Air University Review, May-June 1985
WITH the repeal on 18 December 1974 of Section 8577, Title 10, U.S. Code, which limited command of flying units to pilots, came the expectation among navigators that the opportunity to command flying units would lead to promotion rates equal to those of pilots. Indeed, it was because of concern that the law might be discriminating against navigators that repeal was sought.
Promotion data since that time, however, indicate that navigator expectations have not been realized: for whatever the cause, promotion rates for navigators are not equal to those of pilots. Moreover, the perception persists among navigators that they continue to be discriminated against in promotions, in selection for most key assignments, and thus for promotion to general officer rank.
A review of officer promotion rates since 1974, notwithstanding the repeal of Section 8577, shows that navigator concern about promotion is justified. Despite the passing of a decade, navigator promotion rates still lag significantly behind those of pilots. Average promotion rates (i.e., the percentages selected of those eligible for promotion) during the past five years illustrate the point:
In general officer ranks, the ultimate goal of career progression, navigators continue to be underrepresented. In 1974, the distribution by rating was as follows:
| Pilots | Navigators | Nonrated | |
| 1974 | |||
| General | 14 | 0 | 0 |
| Lieutenant General | 34 | 0 | 4 |
| Major General | 128 | 6 | 9 |
| Brigadier General | 183 | 10 | 23 |
| Totals | 359 | 16 | 36 |
| (87 percent) | (4 percent) | (9 percent) |
Ten years later, in October 1984, the distribution looked like this:
| Pilots | Navigators | Nonrated | |
| 1983 | |||
| General | 13 | 0 | 0 |
| Lieutenant General | 33 | 2 | 3 |
| Major General | 88 | 9 | 23 |
| Brigadier General | 121 | 7 | 44 |
| Totals | 255 | 18 | 70 |
| (75 percent) | (5 percent) | 20 percent) |
Among the selectees for brigadier general, eighteen are pilots, one is a navigator, and three are nonrated.
The number of navigator-rated general officers has increased by only two over that of 1974. More significant for navigators is that although the percentage of pilot-rated general officers has decreased (from 87 percent to 75 percent, the beneficiaries of this decrease are nonrated officers (an increase from 9 percent to 20 percent). 2
Thus, the perception among navigator-rated officers that they do not have career prospects equal with pilots––and in many cases with their nonrated contemporaries as well––appears to be supported by promotion rate data and the distribution of general officer ranks by aeronautical ratings.
Many factors of varying importance contribute to lower navigator promotion rates. Some of these have been explored on the pages of this journal over the years. However, the key to being competitive for assignments of increasing responsibility, and thus promotion, has long been acknowledged as experience in command of flying and flying-related units. That navigators were ineligible for command of flying units and were thus denied experience to be competitive with pilots was a major justification for seeking repeal of Section 8577. Indeed, Air Force personnel analysts continue to attribute higher pilot promotion rates in part to greater command and key management experience.3
After the repeal of Section 8577, navigators hoped to be assigned to command flying and flying-related units, thus allowing them to gain the requisite experience for promotion; and, to a limited extent, their hopes have been fulfilled. Some navigators are filling some operational command and command-related positions, As of 31 March 1983, navigators filled 166 flying-unit command positions: 9 at wing level, 41 at squadron level, and 116 as flight commanders.4 However, based on the number of multiseat aircraft units employing navigators, 5 and counting four command-related positions per wing (CC, CV, DO, ADO) and two per squadron (CC, DO), the ratios of navigators to pilots in command-related positions are one navigator for every forty pilots at wing level and one navigator for every eight pilots at squadron level. (A ratio for flight commander positions is too difficult to determine because of the wide variety of flight organization and use from command to command.) Such ratios are hardly encouraging to the navigator who expects or hopes for career prospects equal to his or her pilot-rated peers!
Given lower promotion rates for navigators and dissatisfaction among navigators with their career prospects, where does the Air Force go from here with the navigator career issue? Three alternatives appear to represent the possible directions: institute an aggressive "affirmative action" program to place navigators in assignments where they will gain experience competitive with pilots; continue the current policy as is, counting on already instituted changes to move promotion trends toward rates equal with those of pilots; or abolish the navigator rating and use nonrated "systems operators" on limited flying tours to perform remaining navigation tasks.
the "affirmative action" alternative
Using an "affirmative action" program for navigators has some precedents. The British Royal Air Force and the U.S. Navy used this approach successfully to resolve a similar problem in their respective services. Their experience could provide a pattern for the U.S. Air Force, where the goal would be to allow navigators to gain requisite experience in order to be competitive with pilots for increasingly responsible operations positions and, ultimately, for promotion.
An affirmative action program, for example, could change the concept of "aircraft commander" in multiplace aircraft to one of "mission commander" in which command of the aircraft remains with the pilot but command of the flight mission goes to the ranking rated officer or, in the case of navigation-oriented missions, to the navigator. Strategic bombing and low-level tactical airdrop missions are excellent candidates for such changes. A second example would be to identify in all flying units in which navigators are assigned and fly as regular crew members those operations positions that officers traditionally fill in preparation for command. A target percentage of these positions could then be established for navigator placement, based on a unit's ratio of navigators to pilots. Positions could include squadron operations officer and commander positions, the respective wing operations and command positions, and command-post controllers. Then, navigators who have demonstrated leadership and command ability could be identified, and an aggressive program based on merit could be developed to begin placing these candidates in the identified positions.
the "do nothing" alternative
Continuing the current policy without change assumes that the changes instituted since the repeal of Section 8577 have not had time to produce the desired effects. Though navigator promotion rates are not yet equivalent to that of pilots, the fact that navigators are now being allowed to fill low-level operational positions (such as flight commander) rather than intermediate or high-level positions could mean that these navigators, with more time and increased experience, will advance to positions of more importance. The greater experience gained in these positions might then be reflected in promotion rates.
Tenuous support for this approach might be found in the results of recent major promotion boards, where the expanded operational experience being gained by junior-ranking navigators is first likely to be reflected. In 1982, pilots were selected for promotion in the primary zone at a rate only 1 percent greater than navigators; in 1983, at a rate only 4 percent greater than navigators.6 (Secondary zone promotion rates were respectively 30 percent and 17 percent greater than navigators.) However, promotion rates for navigators to lieutenant colonel and colonel in 1982 and 1983 show less improvement (15 percent and 10 percent greater for pilots to lieutenant colonel; 15 percent and 8 percent greater for pilots to colonel). Given more time, one could argue, rates for lieutenant colonel and colonel will likewise show similar improvement.7
the nonrated "systems operators" alternative
The third alternative would eliminate navigators as rated officers, replacing them with nonrated "systems operators." Justification for this approach is the trend away from aircraft that require performance of classic navigation tasks and toward aircraft that instead require operation of avionics systems. Duties on these latter aircraft include monitoring navigation systems, updating weapon delivery data, acting as a safety observer, assisting in the monitoring of general aircraft operation––tasks that might be performed with training short of that currently required for an aeronautical rating.
The systems operators who replace the traditional navigator would be officers trained to operate specialized equipment and possessing only minor "navigation" skills. They would be assigned from a primary, nonrated career field for a limited time of about five years (in effect, a nonrated supplement to rated duties), receive flight pay when performing flying duties, and, most important, compete for promotion as a nonrated officer. The navigator career field would remain in existence for a period of time to provide instructors and planners to oversee the transition and to ensure that navigator requirements for older aircraft are met.
Alternative one, an "affirmative action" approach, most directly addresses the problem. It would do the most to improve navigator morale, and it holds the promise of most quickly redressing the navigator-pilot promotion imbalance. This was the U.S. Navy and British experience. On the other hand, it would probably be the most difficult to implement since those who must make the decision to do so (pilots) have the most to lose. In addition, experience in other "affirmative action" programs suggests that "backlash" resistance to change could occur on principle, if not on substance; that is, the perception may grow that people might be given preferential consideration because of the program and not because of merit.
Alternative two, leaving matters as they are, would be the easiest approach; it has been, after all, only a decade since navigators were permitted to fill operational command-related positions. This approach, however, does little to improve navigator perceptions of career and promotion opportunities. Furthermore, recent promotion-rate trends indicating that navigators are competitive with pilots in the primary and secondary zones are still tenuous; the numbers of navigators serving in operational command positions have shown no increase at squadron and wing levels––in fact, they have decreased––since 1979, when such statistics became available. Perhaps given a long lead time (another decade?), navigators might yet achieve a more balanced promotion rate with pilots and gain proportional representation in general officer ranks. However, without some positive, "affirmative" effort now, such a shift appears unlikely.
Alternative three, eliminating the navigator, does not solve the problem; it simply avoids it. Moreover, this approach has several significant disadvantages. First, implementing this alternative would take a long period––at least one career "generation" (twenty years) or until all but a few rated navigators have either retired or resigned. Second, after an official acknowledgment that there will no longer be any navigator career prospects, navigator morale during the transition would suffer greatly. Third, middle-and senior-ranking navigators currently fill many operations support positions on staffs throughout the Air Force. Background for many of these positions requires more flying experience than would probably be gained by a nonrated systems operator serving a single five-year flying assignment. Assuming that these staff positions really do require rated expertise, from where would individuals come to fill them if not from the navigator ranks? If the Air Force were to encourage multiple or back-to-back five-year flying tours for nonrated systems operators to provide individuals with sufficient background to fill operations staff jobs, then the systems operator might risk losing competitiveness as a nonrated officer. Furthermore, if the Air Force creates a "new" career field for systems operators, then the same problems inherent in the navigator career field would probably resurface. Therefore, while the instituting of a systems operator specialty may have merits on its own, it does not appear to be a satisfactory answer to the navigator issue.
Which alternative, then, should the Air Force adopt? If the Air Force is serious about resolving the navigator problem, then alternative one must be the approach; it is most likely to achieve results. An affirmative action program should be implemented by first conducting an in-depth study of both the British Royal Air Force and the U.S. Navy experience in solving the problem. The results of this study could then form the basis of the USAF affirmative action plan. A comprehensive action-plan should be developed to begin placing qualified navigators in greater numbers in operational command and command-related positions. The program would require a decision by the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff, but major command support of the program must be cultivated since it is the commands that control operational assignments.
Navigators expect not only selection rates equal to those of their pilot contemporaries but also proportional representation at all rank-levels, even among general officers. However, navigators recognize that Air Force needs must be primary––the best qualified individuals should get command jobs, regardless of their rating, and promotion must be based on merit. Indeed, few navigators see lower promotion rates as an indictment of the Air Force promotion system. What navigators are hoping for is an opportunity to compete equally for operational command and command-related positions at early career points in order to develop and demonstrate their ability for higher-level positions. Navigators would like to know that no position is closed to them by tradition or limiting preconceptions. Progress toward that awareness remains frustratingly slow.
Hq USAF
Notes
1. Five-year promotion rate averages (1979-83), provided by AF/MPX (Directorate of Personnel Plans), Hq USAF, are as follows:
2. General officer data were obtained from AF/MPG (General Officer Matters).
3. A summary of five-year in-the-promotion-zone averages by aeronautical rating was compiled by AF/MPX. In its narrative section, analysts indicate that lower promotion rates for navigators are, in part, "a function of the number of pilots with command/key management experience."
4. Since 1979, data on the number of navigators in command positions have been monitored and reported by AF/MPC/ROF, which provided these figures.
5. Figures on the number of squadrons flying multiseat aircraft are derived from the Quarterly Phase Force and Equippage Table.
6. Promotion rates in the primary zone during 1982 and 1983 were:
7. Unfortunately, promotion rates for 1984 do not reflect an improvement to lieutenant colonel and colonel:
Neither do promotion rates to major.
Lt Col Chris L. Jefferies (B.A., Brigham Young University; M.P.A., University of Pittsburgh) is Issues and Policy Analyst, Secretary's Staff Group, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. His previous assignments include Military Assistant to SECDEF Representative, Europe, and Air Force Planner and Special Assistant to the Defense Advisor, U.S. Mission to NATO, Belgium. Colonel Jefferies is a Distinguished Graduate of Squadron Officer School and a graduate of Air Staff College, Air War College, Armed Forces Staff College, Air War College, and the Royal Air Force School of Administration. His articles have been published in several professional journals, including the Review.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor