12 180 19 77 276

C-9 4 38 42

C-20 16 1 25 42

CT-43

EC/C-135

UP/VP-3

C-23 54 54

U-21

C-26 1 1

C-21 Classified 29 29+

C-22

CT-39 3 19 22

Total Classified 280 27 183 490+

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

As of April 1995, based on information provided by the services, we

calculated that total OSA requirements exceed current OSA inventories. The

total OSA requirement is not shown because the Air Force number is

classified.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

GAO OSA Aircraft Used In-Theater During the 

Persian Gulf War

48 OSA used in-theater (9% of current 

OSA)

Type Air Force Army Marine Corps Navy Total

C-12 <=6 8 2 5 <=21

C-21 8 8

C-23 5 5

C-9 2 12 14

Total 14 13 4 17 48

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

DOD Directive 4500.43 requires that OSA aircraft inventories must be based

on wartime needs. However, few OSA aircraft were used in-theater during

the Persian Gulf War. Actual use of OSA aircraft during the Persian Gulf

War suggests that the primary role of OSA is not wartime support but

peacetime support.

During the Gulf War, about 48 OSA aircraft went to the theater,

representing about 9 percent of current OSA fixed-wing inventories. A

February 1995 draft report to the Commission on Roles and Missions

stated that 136 C-130s were in-theater during the war and were often used

for OSA missions. But C-130s are dedicated to providing inter-theater airlift

and are not considered OSA aircraft.

According to service officials, the Army used 93 OSA aircraft and the Navy

used 37 OSA aircraft in the United States during the Persian Gulf War. Data

on Air Force and Marine Corps OSA aircraft used in the United States was

not available.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

GAO Each Service Defines OSA Differently

Air Force Excludes 89th Airlift Wing

Navy excludes Navy-unique aircraft

Army divides OSA mission into aircraft 

supporting the service Chief and the 

CINC

Service officials drafted a revised DOD 

directive 4500.43

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

According to DOD Directive 4500.43, a number of fixed-wing aircraft may

be excluded from the OSA inventory based on special missions. For

example, the directive specifically excludes (1) “carrier-on-board-delivery”

aircraft assigned to fleet logistic support squadrons; (2) aircraft assigned

to support presidential, attache, and Security Assistance Organization

activities; and (3) aircraft assigned to the 89th Military Airlift Wing.

The Air Force excludes aircraft attached to the 89th Military Airlift Wing

from its OSA inventory. The Navy excludes aircraft dedicated to supporting

the carrier fleet from its OSA inventory. According to Navy officials, 

10 U.S.C. 5062 authorizes the Navy to retain a naval aviation service in

support of carrier fleet movements. The Army divides its OSA inventory

into aircraft supporting the CINCs and aircraft supporting the service

secretary. (One advantage of this distinction is that only aircraft

supporting the service secretary would be considered OSA—and only these

aircraft would be subject to the additional oversight and accountability of

DOD Directive 4500.43).

In its April 1994 report to Congress, OSD outlined new definitions for OSA

based on service and CINC support missions. Although each of the services

provided input to the OSD study, only the Army used the OSD definitions to

validate its OSA wartime requirements. Earlier this year, a revised DOD

Directive 4500.43 was drafted by representatives from the services and the

U.S. Transportation Command. The draft directive provides a more

detailed definition of OSA. However, according to OSD officials, the draft is

not official OSD policy. OSD and service officials continue to disagree on the

definition of OSA.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

GAO Service Assessments Differed in Scope 

and Methodology

Air Force projected OSA demand using a 

C-21 aircraft to determine total OSA 

requirements

Army used two methodologies to 

establish requirements for OSA aircraft 

to support the services secretaries and 

the CINC

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

The services assessments of OSA wartime requirements differed in scope,

methodology, and assumptions used.

The Air Force’s analysis used one OSA aircraft type, the C-21, to model the

number of aircraft flights required to meet projected demand for

fixed-wing OSA support within current war planning guidance. Projected

demand was based on optimum levels of service to move cargo and

passengers to airfields within a theater during wartime. The Air Force OSA

requirement also includes aircraft to support theater CINCs.

The Army’s study was accomplished in two parts: an analysis of aircraft

supporting the service secretary and a separate analysis of aircraft

supporting the CINCs. The analysis of service support OSA was prepared by

a private contractor, based on current planning scenarios, and using actual

data on sorties from the Persian Gulf War to project the aircraft

requirement. The analysis of CINC support requirements was developed by

the Army as part of its continuous assessment of war fighting deficiencies.

Recently, the Army redesigned its Aviation Branch to (1) reflect actual

resources, (2) meet the requirements of current war fighting scenarios,

and (3) correct problems identified from the Persian Gulf War. Based on

the redesign process, the Army determined its airlift requirement to

provide CINC support.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

GAO Service Assessments Differed in Scope 

and Methodology - continued

Marine requirements based on required 

number of OSA aircraft to support 

estimated number of airfields

Navy established OSA requirements 

based on need to support a smaller force 

structure

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

The Marine Corps’ analysis was based on modeling all Marine Corps’ OSA

aircraft to meet projected demand for fixed-wing OSA support within

current war planning guidance. The Marine Corps did not prepare a

written report of their analysis.

The Navy determined its current OSA wartime requirement by updating its

1986 study. The update adjusted the 1986 requirement to reflect its smaller

force structure. However, the 1986 study was based on Cold War planning

guidance, involving a large-scale global conflict. The Navy has not

assessed its requirement to support the current war planning guidance.

From war games conducted in fiscal year 1995, the Navy concluded that

the current OSA inventory was adequate to meet the 1986 requirements.

However, Navy officials acknowledge that force structure and war fighting

assumptions have significantly changed. An assessment of Navy OSA

wartime requirements based on current planning guidance is planned, but

has not yet begun.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

GAO Services Requirements Assessments 

Were Limited in Scope

Services' analyses did not include:

Other OSA-capable aircraft

Commercial air options within the 

United States

Other services' OSA capabilities

Little DOD guidance on how to assess 

wartime requirements

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

The services’ assessments of OSA wartime requirements were limited in

scope. Overall, the services’ analyses did not consider the potential

contribution of all OSA-capable aircraft, such as tactical airlift aircraft, to

provide OSA support. The services’ analyses also did not assess commercial

air options to help meet transportation requirements in the United States,

as required by DOD Directive 4500.43. Although generally available only in

wartime, the services did not consider other aircraft availability such as

support from the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. In addition, the services did not

assess OSA capabilities available DOD-wide to meet the OSA mission

requirement.

According to service officials, DOD did not provide specific guidance on

how to assess OSA aircraft wartime requirements.

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

GAO OSA Requirements Process: Planned 

and On-Going Efforts

Transportation Policy Directorate Plans 

to revise OSA policy and definition

Joint Staff has begun a study of wartime 

requirements for OSA across DOD

Study results currently scheduled for 

issue on Oct. 1, 1995

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section II 

OSA Requirements

According to an OSD official, the Transportation Policy Directorate plans to

revise OSA policy. The revised policy will provide a standard definition of

the OSA mission with sufficient detail so that the services do not define OSA

inventories differently.

The Chairman of the JCS directed the Joint Staff to conduct a study of OSA

wartime requirements. According to officials, the study is in response to

preliminary findings of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the

Armed Forces—specifically, that individual service wartime requirements

are based on differing definitions and methodologies. The Joint Staff study

plans to validate OSA wartime requirements for individual aircraft based on

current defense planning guidance. The study plan is currently in draft.

The proposed schedule is to issue a product on OSA wartime requirements

on October 1, 1995.

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section III 

Senior Officials Travel on Government

Aircraft

GAO Recent Policy on Government Aircraft 

Use

Deputy Secretary of Defense 

memorandum (May 9, 1995) Implements:

OMB Circular A-126 (May 22, 1992) 

Presidential memorandum 

(Feb. 10, 1993)

OMB Bulletin No. 93-11 (Apr. 19, 1993)

White House memorandum 

(July 30, 1993) 

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section III 

Senior Officials Travel on Government

Aircraft

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-126, “Improving the

Management and Use of Government Aircraft” was revised on May 22,

1992. Its purpose is to minimize cost, improve the management, and use of

government aviation resources, and to assure that agencies rely primarily

on commercial airline or aircraft services to meet their aircraft support

needs. Circular A-126 also places certain responsibilities for agency

aircraft management within the purview of the General Services

Administration (GSA). The Administrator of GSA delegated these aircraft

management responsibilities to the Aircraft Management Division within

GSA’s Federal Supply Service. The Administrator also maintains an

interagency aviation policy working group, known as the Interagency

Committee for Aviation Policy, to advise him in developing or changing

aircraft policies and information requirements.

The Secretary of Defense issued a June 10, 1994, memorandum to

implement OMB Circular A-126; the presidential memorandum, “Restricted

Use of Government Aircraft,” dated February 10, 1993; OMB Bulletin 

No. 93-11, “Fiscal Responsibility and Reducing Perquisites,” dated 

April 19, 1993; and a White House memorandum, “Use of Government

Aircraft for Official Business,” dated July 30, 1993. The Secretary stated

that because travel on military aircraft is a premium mode of travel

involving high costs and limited resources, DOD senior officials and airlift

authorizing officials should restrict travel via such aircraft based on

considerations such as purpose of the trip, the method of transportation

required, and the priority of travel. On May 9, 1995, the Deputy Secretary

of Defense issued a new memorandum to replace some of the criteria for

DOD officials’ use of government aircraft. This memorandum eliminates an

entire category of “required mission use” for justifying individual flights.

This new policy guidance may result in fewer OSA flights being taken by

senior DOD travelers.

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section III 

Senior Officials Travel on Government

Aircraft

GAO Various Senior Federal Travel Reports 

Are Required

GSA compiles semiannual DOD and 

civilian agency senior level travel reports

The Deputy Secretary of Defense 

receives a monthly report on the number 

of trips taken by senior military and 

civilian officials assigned in the 

Washington, D.C., area

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section III 

Senior Officials Travel on Government

Aircraft

GSA compiles a Senior Federal Travel Report and provides it to OMB in line

with Circular A-126, dated May 22, 1992. The intent of the report is to

monitor compliance with policies and procedures concerning senior

federal officials’ travel on federal aircraft.

DOD, like civilian agencies, is to report senior federal travel data to GSA

semiannually. DOD did not provide data for the initial GSA report. DOD

advised GSA that it had not complied with the reporting requirement

because the size and diversity of DOD and its worldwide operations, with a

large number of reporting elements, made implementation of OMB

Circular A-126 a complex task. DOD provided its first report beginning with

GSA’s April through September 1994 reporting period.

The GSA report contains, among other data, the (1) name of each traveler,

(2) official purpose of the trip, and (3) allocated federal aircraft cost and

corresponding commercial aircraft cost. Travel by active duty military

officers is currently excluded from this reporting requirement.

In June 1994, DOD established an internal monthly reporting requirement

for travel by civilian or military officials working in headquarters and

subordinate agencies associated with the Pentagon.

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section III 

Senior Officials Travel on Government

Aircraft

GAO DOD Fixed-Wing OSA Aircraft Flight Segments

by Senior Level Officials Jan. 93 thru Feb. 95 

Jan 93 Mar 93 May 93 July 93 Sept 93 Nov 93 Jan 94 Mar 94 May 94 July 94 Sept 94 Nov 94 Jan 95 

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

# Flight Segments

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section III 

Senior Officials Travel on Government

Aircraft

The services schedule their OSA aircraft through different channels. The Air

Force schedules OSA aircraft at the Air Mobility Command, Scott Air Force

Base, Illinois; the Army at Davison Airfield, adjacent to Fort Belvoir,

Virginia; and the Navy at the Naval Air Logistics Office, New Orleans,

Louisiana. Marine Corps travelers schedule their flights through the Army

system. Each service has its own computerized record-keeping system and

the central locations are hooked up electronically to “validators,” who are

located throughout the services at most major commands and

installations. Requests for travel aboard government aircraft are generally

made on service-unique forms, and once the trips are deemed valid, the

actual flight scheduling is done at each service’s central location.

DOD Directive 4500.43 provides that some senior level officials are

“required” to fly government aircraft either because of their positions or

for security reasons. For example, 4-star generals or admirals and a few

key DOD civilians are required users. Travel aboard government aircraft

allows required users to discuss classified data and to maintain secure

communications links with the national command authorities.

The U.S. Transportation Command has software under development that

is intended to help standardize the scheduling and record-keeping

functions in the services. However, each service still plans to keep control

of its own aircraft. Each of the service schedulers provided us data files

identifying senior level travel aboard most of their OSA aircraft. For various

reasons, the data are not directly comparable; however, they are

substantially the same and we judged it to be sufficient for our review and

reporting purposes. Because official guidance on the use of government

aircraft has been tightening up on senior officials’ travel, the overall trend

in the number of flights has been downward since last summer.

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section III 

Senior Officials Travel on Government

Aircraft

GAO Top 20 DOD Pair Destinations

Jan. 93 thru Feb. 95

DOD top 20 pair destinations Flights Contract carrier?

Andrews AFB/Wright-Patterson AFB 1,619 Yes

Andrews AFB/Maxwell AFB 924 Yes

Andrews AFB/Scott AFB 714 Yes

Andrews AFB/Langley AFB 685 Yes

Ft. Belvoir/Langley AFB 631 Yes

Andews AFB/Colorado Springs 537 Yes

Andrews AFB/Randolph AFB 506 No

Andrews AFB/Hanscom AFB 327 Yes

Andrews AFB/Offutt AFB 324 Yes

Andrews AFB/MacDill AFB 315 Yes

Norfolk NAS/Washington NAF 274 Yes

Ft. Huachuca/Tucson 272 No

Andrews AFB/Eglin AFB 245 Yes

Andrews AFB/Kelly AFB 238 No

Albuquerque/Andrews AFB 198 Yes

Ft. Huachuca/Phoenix 187 No

Ft. Belvoir/Ft. Bragg 172 Yes

Wright-Patterson AFB/Kelly AFB 159 Yes

Hanscom AFB/Wright-Patterson AFB 150 Yes

Andrews AFB/Warner-Robbins AFB 147 Yes

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section III 

Senior Officials Travel on Government

Aircraft

We have listed the top 20 most frequent destinations that the service

senior officials were flying to and from and whether commercial service is

provided between those locations. The most frequent flight segments are

indicated by a “Yes” or “No” if these destinations are serviced by a

government contract carrier. The criteria we used to make these

determinations were (1) did a government contract carrier fare exist and

(2) was the final military destination less than 50 miles from the servicing

civilian airfield. Most of the frequent senior officials’ destinations meet this

criteria. On the other hand, commercial carriers do not offer the

scheduling flexibility and convenience of the OSA aircraft flights.

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section IV 

Helicopter Use in the Washington, D.C.,

Area

GAO Helicopter Inventory in the Washington, 

D.C. area as of May 1995

Army 32

Air Force 21

Marine Corps 32

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section IV 

Helicopter Use in the Washington, D.C.,

Area

The Army’s helicopter squadron, made up of 27 UH-1Hs and 5 UH-60s, is

located at Davison Army Airfield, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The Air Force’s 21

UH-1Ns are located at Andrews Air Force Base (AFB), while the Marine

Corps’ 32 helicopters are located at Quantico, Virginia. The Marine Corps’

primary helicopter responsibility is to provide helicopter support to the

President, Vice President, and visiting Heads of State. Because use is

limited to a handful of top DOD and Navy officials and is infrequent, we did

not include the Marine Corps’ helicopters in this review.

The Army and the Air Force helicopters located in the Washington, D.C.,

area are not justified based on OSA wartime requirements. Rather, these

aircraft have various classified military and civilian agency contingency

missions. The individual classified missions require fewer than the total

number of helicopters assigned by the Army and the Air Force to the

Washington, D.C., area.

The Army estimates it costs $463 per hour to operate the UH-1H and

$1,616 per hour to operate the UH-60. The Air Force estimates an hourly

cost for the UH-1N at $771. These costs include petroleum, oil, and

lubricants; and unit, intermediate and depot maintenance, including

contract maintenance (if applicable), spares, crew per diem, and training.

They do not include military and civilian pay or aircraft acquisition costs.

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section IV 

Helicopter Use in the Washington, D.C.,

Area

GAO Army/Air Force Helicopter Lifts

Oct. 93 thru Mar.95

Oct 93 Nov 93 Dec 93 Jan 94 Feb 94 Mar 94 Apr 94 May 94 Jun 94 Jul 94 Aug 94 Sep 94 Oct 94 Nov 94 Dec 94 Jan 95 Feb 95 Mar 94

0

50

100

150

200

# Lifts

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section IV 

Helicopter Use in the Washington, D.C.,

Area

The use of helicopters located in the Washington, D.C., area has declined

significantly since April 1994. We have defined lifts as any portion of a trip

on which passengers were carried. For example, a trip which took a

passenger from the Pentagon to Carlisle Barracks to Aberdeen Proving

Ground and back to the Pentagon would be counted as three lifts.

In July 1994, the Secretary of the Army issued a policy memorandum

which limited the use of helicopters for intra-city travel in the National

Capital Region. Travel that departs from and arrives at any location in the

greater Washington-Baltimore Metropolitan area is considered intra-city

and is limited to civilians such as the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of

the Army, and the Under Secretary of the Army and 4-star flag officers.

In December 1994, the Secretary of the Army further limited the use of

helicopters by prohibiting the use of helicopters for transportation

between the Pentagon and Andrews AFB except in unusual circumstances.

The memorandum went on to state that the existence of unusual

circumstances will be determined by the Secretary of the Army or the

Chief of Staff of the Army.

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section IV 

Helicopter Use in the Washington, D.C.,

Area

GAO Top Pair Destinations for Army and Air Force Helicopters 

Located in the Washington, D.C., Area

Army 

(FY 93 thru Mar. 95) Lifts

Air Force

(FY 94 thru Mar. 95) Lifts

Andrews AFB/Pentagon 175 Andrews AFB/Pentagon 205

Pentagon/Carlisle Barracks 173 Langley AFB/Pentagon 43

Aberdeen Proving Ground/Pentagon 141 Norfolk Naval Air Station/Pengaton 23

Edgewood Arsenal/Pentagon 84 Bower (PVT)/Pentagon 22

Pentagon/Ft. Lee 57 Carlisle Barracks/Pentagon 14

Cameron Station/Aberdeen Proving Ground 56 Andrews AFB/Langley AFB 13

Ft. Monroe/Pentagon 55 Franklin JB/Pentagon 12

Ft. Belvoir/Ft. Lee 43 Ft. Lee/Pentagon 9

Cameron Station/Edgewood Arsenal 41 Bolling AFB/Fort Detrick 8

Pentagon/Leesburg, Va 31 Pentagon/Leesburg, Va 8

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section IV 

Helicopter Use in the Washington, D.C.,

Area

You asked us to identify the top origins and destination pairs for Army and

Air Force helicopters based in the Washington D.C., area. Generally,

helicopter use is limited to trips within 125 miles of the Pentagon. For both

the Air Force and the Army, the most frequent route was between

Andrews AFB and the Pentagon. According to an Army memorandum,

flying time for an Army UN-1H from Andrews AFB to the Pentagon is about

24 minutes—at a cost of about $185. The same flight would cost the Air

Force approximately $308. However, actual cost to the government would

be higher because all trips are round trips and in the case of the Army, the

cost to get a helicopter to the Pentagon or Andrews AFB must be included,

which would increase the flight time to about an hour, and the cost to

about $460.

According to an Army travel memorandum, it is only 15 miles between the

Pentagon and Andrews AFB but depending on traffic, could take between

15 and 50 minutes to drive. We estimate the cost to drive from the

Pentagon to Andrews AFB in a privately-owned vehicle, round trip at the

government reimbursement rate of 30 cents per mile, would be $9.

According to a local taxi company, taxi fare between the Pentagon and

Andrews AFB is about $30. Thus, for gross comparison purposes, an Army

UH-1 helicopter flight would cost in excess of $400 more than a car. An

Army UH-60 helicopter trip could cost almost $1,600 more than a car. DOD

officials pointed out that the uncertainty in the commute time could

adversely impact the senior travelers’ scheduling flexibility made possible

by the use of helicopters for these flights.

Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section V 

Civilian Agency Aircraft

GAO Civilian Agency Aircraft Inventory and Operating 

Costs for Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994

Department 1993

Inventory

1993

Costs

1994

Inventory

1994

Costs

Agriculture 336 $10 342 $11

Energy 41 33 35 31

Interior 105 9 109 12

Justice 305 77 339 80

NASA 127 80 133 80

State 63 52 63 23

Transportation 310 653 312 595

Treasury 159 138 180 109

Other agencies 39 12 38 11

All agencies 1,485 $1,064 1,551 $952

Dollars in millions

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section V 

Civilian Agency Aircraft

The civilian agency inventory includes many different types of aircraft,

such as helicopters, special purpose aircraft for fire fighting and

meteorological research, and specially configured aircraft used by the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for research and

development and program support. The numbers reported include all

aircraft owned, leased, lease\purchased, or bailed at any point during the

fiscal year and may not reflect the actual number of aircraft on-hand at the

end of each year.

The Departments of Agriculture, Justice, and Transportation have the

largest aircraft inventories. These three departments’ aircraft fleets

comprise about 62 percent of the total inventory for fiscal years 1993 and

1994. The Department of Agriculture has three agencies that own and

operate aircraft. These three agencies are the U.S. Forest Service, the

Animal Research Service, and the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service.

However, the Forest Service is the only Agriculture agency that uses

government aircraft to transport senior officials. The Forest Service owns

and operates more than 200 aircraft. The remaining aircraft are distributed

among the other two agencies.

Three agencies within the Department of Justice have aircraft that were

used to transport senior officials. They are the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the

U.S. Marshal Service (USMS). DEA has the largest fleet with over 100 aircraft.

FBI has more than 90, and the USMS has less than 20.

Operating costs reflect civilian agency data reported to GSA for owned,

leased, lease/purchased, and bailed aircraft. For most agencies, this

includes costs related to technical, mission-critical aircraft that are not

used for administrative purposes.

Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section V 

Civilian Agency Aircraft

GAO Aircraft "More Often" or "Routinely Used" 

to Transport Senior Officials

Department Aircraft make/model

Estimated annual 

operation and 

support cost Department Aircraft make/model

Estimated annual 

operation and support 

cost

Energy De Havilland DHC-6 $1,946 NASA Gulfstream Aerospace G-III $1,778

De Havilland DHC-6 1,558 Gulfstream Aerospace G-I 1,379

De Havilland DHC-7 2,949 Gulfstream Aerospace G-I 822

Interior Cessna 340 72 Beech King Air 200 641

Cessna 414 64 Beech King Air 200 525

Commander 690D 142 Transportation Gulfstream GIV 3,237

Justice MU-2 MITSUBISHI 193 FAA Learjet 31A 1,849

Sabreliner 40A 461 Learjet 31A 1,743

Grumman G-159 853

Coast Guard Gulfstream I 1,600

Gulfstream II 2,000

Dollars in thousands

Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section V 

Civilian Agency Aircraft

We asked the agencies to identify aircraft in their inventory that they

“more often” or “routinely” use when they are transporting senior

personnel. Five of the eight agencies identified 19 such aircraft.

Within the Department of Energy, only one of the DeHavilland DHC-6

aircraft was used to transport senior personnel during fiscal year 1994;

therefore, costs shown only reflect that year. This is true also for one of

NASA’s Gulfstream Aerospace G-Is. One of the Federal Aviation

Administration’s (FAA) Learjet 31A aircraft was returned to the vendor on

October 29, 1993. Additionally, the Coast Guard Gulfstream I aircraft

ceased conducting administrative support missions during fiscal year 1993.

Therefore, the unit costs reported here only reflect the period during

which this aircraft was assigned to transport senior officials.

Page 53 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section V 

Civilian Agency Aircraft

GAO Top 14 Coast Guard and NASA Pair 

Destinations of Senior Officials

Top 14 pair destinations during fiscal years 1993 and 

1994

Number of flight 

segments

Contract carrier 

available?

Coast Guard:

Washington, D.C./Teterboro, N.J. 14 Yes

Washington, D.C./Trumbull, Conn. 10 Yes

Washington, D.C./Norfolk, Va. 5 Yes

Portland, Oreg./Astoria, Oreg. 3 No

Teterboro, N.J./Washington, D.C. 3 Yes

Washington, D.C./North Kingston, R.I. 3 Yes

NASA:

Ellington Field, Houston, Tex./Washington, D.C. 23 Yes

Washington, D.C./Huntsville, Ala. 4 Yes

Washington, D.C./Burbank, Calif. 4 Yes

Baltimore, Md./Wallops Island via Salisbury, Md. 4 No

Washington, D.C./Muscle Shoals, Ala. via Huntsville, Ala. 3 Yes

Washington, D.C./Melbourne, Fla. 3 Yes

Washington, D.C./Seattle, Wash. 3 Yes

Cocoa Beach, Fla./Washington, D.C. 3 Yes

Page 54 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Briefing Section V 

Civilian Agency Aircraft

We have identified the top six most frequently visited destinations for the

U.S. Coast Guard and the top eight most frequent destinations by senior

NASA officials. Most of these city pairs are frequently traveled by other

non-senior government personnel under negotiated and discounted

government air fares. These fares are provided through GSA on government

contract carriers.

Only in one instance for both Coast Guard and NASA, did we find that

government contract service was not available. The Coast Guard flight is

from the Portland International Airport to Astoria, Oregon. The Portland

airport is 73 miles from Astoria. In the case of NASA, this flight is from

Baltimore Washington International airport to the Wallops Island Flight

Facility, located near Salisbury, Maryland. The airport is 84 miles from

Salisbury.

It should be recognized, however, that the existence of government

contract air service between these city pairs does not address (1) the fact

that some of the trips were made by required users and (2) that there is

increased scheduling flexibility provided to senior level officials when they

can travel on agency aircraft. Coast Guard officials stated that all of the

flights to their pair destinations were made by required users and,

therefore, had to be made on government aircraft as a matter of policy.

Page 55 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix I 

Most Frequent Senior Level Travelers

The charts in this appendix identify the most frequent fixed-wing OSA

aircraft senior level passengers, military and civilian, in the Air Force,

Army, Navy, Coast Guard and NASA. Marine Corps data was incomplete at

the time of our report. We also include data on the most frequent senior

level helicopter passengers aboard Air Force and Army helicopters

assigned to the Washington, D.C., area.

Care should be taken in comparing data among the different charts

because many charts contain data from different time periods and the

number of flight segments varies greatly. This is because of time

differences in the original scheduling data provided GAO by the agencies

and because the Air Force, Coast Guard and NASA scheduling systems

identify all senior level travelers aboard each flight, whereas the Army and

Navy data only reflects the principal traveler for each flight. The total

numbers of Navy flights are also much fewer than Air Force and Army

flights because Navy data only included C-12 and T-39 OSA aircraft. We did

not include a chart on the most frequent Marine Corps senior level

passengers because, at the time of our briefing, data was only available for

the 18 month period Oct. 93 thru Mar. 95, and some of this data was

incomplete.

DOD, Coast Guard and NASA officials identified each passenger’s most

current job title. Agency officials point out that some of the official travel

may have been in support of work requirements in previous positions.

Also, NASA officials specifically asked us to clarify that some of their most

frequent travelers were mostly traveling while accompanying the NASA

Administrator.

GAO did not validate the need for, or the purpose of, individual flights nor

did we determine the cost-effectiveness of these trips aboard government

aircraft.

Page 56 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix I 

Most Frequent Senior Level Travelers

Air Force Fixed-Wing OSA Aircraft:

Most Frequent Military and Civilian

Passengers Oct. 92 Thru Feb. 95

Flightsa Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Military Passengers

414 * Gen. John Loh, Commander, Air Combat Command

385 * Gen. Ronald Fogleman, Chief of Staff, U.S.Air Force

350 * Gen. Ronald Yates, Commander, Air Force Materiel Command

278 Lt. Gen. Charles Franklin, Commander, Electronic Systems Center

234 Gen. Dennis Reimer, Commander, U.S. Forces Command

217 * Gen. Wayne Downing, CINC, Special Operations Command

188 Lt. Gen. Steven Croker, Commander, Eighth Air Force

188 * Gen. Charles Horner, CINC, Space Command

187 Gen. Henry Viccellio, Commander, Air Education and Training Command

177 Lt. Gen. Arlen Jameson, Deputy Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Strategic

Command

Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Civilian Passengers

239 Mr. John Gilligan, Program Executive Officer for Combat Support Systems

169 Mr. Lloyd Mosemann, Dpty. Asst. Secretary (Comm. and Support System)

98 Mr. George Abrahamson, Air Force Chief Scientist

58 Mr. Allen Schell, Deputy Director, Science and Tech., A.F. Materiel

Command

54 Mr. Gerald Kauvar, Deputy Director, Defense Performance Review

53 Mr. Gary Vest, Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (ES)

51 Mr. Marion Williams, Chief Scientist, Office of Technical Evaluation Center

50 Mr. Billy Welch, Scientific Advisory Board Member

49 Mr. Howard Leaf, Director, Test and Evaluation, Headquarters, U.S. Air

Force

aFlights indicate the number of individual flight segments.

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a “required user” of OSA aircraft for official travel.

Page 57 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix I 

Most Frequent Senior Level Travelers

Army Fixed-Wing OSA Aircraft: Most

Frequent Military and Civilian

Passengers Jan. 93 Thru Mar. 95

Flightsa Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Military Passengers

315 * Gen. Gordon Sullivan, Chief of Staff of the Army

302 Lt. Gen. John Miller, CG, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center

287 Gen. Frederick Franks, CG, U.S. Army Training & Doctrine Command

286 Major Gen. Harley Davis, CG, U.S. Army Special Forces Command

(Airborne)

239 Lt. Gen. Paul Funk, CG, U.S. Army III Corps & Fort Hood

236 Major Gen. John Robinson, CG, U.S. Army Aviation Center & Fort Rucker

235 Brig. Gen. Robert Roper, Deputy CG, U.S. Army Recruiting Command

230 Major Gen. Samuel Leffler, CG, U.S. Army Information Systems Command

209 Major Gen. Dennis Benchoff, CG, U.S. Army Industrial Operations

Command

183 Major Gen. Kenneth Simpson, CG, U.S. Army Recruiting Command

Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Civilian Passengers

107 * Mr. Togo West, Secretary of the Army

101 Mr. Joe Reeder, Under Secretary of the Army

53 Mr. John Shannon, Former Under Secretary of the Army

36 Ms. Carol Smith, Deputy Secretary of the Army (Civilian Personnel Policy)

34 Mr. Lester Griffin, Dpty. for Product Assurance & Test & Industrial Ops. AMC

32 Mr. Walter Hollis, Deputy Under Secretary of the Army (Operations

Research)

28 Mr. Jimmy Morgan, Deputy for Acquisition, AMC

27 Mr. Todd Weiler, Deputy Asst. Secretary of the Army (Reserve Affairs)

22 Ms. Sara Lister, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower & Reserve

Affairs)

20 Mr. Robert Williams, Special Assistant, U.S. Southern Command

20 Mr. Robert Walker, Assistant Secretary of the Army (IL&E)

aFlights indicate the number of individual flight segments.

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a “required user” of OSA aircraft for official travel.

Page 58 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix I 

Most Frequent Senior Level Travelers

Navy Fixed-Wing OSA Aircraft: Most

Frequent Military and Civilian

Passengers Oct. 92 Thru Mar. 95

Flightsa Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Military Passengers

172 Rear Adm. James Olson, Deputy Cmdr, Naval Reserve/Cmdr, Naval Air

Reserve

127 Rear Adm. Francis Hamess, Cmdr, Naval Surface Reserve Force/Surface

Group 6

69 Rear Adm. (Ret) Raymond Jones, Former Chief of Naval Technical Training

69 Rear Adm. Thomas Hall, Director, Naval Reserve/Cmdr Naval Reserve Force

68 Vice Adm. (Ret) Robert Kihune, Former Director, Naval Training & Doctrine,

OPNAV

65 Rear Adm. Frederick Lewis, Cmdr, Naval Doctrine Command

55 Rear Adm. David Goebel, Former Cmdr, Submarine Group Two, U.S.

Atlantic Fleet

54 Rear Adm. (Ret) Melvin Chiogloii, Former Cmdr, Second Naval Construction

Brigade

53 Rear Adm. (Ret) Maurice Bresnahan, Former Dep. Cmdr, Naval

Res./Surface Group 6

48 Vice Adm. George Emery, Cmdr, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Command

47 Rear Adm. John Kavanaugh, Cmdr, Navy Exchange Service Command

Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Civilian Passengers

8 Mr. Richard Danzig, Under Secretary of the Navy

5 Mr. Wade Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Reserve Affairs)

5 Mr. Roger Whiteway, Director, Tactical Development & Training, Atlantic

Fleet

4 Mr. Michael Merritt, Comptroller, Naval Education & Training Command

4 Dr. Albert Wood, Retired Director, Joint Science & Tech. Programs

(SECNAV)

4 Ms. Rebecca Paulk, Asst to the Asst. SECNAV, Manpwr Ed. & Training

Policy

3 Mr. Bruce Robinson, Director, Science Directorate, (SECNAV)

3 Mr. Michael Decker, Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, USMC

Hqtrs.

aFlights indicate the number of individual flight segments.

Page 59 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix I 

Most Frequent Senior Level Travelers

Most Frequent U.S. Coast Guard and

NASA Senior Level Passengers Oct. 92

Thru Sept. 94

Flightsa U.S. Coast Guard Passengers

78 * Adm. (Ret) John Kime, Former Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

32 Mr. Federico Pena, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

17 * Adm. Robert Kramek, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

17 * Vice Adm. (Ret) Robert Nelson, Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

13 * Vice Adm. James Loy, Commander Atlantic Area, U.S. Coast Guard

13 Mr. Rodney Slater, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

12 Ms. Ann Bormolini, Chief of Staff, U.S. Department of Transportation

NASA Passengers

100 Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator

23 Mr. William Livingstone, Former Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

23 Ms. Mary Kerwin, Deputy Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs

(Programs)

22 Mr. Cecil Rosen - Former Deputy Associate Administrator for Aeronautics

20 Mr. Gregory Reck, Dpty. Associate Administrator for Space Access &

Technology

20 Mr. George Abbey, Deputy Director, Johnson Space Center

18 Mr. Lynn Heninger, Deputy Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs

18 Mr. Aaron Cohen, Former Director, Johnson Space Center

17 Mr. Martin Kress, Former Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs

13 Mr. Jeffrey Lawrence, Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs

13 Ms. Carolyn Huntoon, Director, Johnson Space Center

12 Ms. Deidre Lee, Associate Administrator for Procurement

aFlights indicate the number of individual flight segments.

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a “required user” of OSA aircraft for official travel.

NASA officials said that some of the senior level passengers on this chart were traveling to

accompany the NASA Administrator.

Page 60 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix I 

Most Frequent Senior Level Travelers

Air Force Helicopters: Most Frequent

Senior Level Passengers Oct. 93 Thru

Feb. 95

Flightsa Air Force Helicopter Passengers

84 * Gen. Wayne Downing, CINC, Special Operations Command

34 * Gen. Ronald Fogleman, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force

34 * Gen. John Loh, Commander, Air Combat Command

19 * Gen. Ronald Yates, Commander, Air Force Materiel Command

17 Major Gen. John Leide, Director, National Military Intelligence Collection

Center

15 * Mr. William Perry, Secretary of Defense

14 Major Gen. Ervin Rokke, Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence

12 Lt. Gen. Wesley Clark, Director, Strategic Plans & Policy (JCS)

12 Brig. Gen. Michael Short, Director, Defense Intelligence Security Agency

10 Brig. Gen. John Casiano, Commander, Air Intelligence Agency

aFlights indicate the number of individual flight segments.

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a “required user” of OSA aircraft for official travel.

Army Helicopters: Most Frequent

Senior Level Passengers Jan. 93 Thru

Mar. 95

Flightsa Army Helicopter Passengers

142 * Gen. Gordon Sullivan, Chief of Staff of the Army

52 Gen. (Ret) Jimmy Ross, Former CG, U.S. Army Materiel Command

50 Gen. Leon Salomon, CG, U.S. Army Materiel Command

38 Major Gen. Fred Gorden, CG, Military District of Washington

36 * Mr. Togo West, Secretary of the Army

35 Gen. J.H. Binford Peay, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations & Plans, U.S.

Army

35 Mr. Walter Hollis, Deputy Under Secretary of the Army (Operations &

Research)

32 Major Gen. George Friel, CG, U.S. Army Chemical & Biological Defense

Command

31 Lt. Gen. Johnnie Wilson, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, U.S. Army

27 Major Gen. William Stofft, Commandant, U.S. Army War College

26 Lt. Gen. John Otgen, CG, First U.S. Army

aFlights indicate the number of individual flight segments.

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a “required user” of OSA aircraft for official travel.

Page 61 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix II 

Civilian Agency Inspector General Audits

GAO Summary of Findings/Recommendations 

From Civilian Inspector General Audits 

Department Excess aircraft

Aircraft 

needs/acquisition 

not adequately 

justified

A-76 reviews and/or cost 

comparisons not 

accurate/performed

/complete

Aircraft not used 

effectively or efficiently

Agriculture X X

Energy X X

Interior X X

NASA X X X

Transportation X X X

Treasury X X

Page 62 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix II 

Civilian Agency Inspector General Audits

In November 1991, GSA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) took the lead

in a comprehensive governmentwide audit effort in response to a request

from the Chairman, Subcommittee on General Services, Federalism and

the District of Columbia, Committee on Government Affairs. The purpose

of the audit was to look at the management of government-owned/

operated aircraft which also included looking at the use of administrative

aircraft. As a result, the OIG requested and received the assistance of the

President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE), which is comprised

of representatives from the civilian agencies’ Office of Inspector General

(IG).

IGs from each of the eight agencies we reviewed participated in this PCIE

audit and reported on aircraft management. We summarized the results of

the IG reports, with the exception of the DEA. The Justice IG informed us

that the DEA report is not due to be completed for several weeks. The IG

reports identified problems in several areas. Most, if not all of these

problems fell into the category of agency noncompliance with established

regulations, policies, and procedures. For example, agencies had not

complied with (1) presidential memorandum on “Restricted Use of

Government Aircraft” requiring agencies to report to OMB on their

continued need for aircraft configured for passenger use, (2) OMB Circular

A-126, (3) OMB Circular A-76 on “Performance of Commercial Acitivities,”

and/or (4) OMB Bulletin 93-11, which contains the specific reporting

requirements for agencies to follow.

The Department of State and Justice IG reports did not reveal findings in

the specific areas summarized on the chart. On March 26, 1992, the GSA OIG

completed an interim audit of government civilian aircraft. The report was

basically informational and contained no recommendations and required

no responses from the agencies. However, the report cited several findings

of which many were identical or similar to the findings identified in the

current IG reports. The individual IG reports will be consolidated into one

report by GSA, and it should be available by late September 1995. Agency

officials have either partially or fully agreed or disagreed with the various

IG findings.

Page 63 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix III 

Agencies Visited or Contacted During Our

Review

We visited or contacted officials at the following headquarters or field

locations:

• Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

• Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.

• Department of the Air Force, Washington, D.C.

• Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C.

• The Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.

• Army Operational Support Aircraft Command,

 Davison Army Airfield, Fort Belvoir, Virginia

• 89th Military Airlift Command, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland

• Air Mobility Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois

• Naval Air Logistics Office, New Orleans, Louisiana

• Military District of Washington, Washington, D.C.

• National Defense University, Washington, D.C.

• General Services Administration, Washington, D.C.

• Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

• Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

• Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

• Department of Energy, Germantown, Maryland

• Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon

• Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

• Office of Aircraft Services, Boise, Idaho

• Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

• Federal Bureau of Investigation, Manassas, Virginia

• U.S. Marshals Service, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

• Drug Enforcement Administration, Fort Worth, Texas

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C.

• Department of State, Washington, D.C.

Page 64 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix III 

Agencies Visited or Contacted During Our

Review

• Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

• Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C.

• U.S. Customs Service, Washington, D.C.

Page 65 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix IV 

List of Related GAO, DOD, and Civilian

Agencies’ Reports

GAO Department of Justice: Use of FBI Aircraft by Department of Justice

Officials (GAO/GGD-94-53FS, July 6, 1994).

Military Aircraft: Policies on Government Officials’ Use of 89th Military

Airlift Wing Aircraft (GAO/NSIAD-92-133, Apr. 9, 1992).

Government Civilian Aircraft: Use of Government Aircraft by the Attorney

General and FBI Director (GAO/GGD-90-84, June 15, 1990).

Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation Aircraft Should Be

Centrally Managed Like Other Interior Aircraft (GAO/GGD-90-20 Jan. 18, 1990).

Military Airlift: Operational Support Airlift Program Needs More Controls

(GAO/NSIAD-88-219, Sept. 16, 1988).

Civil Agency Aircraft: Agencies’ Use of Certain Aircraft to Transport

Passengers (GAO/GGD-88-92BR, Aug. 1, 1988).

State Department: Cost of Unofficial Travel by the Secretary of State

(GAO/NSIAD-88-243FS, Sept. 30, 1988).

Actions Taken on GAO Recommendations Concerning Civilian Agency

Aircraft Management (GAO/NSIAD-84-148, Aug. 1, 1984).

DOD Operational Support Airlift Aircraft Operated by the National Guard and

Reserve Components (April 1994).

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Report on the Roles, Missions, and

Functions of the Armed Forces of the United States (Feb. 1993).

Civilian Agencies NASA Aircraft Management, Langley Research Center (LA-95-001, Mar. 28,

1995).

Utilization of Administrative Aircraft, U.S. Coast Guard (AS-CG-5-010,

Feb. 24, 1995).

Utilization of Administrative Aircraft, Federal Aviation Administration

(AS-FA-5-009, Feb. 9, 1995).

Page 66 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix IV 

List of Related GAO, DOD, and Civilian

Agencies’ Reports

Use and Acquisition of Aircraft by the Department of the Interior (95-I-317,

Jan. 1995).

U.S. Department of Justice Audit Report: The U.S. Marshals Service

Management of Aviation Operations (95-17, Mar. 31, 1995).

U.S. Department of Justice Audit Report: The Federal Bureau of

Investigation Management of Aviation Operations (95-9, Dec. 1994).

Audit of Aircraft Management at the Bonneville Power Administration

(R-B-94-06, Sept. 30, 1994).

Audit of Aircraft Management at the Albuquerque Operations Office

(B-94-05, Sept. 2, 1994).

U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Civilian Agencies’ Aircraft

Management, Washington, D.C. (50050-4-At, Aug. 1994).

PCIE Audit of Federal Civilian Agencies’ Aircraft Management (OIG-94-120,

July 26, 1994).

Bureau of International Narcotics Matters Air Wing (4-CI-013, Feb. 1994).

Page 67 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Sharon A. Cekala

Robert Eurich

Jane D. Trahan

Irene A. Robertson

Carole F. Coffey

Christine D. Frye

Nadine A. Furr

Kansas City Regional

Office

Greg Symons

Robert Sommer

Norm Trowbridge

(703095) Page 68 GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/NSIAD-95-168BR Use of Executive Aircraft