show what this will be. This is the reason we have talked about the form of legislation which we anticipate will be forthcoming to the Congress, which will provide this relief.

Once we have this 6,000 removed-and I think this is a very important point-our projected inventory and our projected requirements will be scaled down over the next 5 years, so once we remove the excess, our requirements and our projected inventories will coincide. for the next 5 years.

AIR FORCE AUTHORITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Mr. ANDREWS. Does the Secretary of the Air Force have authority now to remove any of those excess officers from flight pay? General LIGON. Yes, sir. The Secretary of the Air Force, through administrative action, can administratively ground any officer. Mr. ANDREWS. Do you know why he fails to take action? Is it because of the effect it will have on the morale of the officers? General LIGON. The morale and efficiency of the entire force. Mr. GOODE. That is right, sir. If you will recall the last session of Congress, there was a considerable problem generated by the fact. that an excessive number of rated officers were grounded by administrative action. Various commanders reported to the Chief of Staff and the Secretary the terrific morale problem that had been created by this action and it required the rescinding of the action so as to prevent wholesale losses of experienced personnel who had got more attractive offers elsewhere. This resulted in this hard core review which has been presented by General Gent, to firm up the hard core requirements with a view toward identifying the excess and getting some type of legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS. So all that review does is to point up the fact that you have an excess of 6,000 rated officers?

General LIGON. I think it does more than that, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. Who are drawing flight pay although their services as rated officers are not needed by the Air Force? General LIGON. That is right.

COSTS OF FLYING EXCESS PILOTS

Mr. MINSHALL. If it is not already clearly in the record, I think it would be well to have at this point how much this is costing not only for the pay of these people, probably in the neighborhood of $12 million, but how much extra it would take in spare parts, et cetera. Mr. ANDREWS. Can you give us those figures now?

General LIGON. They will have to be furnished.

Mr. ANDREWS. I wish you would, and spell it out in detail.

(The information requested was not furnished in time to be included in the record.)

Mr. WEAVER. I don't understand how it is going to help the morale. situation whether these officers are taken off flying status by the Secretary of the Air Force or by the Congress?

General GENT. We would still have the same problem sir.

Mr. ANDREWs. It would make no difference who did it.

I have no further questions.

Mr. Whitten is recognized for 15 minutes.

USE OF MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT

Mr. WHITTEN. Last year we had placed in the record as a result our investigation the number of special planes that were at varic stations throughout the world for what might be termed personal t of flying officers.

As I recall, about 27 were at the Air Force Academy where we not teach flying. I wonder if we can have that brought up to date! General FRIEDMAN. We can supply it for the record. (The information requested follows:)

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT INVENTORY AND AIR FORCE POLICY ON THE PERSONAL USE OF USAF AIRCRAFT

Flights having a connotation of personal convenience or recreation are authorized. Commanders are directed by Air Force Regulation (AFR 60 to insure that all flights made are in the interest of Government business or h accomplishment of combat readiness training as a primary objective. Repea flights to the home area of rated personnel and flights coinciding with ma sports events, specific celebrations, or occasions of general public interest not authorized. Flights of this nature will not be accomplished without a p tive determination that travel to such destination is essential to success completion of the military mission.

The reference to 27 aircraft at the Air Force Academy appears to pertain the table entitled "USAF Mission Support Aircraft Inventory" on page 307 part 2, of the House Hearings on Department of Defense Appropriations 1961. These aircraft are required for performance of tasks essential to maximum operational capability of the tactical and training forces, such transportation of personnel and equipment in unit exercises, instrument train for fighter pilots, movement of personnel and critical parts and supplies, mis site support, missile and rocket range surveillance, local search and rest flight checks of radar and navigation aids, mail and supply of outposts, accid investigations, inspections, staff supervision, pilot proficiency, weather obser tion, humanitarian missions, courier missions and support of MAAGS, attad and other Government agencies. Revised inventory data projected for the of fiscal year 1961 is set forth below. Of the 19 aircraft shown in this exhi for the Air Force Academy 1 (T-29) is assigned to support command and adm istrative activities, and 18 (4 C-47's and 14 T-33's) are assigned to enable 171 pilots on the Air Force Academy staff to maintain flying proficiency.

701

REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL ON PROFICIENCY PLYING

Mr. WHITTEN. I also would like to have. Mr. Chairman, the

of the Comptroller General of the United States under date of Jamary 1961 put in the record at this point.

ANDREWS. Without objection, it will be inserted at the per in the record.

Mr.

(The information referred to follows:)

REPORT OF REVIEW OF THE COST OF EXCESS PROFICIENCY FLYING IN THE US
AIR FORCE

The General Accounting Office has made a review of the cost of exceS ME fidency flying in the U.S. Air Force (USAF) pursuant to the Buage, int Accounting Act. 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Acting and ud ting Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67). The scope of work performed is described of page 41 of the report.

INTRODUCTION

Proficiency flying is defined by the Department of Defen* OF FILE HTfed under competent orders by rated pervcnei pernai u naam IL sie flying skills while serving in asszzens viene est Irmally be maintained in the perform

According to official Air Force reports then ver gators, and observers on flying stats at Time di personnel are not required for crew poes A Lo are assigned to crew positions in ley flying to maintain their bady forma

aircraft were specifically ass

er, aircraft assigned for various cher comme rational support, are also used feeder

Ive reports, over 40 percent of

Fear 100 were flown in C-47 World War I w

Fight pay, on a graduated 21 ming na zen ha

erized by the Career Compensato Anf

1

el who participate in regard trement jerk. Dams

wt $2.645 a year for proficiency

Executive Order 10152, issued on Amer

ya minimum of 4 hours a month to

etary of each military department

Being hazardous duty assignments met din

Be wary of the Air Force how

personnel to fly a minimum f

Several independent studies of tietan pr

Then made in recent years.

These

tire Hazardous Duty Pay Sta

13, and that of Mr. Meyer Kestsbaum, Sree,

in 1968 Fach of these stuter AT ZA

Jefring skills of rated personnel who an

azred on the necessity of controllinz

sad the number of hours down for

37

wing the latter study, the Honorable thanks@ {*

mery of Defense (Manpower Personnel and

fring in the military departments and

mere 13404 was issued. This directive negroll Intire

artments to

1 here and validate annually speniromonta 2 w

2 Performance of only the mis

3. Limit proficiency flying to those who He

** corrent or future assignments.

4. Iement legislative provisione comfetim wer without the requirements to fly to aplentad Beronautical ratings for not less than 20 years Pita, navigators, observers, and flight surgeons,

divi Praia tha had led
fight

with their do so and

out regard

ns and the ess of peristic, since to him in in age and ssigned to ed officers

g a higher r of hours time and our review cated that, d the age, s in other itions. for rated 3 convened mand and e expected iticism by t and cost e Manual quirements functional considered

d requirepositions The result 'ply. The nders the d officers. hose prefor rated

ed officers anders to >sition innowledge ies of the ed officer. for many operation any type requiretories at d excess tions for

nd other ry counin flying

To appe gelite men ancis tike me $12 mille in airerat: paltoetade att genting vens ani ne trims par will be spent by the Air Fire in Swal par 16-ad acpantle ants annually in subwest peare to maintain in fring sama zeng 20 (cers who either are exoem to stated Air Fime requirements f Lied pers Lozel or are occuptJIZ DROGA where the mainrecable of dying illis eratributes little or nothing to dente per made of thee péties This waite restits from the Ar f retaining in dying starts 1 nited jers nnel who can be #jing requirements irrespective of seed. If those rated personnel who are i krów,eized excemt to rejudecents were put required to y, the Government, over a period of only a few years, enld save but reds of millions of dollars Pille saving would be more than doubled if the Air Force would strengthen is criteria so as to establish flying requirements for rated personnel only for pass tions where maintenance of current dying proficiez y is a requisite for effective performance.

Over 16,000 rated personnel are being retained on flying status in excess of the requirements for such personnel, as officially computed by the Air For In 1961 it will cost over $42 million to maintain and operate aircraft used f these offers to qualify for flying pay which in itself will cost over $27 millia Additionally, there are included in the Air Force requirements for rated per sonnel nearly 17,000 positions the duties of which do not appear to need officers currently proficient in flying skills. It will cost over $70 million in fiscal yea ́ 1961 to maintain and operate aircraft to enable these 17,000 officers to qualiy for flying pay which will cost more than $44 million.

The Air Force takes the position that once an individual embarks upon 4 flying career in the Air Force he will continue in this capacity unless he less his ability, motivation, or physical qualification to pursue this career. T position of the Air Force appears to be in direct conflict with DOD Directi 1:40.4 which requires that (1) requirements for rated officers be reviewed st validated annually, (2) rated personnel inventories be adjusted in line wil requirements, and (3) flying personnel engaged in functions not related to m be reassigned to positions where their skills can be more efficiently utili The Air Force has computed its needs for rated personnel but has taket v action to bring its number of rated personnel in line with its actual re ments. Further, in computing requirements the various Air Force comes include positions for rated personnel in many functional areas recogniz Headquarters, USAF, to have no requirement for rated officers.

Air Force policy requires all pilots to be capable, in accordance with their ackgrounds, of assuming a combat command when called upon to do so and keep themselves proficient in flying for such an eventuality.

The Air Force policy of retaining personnel in flying status without regard › requirements, in view of the changing trends in Air Force weapons and the duced combat crew-to-aircraft ratios, inevitably results in an excess of pernnel on flying status. Further, the Air Force policy is not realistic, since a man progresses in rank and age the number of jobs available to him in ctical units diminishes. Thus rated personnel who are advanced in age and ade, and well advanced in nonflying careers, are by necessity assigned to pport activities. This often results in rated officers and nonrated officers rforming identical assignments, but with the rated officer receiving a higher te of pay. Moreover, the rated officer must fly a specified number of hours onthly to draw his flight pay, which requires a diversion of his time and ort from the important duties of his primary assignment. Further, our review past assignments of rated personnel in nonflying assignments indicated that, cause of the need for continuity in nonflying support activities, and the age, perience, grade, and specialized training received by these officers in other lds, the majority of rated personnel do not return to flying positions. The criteria by which the Air Force computes its requirements for rated sonnel were developed in October 1957 by a board of senior officers convened identify rated officer requirements through all echelons of command and activities requiring Air Force officer participation. The Air Force expected it the action of this board would enable it to offset increasing criticism by ⚫ Congress and the Office of the Secretary of Defense of the extent and cost proficiency flying. Following the report of this board, Air Force Manual 1 was revised to furnish policy guidelines for determining valid requirements rated officers. This revised policy identified a great many functional as in command, staff, service, and mission support activities considered have no requirement for rated officers.

By applying these policy guidelines, the various commands computed requireits for rated personnel, excluding from the calculations those positions atified in the manual as having no requirement for rated officers. The result that the computed requirement for rated personnel dropped sharply. The cy guidelines were again amended to give the installation commanders the est discretion in determining what positions would require rated officers. econd computation of requirements for rated officers, including those preisly excluded positions, served to increase stated requirements for rated sonnel.

he current Air Force criteria for establishing requirements for rated officers nit the major commands and the subordinate installation commanders to bilsh a requirement for a rated officer when (a) the duties of a position in ́e dealing indirectly with aircrews or operation of aircraft, (b) a knowledge ying is considered desirable, and (c) it is considered that the duties of the tion would be better performed in the Air Force interest by a rated officer. er these extremely broad criteria, requirements have been developed for many Isands of rated personnel to fill positions not involving the actual operation ircraft. The officers occupying these positions may fly almost any type ircraft in order to meet flight pay requirements. The respective requirets for rated personnel, computed on the relaxed criteria, and inventories at * 30, 1960, were 61,567 and 71,844, respectively, an acknowledged excess 0.277. Moreover, included in the computed requirements are positions for ly 17,000 rated officers in administrative, supply, maintenance, and other ort activities which, in other military services and in civilian industry counarts, have, for the most part, been traditionally filled by other than flying onnel.

66865-61-pt. 1—45