The U.S. Military Faces Many Challenges with Drones
Remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) are one of the most in-demand capabilities the Air Force provides to battlefield commanders. Beyond replacing human beings in aircraft that perform dangerous roles, RPAs are highly valuable because they possess characteristics that many manned aircraft do not. For example, they can fly long-duration missions, thereby providing a sustained presence over the battlefield. In response to the increased demand, the Air Force has significantly increased the number of RPAs it uses for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and precision strike capabilities, according to Air Force documentation. Consequently, the Air Force has increased the number of its pilots flying RPAs from approximately 400 in 2008 to about 1,350 in 2013. Due to the increased demand for their capabilities, these pilots have served at a high pace of operations since 2007.
Most of these pilots are located on Air Force bases within the United States and fly the RPAs overseas in operational environments. The Air Force uses the term RPA to refer to large unmanned aircraft systems, such as the MQ-1 Predator. The Department of Defense (DOD) defines an unmanned aerial system as a system whose components include the necessary equipment, networks, and personnel to control an unmanned aircraft—that is, an aircraft that does not carry a human operator and is capable of flight under remote control or autonomous programming.
Pace of operations refers to the number of aircraft flying hours and it increases with the intensity and number of operations. In fiscal year 2013, the Air Force flew its Predator and Reaper systems for over 300,000 hours, combined.
GAO prior work has found that DOD has faced challenges in the development and acquisition of unmanned aircraft systems and in the integration of these systems into combat operations. Regarding personnel, we have found that the Air Force and the Army identified limitations in their approaches to provide personnel to meet unmanned aircraft systems force levels, and they had not fully developed plans to supply needed personnel. More recently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 20135 required the Air Force to report on the education, training, and promotion rates of RPA pilots.
From 2008 to 2014, the Air Force has more than tripled the number of its active-duty pilots flying RPAs, which is the term the Air Force uses to refer to unmanned aerial systems such as the MQ-1 Predator. Due to increases in demand, RPA pilots have had a significant increase in workload since 2007. The General Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to evaluate the Air Force's approach to managing its RPA pilots as well as their quality of life and promotion rates. For this review, GAO evaluated the extent to which the Air Force (1) has used a strategic human-capital approach to manage RPA pilots; (2) has addressed concerns, if any, about the working conditions of RPA pilots that may affect their quality of life; and (3) analyzes the promotion rates of RPA pilots.
GAO analyzed personnel planning documents, Air Force studies, and officer promotion data. GAO also interviewed unit commanders at selected Air Force bases and Headquarters Air Force officials and conducted focus groups with RPA pilots. While the results of these focus groups are not generalizable, they provide valuable insights.
The Air Force has managed its remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) pilots using some strategic human-capital approaches, such as planning for the different levels of experience that it needs in these pilots. However, it continues to face challenges. High-performing organizations manage human capital to identify the right number of personnel and to target the right sources to fill personnel needs. In 2008, the Air Force determined the optimum number of RPA pilots—the crew ratio—for some units, but it did not account for all tasks these units complete. Air Force officials stated that, as a result, the crew ratio is too low, but the Air Force has not updated it. Air Force guidance states that low crew ratios diminish combat capability and cause flight safety to suffer, but the Air Force has operated below its optimum crew ratio and it has not established a minimum crew ratio. Further, high work demands on RPA pilots limit the time they have available for training and development and negatively affects their work-life balance. In addition, the Air Force faces challenges recruiting officers into the RPA pilot career and may face challenges retaining them in the future. High-performing organizations tailor their recruiting and retention strategies to meet their specific mission needs, but the Air Force has not tailored its approach to recruiting and retaining RPA pilots nor considered the viability of using alternative personnel such as enlisted personnel or civilians. Without developing an approach to recruiting and retaining RPA pilots and evaluating the viability of using alternative personnel populations for the RPA pilot career, the Air Force may continue to face challenges, further exacerbating existing shortfalls of RPA pilots. Moreover, the Air Force has not used direct feedback from RPA pilots via existing mechanisms, or otherwise, to develop its approach to managing challenges related to recruiting, retention, training, and development of RPA pilots.
The Air Force has taken some actions to address potentially difficult working conditions RPA pilots face, but it has not fully analyzed the challenge pilots face to balance their warfighting roles with their personal lives. RPA pilots operate RPAs from bases in the United States and live at home; thus they experience combat alongside their personal lives—known as being deployed-on-station—which RPA pilots stated negatively affects their morale. While the Department of Defense has committed to maintaining high morale for service members, the Air Force has not fully analyzed the effects on morale related to being deployed-on-station, and thus it does not know whether it needs to take actions in response.
The Air Force monitors RPA pilot promotion rates, but has not analyzed factors that may relate to their low promotion rates. Statistical principles call for researchers to account for potential key factors in analysis because when they omit key factors, the relationships between other factors may not be accurately estimated. The Air Force analyzed promotions across a group of officers, including RPA pilots, and found factors that related to promotions in general. However, the Air Force has not analyzed the factors related to RPA pilots' promotions specifically and, as a result, it does not have the information to determine what factors may affect their promotions. Consequently, the Air Force may not be targeting actions it is taking to raise RPA pilot promotion rates at the appropriate factors, and information it has reported to Congress may not be accurate.
The initial training that the Air Force provides to its RPA pilots is designed specifically for flying RPAs and consists of two major components that take about 10 months to complete. The first major component is Undergraduate RPA Training and it consists of a basic flying skills course in which RPA pilots learn to fly a small manned aircraft in Pueblo, Colorado; instrument training in a manned-aircraft flight simulator at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas, and an RPA fundamentals course that is also at Randolph. In the second major component of their initial training, RPA pilots get their first opportunity to fly an RPA at a Formal Training Unit, which for most active-duty pilots takes place at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. During this training, RPA pilots learn basic RPA operations in all mission areas including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as well as close air support. Following their time in Formal Training Units, RPA pilots finish their training by attending a 2-week joint weapons course in which they learn how to operate with the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps in a joint operational environment.
The Air Force spends considerably less to train RPA pilots than it does to train manned-aircraft pilots. Specifically, Air Education and Training Command officials estimate that the Air Force spends about $65,000 to train each RPA pilot to complete Undergraduate RPA Training. Conversely, these officials estimate that the Air Force spends an average of $557,000 for each manned-aircraft pilot to complete the corresponding portion of manned-aircraft pilot training, which is called Undergraduate Pilot Training.
The Air Force currently flies the bulk of its RPAs using a concept known as remote-split operations. With remote-split operations, a small number of RPA pilots deploy to operational theaters located overseas to launch and recover RPAs from various locations around the world while other RPA pilots remotely control the RPA for its mission from Air Force bases in the United States. According to Air Force officials, remote-split operations help the Air Force reduce the personnel and equipment it deploys overseas because the units that launch and recover RPAs are staffed with a relatively small number of pilots, sensor operators, support personnel, and equipment. In addition, remote-split operations provide the Air Force flexibility to change the geographic region of the world where an RPA pilot conducts a mission without moving the pilot, support personnel, or equipment needed to control the RPA. If the Air Force is not able to use one of its launch and recovery sites for various reasons such as poor weather, the Air Force can continue its RPA operations by launching RPAs from a different launch and recovery site.
Drone Air Force Careers
The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA)11 created a system for managing the promotions for the officer corps of each of the military services. DOPMA specifies that 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. Career categories, also known as competitive categories, cluster officers with similar education, training, or experience, and these officers compete among themselves for promotion opportunities. Under this system, as currently implemented in the Air Force, 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 consider officers for promotion from among those who are eligible, the Air Force assigns groups of senior officers to serve as members of a promotion selection board for each competitive category of officer in the Air Force. Promotion boards consist of at least five active-duty officers who are senior in grade to the eligible officers, but no officer on the board is below the rank of major. In addition, Air Force guidance states that the Air Force attempts to provide a balanced perspective on promotion boards, and hence it selects officers who mirror, as much as possible, the officers they are considering with respect to race, sex, aeronautical rating, career field, and command. Promotion boards typically convene annually at AFPC headquarters to review a variety of records for each eligible officer, including performance and training reports as well as recommendations from supervisors. Board members assess these records using a best-qualified approach and use a variety of methods to score the records and resolve differences among the scoring of the board members, if necessary. An Air Force officer cannot serve as a member of two successive promotion boards considering officers of the same competitive category and rank.
A key feature of DOPMA is its “up-or-out” promotion system. Under this system, as currently implemented in the Air Force, promotion to the first two ranks in an officer’s career is not competitive. Specifically, 100 percent of fully qualified Air Force second lieutenants and first lieutenants are promoted after serving for 2 years in their respective ranks and do not meet with a competitive promotion board. However, as officers advance through the ranks in cohorts that are determined by the year they were commissioned, they compete for promotion against other members of their cohort at set years or zones of consideration for each rank. For example, Air Force officers are generally considered for promotion to major, or the grade of O-4, after 10 years.
Under the DOPMA system, a select group of officers can also be considered for promotion 1 or 2 years early, or “below the zone.” However, because only a limited number of officers below the zone may be promoted, officers have their greatest potential for promotion “in the zone.” If officers in a cohort are not promoted while they are in the zone, they can compete for promotion in the following one or in some instances two years later, which is known as competing “above the zone.” However, if these officers are not selected for promotion above the zone, they could be involuntarily separated from the Air Force.
DOD has noted that the prevalence and use of unmanned systems, including RPAs, will continue to grow at a dramatic pace. As discussed above, the Secretary of Defense has stated specifically that the requirement for 65 CAPs represents a temporary plateau in progress toward an increased enduring requirement. Also, as the national security environment changes, RPA pilots will be expected to conduct a broader range of missions across different conditions and environments, including anti-access and area-denial environments where the freedom to operate RPAs is contested. By not creating an environment where RPA pilots can receive the training and development opportunities they need to perform their functions effectively, the Air Force may be hindering its ability to perform its mission even if it is able to operate at the optimum crew ratio that is set in the Air Force instruction.
The Work Life of a Drone Pilot
RPA pilots find their mission rewarding, but they reported that they face multiple, challenging working conditions. RPA pilots in 8 of the 10 focus groups we conducted reported that they found it rewarding to be able to contribute to combat operations every day through the RPA mission. For instance, one pilot stated that the mission is the reason that he had decided to become a permanent RPA pilot and that it was rewarding to contribute to overseas contingency operations, which he would not be able to do in any other job. Similarly, the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine published studies in 2011 and 2013 that evaluated the psychological condition of RPA personnel and found that RPA pilots held positive perceptions of the effect and contributions of their work. However, RPA pilots also stated that they face multiple challenging working conditions including: long hours, working shifts that frequently rotate, and remaining in assignments beyond typical lengths.29 RPA pilots in all of our focus groups reported that these challenging conditions negatively affected their morale and caused them stress. Similarly, the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine studies found that RPA personnel reported sources of stress that were consistent with the challenges we identified. These challenges include the following:
The Air Force has taken some actions to address some of the challenging working conditions that RPA pilots face. The Air Force studies included over 10 recommendations to address the sources of stress that RPA personnel reported. For example, the studies recommended that the Air Force assign an operational psychologist to each RPA unit to help commanders optimize work-rest schedules and shift cycles, and identify pilots who are reaching elevated levels of fatigue or stress. In response, the Air Force has assigned mental-health providers that are dedicated to RPA squadrons at Beale, Cannon, and Creech Air Force Bases. However, the studies also recommended that the Air Force increase staffing in RPA squadrons to reduce the number of hours that RPA personnel work and to help establish better shift schedules. Air Force researchers stated that increasing staffing levels, or crew ratios, in RPA squadrons would be the most-effective means to reduce RPA pilot stress, but as discussed above, the Air Force has operated its RPA squadrons below the optimum crew ratios.
RPA pilots also face challenges related to being deployed-on-station as they balance their warfighting responsibilities with their personal lives. Because pilots are able to operate RPAs from Air Force bases in the United States and are thus able to live at home—what is known as being deployed-on-station—their dual role juxtaposes stress related to supporting combat operations with the strains that can occur in their personal lives. While these pilots face this challenging working condition that may affect their quality of life, DOD’s Quadrennial Quality of Life Reviews have emphasized DOD’s continued commitment to provide service members with the best quality of life possible.
(Link: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-316)
In a report from the GAO in March 2016 the GAO found that after an April 2014, when the GAO reported on several issues the Air Force faced in managing its UAS pilots, and while the Air Force has taken some actions since then, it has not fully implemented GAO's recommendations to strengthen its management:
(Link: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-527T)
Predator squadrons should be 10:1, which calls for 10 UAS pilots to support one near-continuous 24-hour flight presence of an Air Force UAS over a particular geographic location. Headquarters Air Force officials stated that, because of the omitted tasks, the study’s recommended 10:1 crew ratio probably did not provide enough pilots to perform the work in an MQ-1 squadron. In addition, some UAS unit commanders and UAS pilots in some of the 10 focus groups we conducted at three Air Force bases said that the 10:1 crew ratio was too low.7 High-performing organizations use complete and current data to inform their strategic human capital planning and remain open to reevaluating workforce planning efforts. Consequently, we recommended that the Air Force update crew ratios for UAS units to help ensure that the Air Force establishes a more-accurate understanding of the required number of UAS pilots in its units, and the Air Force concurred with GAO recommendation.
In April 2014 GAO found that the Air Force had reduced the capacity of its training units by moving instructor pilots to operational units to react to increasing demand for UAS capabilities. A core characteristic of a strategic training framework is that agencies should provide appropriate resources for its training programs. However, In May 2015, GAO found that the Air Force had staffed its UAS training squadrons at Holloman Air Force Base at 63 percent of their planned staffing levels due to shortages of UAS pilots across the Air Force, which Air Force officials stated in turn impacted the Air Force’s ability to produce new pilots. GAO also reported actions the Air Force was taking to increase the number of instructor pilots, including studying the personnel requirements for the formal training unit. Air Force officials stated that as of February 2016, the Air Force had filled 84 percent of its instructor pilot positions at Holloman. These officials said that there is still a need to increase the number of instructor pilots, and the Air Force goal is to fill 100 percent of the instructor pilot slots by fiscal year 2017. Fully implementing GAO recommendations pertaining to management of UAS pilots should better position the Air Force to address the need to increase the number of instructor pilots.
The GAO found that the Army has initiated steps to address challenges related to UAS pilots completing their required training and its use of less experienced instructors, which could affect training quality. In May 2015, GAO found that Army unit status reports did not require UAS pilot training information, and thus the Army did not know the extent pilots had been trained and were ready to deploy. GAO recommended that the Army require unit status reports to include UAS pilot readiness information. In March 2016, officials stated that the Army had taken steps to implement the recommendation, but its efforts are ongoing and thus it is too early to know their impact. Also, the Army had waived course prerequisites for about 40 percent of the UAS pilots attending a course to become instructor pilots from the beginning of fiscal year 2013 through February 2015. As a result, Army UAS pilots may not have been receiving the highest caliber of training to prepare them for UAS missions. GAO recommended in May 2015 that the Army mitigate risks posed by waiving prerequisites for less experienced UAS pilots, and in March 2016, Army officials stated that they have addressed the underlying causes that led it to waive the prerequisites, but they did not provide information for GAO to be able to determine whether they were continuing to waive these prerequisites.
In May 2015, GAO found that a 2015 Army review showed that pilots in most of the Army’s Shadow units did not complete training in their units in fiscal year 2014. GAO previously developed a set of core characteristics for assessing strategic training programs in the federal government.10 One of these characteristics calls for agency leaders to demonstrate that they value continuous learning. In January 2015, the Chief of Staff of the Army directed the Army Training and Doctrine Command to evaluate if unit training was a factor that caused UAS mishaps in combat. The Army reviewed this issue from January 2015 through March 2015 and found that UAS pilots in 61 of the 65 RQ-7B Shadow units that were not deployed in fiscal year 2014 had flown an annual unit average of 150 hours of training, which is about 200 hours less than minimum amount of training flight hours that an Army unit is required to fly according to the review. In addition, the review included recommendations to increase emphasis on training in UAS units including that the Army should (1) issue guidance to unit commanders on UAS training; (2) ensure that UAS warrant officers are qualified on their UAS; (3) Increase the amount of home station training for UAS units; and (4) establish a system to report UAS training readiness on unit status reports.
In May 2015, GAO also found that the Army does not have visibility over the amount of training that pilots in some Army UAS units have completed. Another core characteristic of a strategic training framework highlights the importance of quality data regarding training. However, GAO found that Army did not have access to data that would allow it to measure the amount of training that UAS pilots have completed in Army UAS units. Army Forces Command officials stated that they need information about the readiness level of pilots in UAS units to determine if a unit is ready to deploy and perform its mission. These officials stated that they review Army unit status reports to determine if a unit is prepared to deploy. However, officials from Army Headquarters, Army Forces Command and the Army Aviation Center of Excellence both stated that these reports do not provide any information on the readiness levels of the UAS pilots in UAS units because the reports are not required to include this information. Officials at Forces Command stated that, using these reports, they have designated units as available for deployment and later learned that a significant portion of the pilots in those units had not completed their readiness level training. Without requiring information on the readiness level of pilots in UAS units as part of unit status reports, Army Forces Command will continue to lack visibility over the amount of training that UAS pilots have completed in units. To provide greater visibility over the extent to which Army UAS units have completed required training to leaders responsible for deployment decisions, GAO recommended that the Army require unit status reports to include information on the readiness levels of UAS pilots in UAS units and the Army concurred.
Since GAO issued the report in May 2015, Army Headquarters officials stated that the Army had drafted an update to Department of the Army Pamphlet 220-1 that would require UAS units to report the readiness levels of the UAS pilots in UAS units.15 In addition, these officials stated that the Army was working on updating the unit status reporting software to enable units to comply with the planned update to the Army pamphlet. While the steps that Army has taken to date should address our recommendation, its efforts are ongoing and thus it is too early to know their impact.
In May 2015, GAO found that the Army had taken actions to increase the number of UAS instructors, but it had not fully addressed the risks associated with using less experienced instructors. In order to increase the number of its instructors in response to an increase in the number of UAS units, the Army waived course prerequisites for about 40 percent of the UAS pilots attending the course to become instructor pilots from the beginning of fiscal year 2013 through February 2015.These prerequisites—such as a minimum number of flight hours— are important because they help ensure that UAS pilots volunteering to become instructors to help ensure that instructors are fully trained and ready to instruct UAS pilots.
In May 2015, GAO found that the Army had taken steps to mitigate the risks of using less proficient UAS instructors. For example, in fiscal year 2015, the Army stopped waiving course prerequisites related to proficiency, according to Army Aviation Center of Excellence officials. However, the Army could continue to waive prerequisites related to experience. As a result, we found that Army UAS pilots may not have been receiving the highest caliber of training needed to prepare them to successfully perfo