Unmanned Aerial Systems: Air Force Pilot Promotion Rates Have Increased but Oversight Process of Some Positions Could Be Enhanced
Released: 2019-02-07T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Air Force RPA Aircrews

RPA aircrews consist of a pilot and a sensor operator. The Air Force in most cases assigns officers to fly its RPAs. The Air Force relied solely on manned aircraft pilots to fly remotely piloted aircraft until 2010 when it established a RPA pilot career field (designated as Air Force Specialty Code 18X) for officers trained to fly only RPAs. As of December 2013, approximately 42 percent of the RPA pilots were temporarily assigned, manned aircraft pilots and manned aircraft pilot training graduates. Both of those groups of RPA pilots are temporarily assigned to fly RPAs with the assumption that after their tour they will return to flying their manned aircraft. By comparison, as of September 2018, manned aircraft pilots and manned aircraft pilot training graduates comprised only 17 percent of the RPA pilots. Further, the number of permanent RPA pilots has increased from 58 percent of all RPA pilots in December 2013, to 83 percent as of September 2018, as shown in figure 1.

Additionally, Air Force enlisted personnel operate the RPAs’ sensors, which provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. As a crewmember, the RPA sensor operators provide assistance to the RPA pilot with all aspects of aircraft use, such as tracking and monitoring airborne, maritime and ground objects and continuously monitoring the aircraft and weapons systems status.

Officer Promotion Process

The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, as amended, created a standardized system for managing the promotions for the officer corps of each of the military services. Pursuant to the established promotion system, the secretaries of the military departments must establish the maximum number of officers in each competitive category that may be recommended for promotion by competitive promotion boards. Within the Air Force, there are groups of officers with similar education, training, or experience, and these officers compete among themselves for promotion opportunities. There are several competitive categories including one that contains the bulk of Air Force officers called the Line of the Air Force, which includes RPA pilots, as well as pilots of manned aircraft and other operations-oriented careers.

To determine the best-qualified officers for promotion to positions of increased responsibility and authority, the Air Force appoints senior officers to serve as members of a promotion selection board for each competitive category of officer in the Air Force. Promotion selection boards consist of at least five active-duty officers who are senior in grade to the eligible officers and who reflect the eligible population with respect to minorities and women, as well as career field, aviation skills, and command in an attempt to provide a balanced perspective. Promotion boards convene at the Air Force Personnel Center headquarters to perform a subjective assessment of each officer’s relative potential to serve in the next higher grade by reviewing the officer’s entire selection folder. This “whole-person concept” involves the assessment of such factors as job performance, professional qualities, leadership, job responsibility, depth and breadth of experience, specific achievements, and academic and professional military education.

Developmental Education Program Selection Process

The Air Force developmental education programs expand expertise and knowledge as well as a path that helps to ensure that personnel receive the appropriate level of education throughout their careers. Officers have three opportunities to compete for intermediate developmental education programs, which focus on warfighting within the context of operations and leader development, such as at the Air Command and Staff College. Officers have four opportunities to compete for senior developmental education programs, such as at the Air War College, which are designed to educate senior officers to lead at the strategic level in support of national security, and in joint interagency, intergovernmental and multinational environments.

A subset of developmental education is Professional Military Education, which includes resident and non-resident attendance options open to officers in both the intermediate and senior developmental education programs. Nonresident programs exist to provide individuals who have not completed resident programs an opportunity to complete them via correspondence, seminar, or other approved methods. Prior to 2017, officers who were identified by their promotion board as a developmental education candidate or “selectee” were assured of the opportunity to attend some form of developmental education in-resident program. However, in March 2017, the Air Force announced changes to its nomination process for officer developmental education by separating in- residence school selection status from promotion decisions. Since that time, commanders nominate candidates for in-residence, developmental education programs based on individual performance.

Various Career Assignments for Officers with Aviation Expertise

Officers with aviation expertise, including RPA pilots, at various points in their careers, may rotate through both flying and nonflying positions to broaden their career experiences. Operational positions, whether flying or nonflying, include those positions that exist primarily for conducting a military action or carrying out a strategic, tactical, service, training or administrative military mission. Operational positions include a range of flying positions, such as for RPA pilots, operating aircraft to gather intelligence or conduct surveillance, reconnaissance or air strikes against a variety of targets. Operational positions that are non-flying positions could include assignments as a close-air-support duty officer in an Air Operations Center.

Non-operational staff positions are generally non-flying positions and include assignments to headquarters or combatant command positions. Certain non-operational staff positions can be filled only by qualified pilots. Other non-operational positions are more general in nature and are divided among officer communities to help carry out support activities, training functions, and other noncombat related activities in a military service. These positions could include positions such as a recruiter, working as an accident investigator, advisor to foreign militaries, or a policy position at an Air Force major command. The Air Force views nonoperational staff positions as a means to develop leaders with the breadth and depth of experience required at the most senior levels inside and outside the Air Force.

Roles and Responsibilities Related to Aircrew Management

Various offices within the Air Force have roles and responsibilities for the management of aircrew positions and personnel.

The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations is to establish and oversee policy to organize, train and equip forces for the Department of the Air Force. This specifically includes the responsibility for all matters pertaining to aircrew management.

The Directorate of Operations is responsible for developing and overseeing the implementation of policy and guidance governing aircrew training, readiness, and aircrew requirements. The directorate is the approval authority for aircrew distribution plans, rated allocation oversight and any other areas that have significant aircrew management implications.

The Operational Training Division produces the official Air Force aircrew personnel requirements projections, and in conjunction with the Military Force Policy Division, develops and publishes the Rated Management Directive, formerly known as the Rated Staff Allocation Plan, as approved by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force as designed to meet near-term operational as well as long-term leadership development requirements.

The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and Services has responsibilities that include developing personnel policies, guidance, programs, and other initiatives to meet the Air Force’s strategic objectives to include accessions, assignments, retention, and career development.

The Directorate of Force Management Policy, the Force Management Division analyzes officer, enlisted and civilian personnel issues. The division also maintains a variety of computer models and databases to analyze promotion, retention, accession, compensation and separation policy alternatives.

Additionally, it is responsible for providing official aircrew personnel projections for use in various management analyses.

The Air Force Personnel Center, one of three field-operating agencies reporting to the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Manpower, Personnel and Services, conducts military and civilian personnel operations such as overseeing performance evaluations, promotions, retirements, separations, awards, decorations and education. The Center also directs the overall management and distribution of both military and civilian personnel.

Since 2013 RPA Pilots Have Been Promoted and Nominated for Education Opportunities at Rates Generally Similar to Pilots in Other Fields

RPA Pilots Have Been Promoted at Rates Generally Similar to Those of Pilots in Other Career Fields

Based on our analysis of Air Force promotion data, the percentage of RPA pilots promoted were generally similar in comparison to the promotion rates of pilots in other career fields since 2013. However, it is important to note that since the population of eligible RPA pilots to be considered for promotion was smaller than other pilot populations, the promotion of one or two RPA pilots could have a large effect on their promotion rate. For example, the RPA pilot promotion rates were within 10 percentage points of the promotion rates for the other types of pilots in each year of those years in 8 out of 10 promotion boards to major and to lieutenant colonel held during that time frame.

RPA pilot promotion rates from captain to major were generally similar as the promotion rates for other pilots from 2014 through 2017, as shown in figure 2. For example, in 2014, 94 percent of eligible RPA pilots (29 of 31), bomber pilots (47 of 50), fighter pilots (189 of 201) and 91 percent of eligible mobility pilots (355 of 388) were promoted from captain to major. This is an improvement in promotion rates for RPA pilots compared to 2006 through 2012, where RPA pilot promotion rates fell below those for all other pilots in 5 of the 7 promotion boards held.

Additionally, the promotion rates for RPA pilots from major to lieutenant colonel relative to other types of pilots in 2013 through 2017 showed a similar improvement compared to 2006 through 2012, as shown in figure 3. For example, in 2017, 75 percent of eligible RPA pilots (15 of 20) were promoted, which is generally similar to the promotion rates for the other pilots—78 percent for bomber pilots (18 of 23), 83 percent for fighter pilots (75 of 90), and 72 percent for mobility pilots (143 of 199). However, in 7 of the 8 promotion boards held from 2006 through 2012, RPA pilot promotion rates from major to lieutenant colonel fell below the promotion rates for all other pilots.

The one exception to the promotion rates being generally similar was the rate at which RPA pilots were promoted from lieutenant colonel to colonel. In this case, the rates for RPA pilots diverged notably from the promotion rates of bomber, fighter, and mobility pilots from 2013 to 2017. For example, in 2016, 1 out of the 5 (20 percent) eligible RPA pilots was promoted to colonel. In contrast, 13 of 21 (62 percent), bomber pilots, 32 of 51 (63 percent) fighter pilots, and 34 of 65 (52 percent) mobility pilots were promoted from lieutenant colonel to colonel. However, the promotion rates of RPA pilots from lieutenant colonel to colonel that we calculated should be considered cautiously as fewer than 10 RPA pilots were eligible for promotion boards each year through this time period. The promotion of one or two officers could have a large effect on the promotion rate due to the small number of eligible RPA pilots.

In April 2014, we reported that Air Force officials attributed the low RPA pilot promotion rates from 2006 through 2012 generally to the process that it used to staff RPA pilot positions at that time. Specifically, they stated that commanders generally transferred less competitive pilots from other pilot career fields to RPA squadrons to address the increased demand. Air Force officials also stated that these officers generally had in their records fewer of the factors that the Air Force Personnel Center identified that positively influence promotions than their peers. They said that because the bulk of RPA pilots who competed for promotion during the time of our previous review was transferred using this process, these were the reasons that RPA pilots had been promoted at lower rates than their peers.

Air Force officials stated that they believed the trend of increased promotion rates for RPA pilots from 2013 through 2017 mostly reflected the change in the population of eligible pilots who were recruited and specialized as an RPA pilot (i.e., the 18X career field). According to Air Force officials, the creation and establishment of this career field resulted in an increase in the number of skilled and more competitive promotion candidates. Specifically, as of September 2018, the number of permanent RPA pilots outnumbered all other types of pilots serving as RPA pilots combined.

RPA Pilots Have Been Nominated to Developmental Education Programs at Rates Similar to Pilots in Other Career Fields

RPA pilots were nominated to attend developmental education programs, such as professional military education, at rates similar to the rates for other pilots from academic years 2014 through 2018, according to our analysis of Air Force data. An officer’s attendance at developmental education programs can be a factor that is taken into consideration when being assessed for promotion. Our analysis showed that, for the academic years 2014 through 2018, nomination rates for RPA pilots to Intermediate and Senior Developmental Education programs combined ranged from a low of 25 percent for academic year 2016 to a high of 31 percent for academic year 2015. In comparison, nomination rates across the same time period for pilots in other career fields ranged from a low of 21 percent for mobility pilots for academic year 2016 to a high of 35 percent for fighter pilots for academic year 2014. Table 1 provides the various nomination rates for each of the different types of pilots that we analyzed.

RPA Sensor Operators Have Been Promoted at Rates Similar to Other Enlisted Servicemembers

The Air Force promoted enlisted RPA sensor operators at a rate similar to the rates of all enlisted servicemembers, according to our analysis of Air Force promotion data. Specifically, the Air Force promoted an average of 100 RPA sensor operators (or an average of 26 percent) annually for the period from 2013 through 2017. Similarly, the Air Force annually promoted an average of approximately 27,000 enlisted personnel (or an average of 25 percent) for the same period. Our analysis showed that in 2013 through 2017, promotion rates for RPA sensor operators ranged from a low of 18 percent in 2014 to a high of almost 35 percent in 2017. The promotion rates across the same time period for all other enlisted servicemembers ranged from a low of approximately 19 percent in 2014 to a high of 32 percent in 2017. Table 2 provides the various promotion rates that we analyzed.

Air Force enlisted servicemembers in the lowest four levels (grades E1- E4) are selected for promotion based on time in grade and time in service. Selection for promotion to the next two levels, known as the non- commissioned officer levels (grades E5 and E6), is based on the Weighted Airman Promotion System to fill the requirement. This system provides weighted points for an individual’s performance record and service decorations received, and the results of tests to assess an individual’s promotion fitness and job skills and knowledge. Selection for promotion to the senior non-commissioned officer level (grades E7-E9) is based on the same Weighted Airman Promotion System plus the results from a central board evaluation. Servicemembers eligible for promotions to the non-commissioned ranks are assessed and then listed from the highest to lowest scores and offered promotion if they fall above a specific cutoff score established to meet quotas within each career field and for each rank.

While enlisted servicemembers must pass knowledge and skills tests to qualify for promotions, officials explained that the resulting promotion rates essentially reflect requirements and are not indicative of competitiveness across career fields as with officer promotion rates. Officials stated that enlisted servicemember promotions are based on the service’s numeric personnel requirements for each enlisted grade. To consider an enlisted servicemember for promotion from among those who are eligible, a vacancy must first be required at the next higher grade within that servicemember’s occupational area, known as their Air Force Specialty Code that needs to be filled. For example, in 2017, the Air Force required promotions for 128 RPA sensor operators, and officials promoted that many enlisted servicemembers from the cohort of 370 eligible servicemembers.

Air Force Assigned Non-operational Staff Positions Requiring RPA Pilots at High Rates Since 2013

For each year since 2013, the Air Force has assigned over 75 percent of the non-operational staff positions that require an RPA pilot to the organizations that had requested those positions, according to our analysis of service headquarters data. However, the overall number of non-operational staff positions that require an RPA pilot is about one- tenth of the number of those requiring pilots in other career fields. For example, in fiscal year 2018 the Air Force had 83 non-operational staff positions that required an RPA pilot compared to 330 positions requiring fighter pilots. Air Force officials stated that the number of RPA positions was smaller than for other pilots because the career field is relatively new and still growing.

Non-operational staff positions are generally non-flying positions and include assignments to headquarters or combatant command positions. Certain non-operational staff positions can be filled only by qualified pilots. Other non-operational positions are more general in nature and are divided among officer communities in a military service. Officers with aviation expertise, including RPA pilots, at various points in their careers may rotate through both flying and nonflying positions to broaden their career experiences and Air Force officials stated that staff assignments are essential to the development of officers who will assume greater leadership responsibilities.

Headquarters Air Force prepares allocation or “assignment” plans to provide positions requiring aviator expertise to various Air Force commands and other entities. Under this process, these organizations identify the number of non-operational staff positions requiring aviator expertise (e.g., pilots) they require as well as indicate the type of aviator expertise that is needed to fill those positions, (e.g., fighter, bomber, RPA). Headquarters Air Force then determines the extent to which the staff position requirements can be met in accordance with senior leadership priorities designed to equitably manage the shortage of officers with aviation expertise. The results of this process are outlined in the Air Force’s annual Rated Management Directive which reinforces each organization’s flexibility for using their entitlements in non- operational staff and other positions.

In some instances, the Air Force is able to assign enough positions to an organization to meet nearly all of its non-operational staff position requirements. For the purposes of our analyses, the assignment rate is determined by the number of positions assigned compared to the number of positions the organization required. For example, in fiscal year 2018 the Air Force assigned 99 percent of the non-operational staff positions that require an RPA pilot to the requesting entities. In other instances, the Air Force assignment rate of non-operational staff positions may be much lower because of competing management priorities or shortages of personnel in a career field. As a result, the Air Force’s assignment of staff positions can vary across the different career fields. For example, the Air Force fighter pilot career field has had fewer fighter pilots than its authorization number since 2013. Therefore, the Air Force assignment rate for staff positions requiring fighter pilots is significantly lower than the rate for staff positions requiring other types of pilots. For example, in fiscal year 2017, the Air Force assignment rate for staff positions requiring a fighter pilot was 18 percent, which was less than a quarter of the rate for staff positions requiring an RPA pilot, as shown in table 3.

The Air Force Has Not Reviewed Its Oversight Process to Manage Its Non- operational Staff Positions That Require Aviator Expertise

The Air Force has not reviewed its oversight process to ensure that it is effectively and efficiently managing its review of non-operational staff positions that require aviator expertise, such as RPA pilots. Air Force officials explained that its oversight process for managing these positions requiring pilot expertise consists of a time-consuming, labor-intensive process of exchanging emails and spreadsheets with 57 organizations, such as various Air Force Major commands like the Air Combat Command, the Air Force Special Operations Command, and the National Guard Bureau. According to these officials, this process consists of the maintenance and exchange of spreadsheets and briefing slides with information about every position found throughout the Air Force and in various other entities that are required to be reviewed and validated annually. Additionally, this process is maintained by one official within the Headquarters Air Force who must exchange the spreadsheets via email approximately twice a year with officials from each of the organizations that are responsible for annually justifying their continued need for non- operational staff positions requiring aviator expertise. Air Force officials stated that this process does not always produce complete and accurate information in a timely manner as in some instances the information produced is not relevant by the time a complete review of the positions is accomplished.

Headquarters Air Force officials familiar with its oversight responsibilities stated that using a different system would more efficiently and effectively support their ability to manipulate, analyze and share information among the applicable organizations and make informed decisions. For example, these officials explained that over the last 10 years, the Air Force drew down the number of squadrons, but did not do a good job of cross checking that reduced number of squadrons with a revised number of staff positions required for support. Therefore, the number of non- operational staff positions was not adjusted and are now artificially high in some career fields and others may have fewer non-operational staff positions than needed. These officials added that as the new RPA pilot career field has developed, there has been no timely and widely accessible system of checks and balances to establish an accurate number of non-operational staff positions required to support the career field. Further, they said that using a different system that allows them to have more timely and quality information would enhance their ability to manage and make decisions regarding the appropriate mix of expensive pilots and others with aviator expertise between operational line positions and non-operational staff position needs. They said this would better ensure that there is a reasonable range of non-operational staff positions required for each career field, such as for the growing RPA pilot career field.

An October 2017 memorandum from the Air Force Chief of Staff stated that the number of non-operational staff positions which require aviation expertise must be brought into balance with the Air Force’s ability to produce the appropriate number of officers with aviator expertise. The memorandum also stated that organizations were strongly encouraged to change their current requirements to meet the available current force levels including converting chronically unfilled non-operational staff positions requiring aviator expertise to positions specifically designated for RPA pilots. As a result of two separate reviews, Air Force officials identified hundreds of these positions that lacked adequate justification or qualifications to support the positions’ requirement to be filled by officers with aviator expertise. For example, in August 2018, out of 2,783 non- operational staff positions, the Air Force found that 513 of these positions were evaluated as lacking adequate justification or mission qualifications to support the need for aviator expertise and 61 positions were eliminated after further review.

Prior to 2010, according to officials, the Headquarters Air Force maintained a web-based management oversight system to review and approve the justifications for its non-operational staff positions requiring aviator expertise that allowed for wide access to and manipulation and timely analyses of information. Additionally, this former system provided multilevel coordination among Headquarters Air Force and its major commands for reviewing the justifications of all of the positions. According to Headquarters Air Force officials, the use of this management oversight system was discontinued in 2010 due to a decision to no longer fund the contractor maintaining the system. In October 2018, officials from one of the Air Force’s Major Commands confirmed that the current oversight system in use is time-consuming, does not readily support information analysis and that plans to integrate it with another existing management system had not happened.

The Headquarters Air Force official in charge of managing this process told us that he had submitted multiple requests over the last 3 years to integrate the information being managed with spreadsheets and emails into an existing personnel management system to improve the efficiency of the process. However, according to this official, higher priorities and funding issues have precluded the information from being integrated into another existing system. In September, 2018, another Air Force official told us that the Program Management Office that manages a system into which the information could be integrated was behind schedule in implementing several other system updates. Because of these delays, the official acknowledged that no review has yet been done of what is needed to provide the most efficient management oversight process of the information currently being managed via the spreadsheet process. The official said that before any actions could take place, a review of requirements and priorities would be needed in order to make a determination as to what changes could be made. Therefore, he said that there are no decisions or timelines available for reviewing a process that would provide the validation information for non-operational staff positions in a timelier and widely accessible manner.

Air Force instructions state that major commands are required to perform annual aircrew requirements reviews including review and revalidation of all aircrew positions, except for rank of colonel or higher, to ensure aviator expertise is required, and report the results to the Headquarters Air Force Operations Training Division. Further, the Headquarters Air Force Operations Training Division has the responsibility to ensure a management process is in place to provide efficient and effective oversight of the major commands’ annual review and revalidation of the aircrew position requirements process. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should identify needed information, obtain the relevant information from reliable sources in a timely manner, and process the information into quality data to make informed decisions and evaluate its performance in achieving key objectives and addressing risks.

By reviewing its oversight process, the Air Force may be able to identify a more efficient manner to manage its non-operational staff positions that require aviator expertise. A management oversight process that provides timely and widely accessible position justification information may help ensure that the proper type of aviator expertise needed in these positions is up to date. In turn, this could result in a more efficient use of the Air Force’s short supply of expensive pilot resources, particularly fighter pilots, and could potentially improve its ability to assign and develop effective leaders, such as those within the growing RPA career field.

Conclusions

The Air Force continues to expand the use of RPAs in its varied missions of intelligence gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance, and combat operations. While the overall number of eligible RPA pilots is much smaller compared to other pilots, over the last 5 years RPA pilots have achieved promotions and nominations to attend developmental education programs at rates that were generally similar in comparison to pilots in other career fields. Additionally, non-operational staff positions requiring RPA pilots have been assigned to entities at high rates since 2013, but the number of positions available to them is smaller than the number that require fighter, bomber, and mobility pilots because the career field is still growing.

Air Force officials have noted problems with the current oversight process which may be hindering its ability to efficiently and effectively manage these non-operational staff positions as required by Air Force policy. For example, the Air Force has recently identified that a large number of these positions designated as requiring officers with aviator expertise lacked adequate justification for that requirement. By reviewing the efficiency and effectiveness of its management oversight process that provides information in a timelier and more widely accessible manner, the Air Force could better ensure that it makes informed decisions regarding the need for pilots in certain non-operational staff positions and is in compliance with policy. It also could help ensure that the Air Force more efficiently uses its short supply of expensive pilot resources. Ultimately, this may positively affect its ability to assign and develop effective leaders, such as those within the growing RPA career field.

Recommendation for Executive Action

The Secretary of the Air Force should review its management oversight process that provides information and documents the justifications of the Air Force’s non-operational staff positions requiring aviator expertise, including RPA positions, to identify opportunities for increased efficiency and effectiveness and take any necessary actions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In written comments reproduced in appendix II, DOD concurred with comments to the recommendation, and provided separate technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

DOD concurred with the recommendation to review the management oversight process that provides information and documents the justifications of the Air Force’s non-operational staff positions requiring aviator expertise, including RPA positions, to identify opportunities for increased efficiency and effectiveness and to take any necessary actions. In its comments, DOD stated that it agrees the current oversight process is time-consuming and could be more efficient. However, it believes this process is effective because the Air Force was able to validate the need for having pilots fill a majority of its non-operational staff positions during a recent congressionally-mandated review of these positions. As we reported, this review of all staff positions requiring aviator expertise across the Air Force and other defense entities discovered more than 500 of approximately 2,800 positions that were initially found to be lacking adequate justifications, and 61 positions eventually were eliminated. We believe the Air Force’s results from this one-time review is an example of how the current process is not consistently yielding up-to-date validations of positions. Further, DOD also stated that while a move to automating the process again has been considered, current funding shortfalls prevent the Air Force from establishing an automated system to increase the process’s efficiency. We continue to believe that the Air Force should review its current process in order to identify any viable means to increase its efficiency and effectiveness. Such a review may provide the Air Force with opportunities to more consistently provide the proper type of aviator expertise needed to fill its staff positions as well as potentially provide more leadership opportunities to those within growing career fields, such as RPA pilots.

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Acting Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Air Force. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Steps Taken by the Department of Defense and the Air Force to Address Prior GAO Report Recommendations

Since 2014, we have issued three reports assessing the Air Force’s remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) workforce management.

In April 2014, we found that the Air Force had shortages of pilots of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) and faced challenges to recruit, develop, and retain pilots and build their morale. We also found that Air Force RPA pilots experienced potentially challenging working conditions and were promoted at lower rates than other career fields. We made seven recommendations, and the Air Force generally concurred with our recommendations. It has fully implemented all but one recommendation to analyze the career field effect of being an RPA pilot to determine whether and how being an RPA pilot is related to promotions.

In May 2015, we found that the Air Force faced challenges ensuring that their RPA pilots completed their required training and that the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness had not issued a training strategy that addresses if and how the services should coordinate with one another to share information on training pilots who operate unmanned aerial systems. We made one recommendation related to these findings with which DOD concurred. However, in September 2018, an official from the Office of Secretary of Defense for Readiness stated that there are compelling reasons why a training strategy is no longer necessary and that no action is planned to implement the recommendation.

In January 2017, we found, among other things, that the Air Force had not fully tailored a strategy to address the UAS pilot shortage and evaluated their workforce mix of military, federal civilian, and private- sector contractor personnel to determine the extent to which these personnel sources could be used to fly UAS. We made five recommendations related to these findings with which the Air Force and DOD generally concurred. As of July 2018, the Air Force has taken some action to address the first three recommendations and officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for

Personnel and Readiness have fully implemented the other two recommendations.

In table 4, we present the recommendations that we made to the Air Force and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and summarize the actions taken to address those recommendations as of September 2018.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Lori Atkinson (Assistant Director), Rebecca Beale, Amie Lesser, Felicia Lopez, Grant Mallie, Ricardo Marquez, Richard Powelson, Amber Sinclair, and John Van Schaik made key contributions to this report.