Recommendation: The Administrator of FAA should develop a plan for analyzing currently-collected UAS test site data to determine how they could be used to advance UAS integration, and whether the collection of any additional test site data, within the agency's authority to request, could be useful for informing integration. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: DOT partially concurred with this recommendation. In DOT's official response dated March 2020, DOT officials indicated that FAA does not intend to collect any additional type of test site data, unless FAA funds new research or demonstrations. Further, officials noted that FAA has gathered data since the UAS test site program became operational in 2014, through several vehicles including details of flight tests entered into the Mission Logging System (MLS). Officials noted that FAA has and will continue to use data collected from the test sites to, among other things, better understand the challenges facing future UAS integration. We continue to believe that FAA implementing this recommendation would enable the agency to better leverage test site research and data to inform its decisions related to UAS integration. When we confirm what actions FAA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration should develop and implement a process to ensure that information on UAS-related costs is complete and reliable as capabilities and related regulations evolve. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, as part of UAS integration-planning efforts, should use available guidance on effective fee design to incorporate steps that will inform future fee-design considerations. For example, FAA may choose to incorporate these additional steps into its annual UAS implementation plan so that—as existing activities are adapted for UAS users or new regulations, services, or systems are introduced—costs and fee design options are considered. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the FAA should identify existing or new data and information needed to evaluate oversight activities and develop a mechanism for capturing these data as needed. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: FAA has concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, GAO was working to analyze and evaluate the actions the agency has taken in response.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator of AST should develop workload metrics that encompass the whole office and that would allow AST to determine an appropriate workforce size and composition. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, AST has developed an initial set of metrics for the office's workload and is working with the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Labor Analysis to enhance and validate the metrics.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator of AST should establish a timeline for finalizing workload projections that extend beyond the 2-year budget cycle and that include an approach for addressing uncertainty. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, AST said that it has extended the projection period of the staffing model to five years and that it is working with the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Labor Analysis to validate the extended projections and to include an approach to address uncertainty.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator of AST should ensure that its skills assessment survey collects information from staff on skills and competencies in those areas that are both currently needed and may be needed in the future. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2020, AST provided documentation showing that in November and December 2019, AST administered surveys to engineering staff and supervisors to assess the skills of engineering staff in specific competency areas that are needed to successfully perform their jobs. The documentation provided also showed that the surveys asked engineering staff and supervisors about the skills they believed AST would need in the future.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator of AST should develop and document a plan for periodically assessing whether staff possess the necessary skills and competencies to achieve programmatic goals, such as annually administering a skills assessment survey. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, AST officials told us they plan to assess employee skills and competencies on a 3-year cycle and that they will establish a process to do so by the end of 2020. We will continue to monitor AST's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that annual training plans are aligned with the Air Force's stated goals to ensure that its forces can successfully achieve missions across a broad range of current and emerging threats, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to comprehensively reassess the assumptions underlying its annual training requirements--including, but not limited to, the total annual training requirements by aircraft, the criteria for designating aircrews as experienced or inexperienced, and the mix between live and simulator training--and make any appropriate adjustments in future training plans.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD non-concurred with the recommendation. The Air Force has taken steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, Air Force officials stated they have completed one study and have an ongoing study, intended to reassess the assumptions underlying its annual training requirements for fighter aircrews. For example, Air Force officials stated a study was completed in August 2017 reassessing the criteria for designating aircrews as experienced or inexperienced for 4th generation fighter aircraft. In addition, Air Force officials stated that another study was intended to define the optimum mix of annual training requirements for fighter aircrews. These officials stated that the study results were provided to Air Force senior leaders in July 2018 for approval. As of August 2020, the Air Force did not provide any additional documentation on steps taken to address the recommendation. Completion of these studies and the corresponding adjustments to annual training requirements should help the Air Force ensure that their training plans are aligned to achieve a range of missions for current and emerging threats as recommended by GAO in September 2016.

Recommendation: To improve the Air Force's ability to consistently monitor training results and better position it to allocate resources to address factors that limit the effectiveness of training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to establish desired learning objectives and training support elements needed to accomplish the training expectations in its annual Ready Aircrew Program tasking memorandums, and develop a process to collect data to assess the effectiveness of annual training against these features.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD non-concurred with the recommendation, stating that the Air Force's Ready Aircrew Program training differs significantly from other syllabus-directed courses of instruction and that desired learning objectives for this training are set at the squadron level in accordance with current Air Force guidance. As of August 2020, DOD did not provide any documentation on steps taken to address this recommendation.